Losing your deposit no longer the negative it was – politicalbetting.com

Nigel_Foremain said:

Miklosvar said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/22/is-housing-crisis-killing-romance-modern-dating-jane-austen

For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.

'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'

Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers

Try heating The Old Rectory on a C of E stipend

The reason why there are so many very large old rectories is largely, I believe, because vicars very often used to be the sons of the gentry. They could afford the lifestyle that went with a big grand house, and I think (though not certain) that often the families paid for their construction.

First son got the estate, second went into the army (possibly the navy) and the third into the church.

Nigel_Foremain said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

They are often noisy because they are hard of herring.

And a bloody nuisance when you're trying to get a peaceful kip. Er...

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Anabobazina said:

Radar looking good!

Build a retractable roof like they did at Wimbledon

They should have hung a massive plastic sheet from the lighting towers overnight.

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

They are often noisy because they are hard of herring.

And a bloody nuisance when you're trying to get a peaceful kip. Er...

I thought that pun might smoke out an attempt or two from the usual suspects

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

Growing up by the coast I like the sound of seagulls and can sleep through it quite easily.

The most unpleasant wake up around here is foxes copulating, which by the sound of it is not always entirely consensual.

Similar with cats.

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

Growing up by the coast I like the sound of seagulls and can sleep through it quite easily.

The most unpleasant wake up around here is foxes copulating, which by the sound of it is not always entirely consensual.

It's actually the male that is howling in pain as his penis is constricted by the female. Male foxes obviously not too bright. They probably ought to consider identifying as a different gender

Dura_Ace said:

FrankBooth said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

If Nato isn't prepared, in spite of its enormous naval supremacy in the region, to stand up to Russia in and around the Black sea, what message does that send to China over Taiwan?

On the other hand, (most of) Taiwan is across a significant stretch of the Pacific Ocean, defended by a well armed adversory. Said adversory has a modern air force with latest gen F16s and Dassault fighters. As well as a growing fleet of submarines.

So why is the US so obsessive about not being outmanned in terms of ships etc vs China. I just cannot understand the contrast between the US willingness to confront China in the pacific with its feeble approach to confronting Russia in Ukraine.

Good point about the F-16s. So the US is happy to give them to a non-UN recognised state but not happy to give them to Ukraine thus far.

The US aim is to weaken Russia and ensure Europe's strategic dependence as a side quest. Ukraine is just a convenient anvil on which to hammer the Russians. So the optimum amount of aid to Ukraine is that which stops them getting completely fucked this weekend. A long war suits that purpose and they don't want to destabilise the Russian Federation too much as that would be to China's benefit.

I hope Zelensky remembers the traditional fate of US assets like Diem, Noriega, Saddam, bin Laden and Ghani.

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

Growing up by the coast I like the sound of seagulls and can sleep through it quite easily.

The most unpleasant wake up around here is foxes copulating, which by the sound of it is not always entirely consensual.

When will foxes finally learn that "WAAAHRGHHHHGHHH!!!!!" means "WAAAHRGHHHHGHHH!!!!!"?

Inspection at 2pm.

viewcode said:

NickPalmer said:

Leon said:

WAS OPPENHEIMER A COMMUNIST

WHO CARES?

WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?

BEATS ME.

Report by Telegraph journalist Steven Edginton.

"I was attacked in San Francisco by a gang of homeless drug addicts
The Golden City’s plight is a warning of how the rest of the USA might go if it adopts the same radical, progressive policies"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/attacked-in-san-francisco-by-gang-of-homeless-drug-addicts/

Leon said:

LostPassword said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Stuartinromford said:

Gosh, that was a sudden swerve.

#todayissaturday

ETA: And I'm not talking about the Jiggery Pokery ball feature currently running on TMS.

It's funny because you could tell right from the start which way he was going to go, so it was fun waiting for the pivot.

Yes there's a 'tone' that gives it away very quickly. I'd adjust the training to try and remove this if I were in charge. Come in with some centrist dad type, ultra orthodox, slightly left of centre takes on govt spending priorities. And be patient. Do this for a few weeks before entering the phone box and donning the cape. Play the long game. Putin is meant to be the master of that after all.

Surely the first thing they need to address is: don’t use obviously compromised IP thingies which @rcs1000 can spot within 5 minutes?

Everything else is pretty secondary

The paradox is - and I hope I don’t get banned as a bot - quite a lot of the stuff the bot says is true. The Ukrainian offensive is not going well. Russia has mined every weed and pebble. And is entrenched. Attacking that is almost impossible - and can only be done at vast human cost. Somme-type quagmire

The war is headed for a muddy stalemate, with neither side able to deliver a winning blow ...

That's far from certain.

None of us really know. It’s like watching a tenacious fifth wicket partnership in the second innings, waiting for the breakthrough, with rain clouds looming. The rain clouds being Western impatience and a Trump presidency.

What's unclear is whether the asymmetric attrition of the current grind is sufficient to facilitate a Ukrainian breakthrough.

Blinken was quoted yesterday as saying there's zero sign that Russia is serious about peace talks, FWIW.

Asymmetric in what way? Do we even have reliable stats from either side?

Offensive war is usually much more costly than defensive. So we can presume Ukraine is chewing through men and materiel

Since early June Ukraine haven't made many direct assaults. They've been using artillery very effectively to destroy Russian artillery so that when they next attempt a major assault, Russia doesn't have the artillery to defend against it. The Russian commander who was recently relieved of his command in Zaporizhzhia for complaining about the lack of counter-battery ability lends some credence to the view that the attrition is in Ukraine's favour at present.

Ukraine have also drawn Russia into a costly fight to defend Bakhmut, due to its political significance to Russia. Ukraine seem to be fighting in a very smart way to cause maximum damage to Russia while preserving their forces.

Interesting. Evidence?

The Russian general: https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1680812893342711809

Russia's losses, as claimed by Ukraine: https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/dfbcec47-7b01-400e-ab21-de8eb98c8f3a/page/p_y5ofvcmazc?s=staTP1OHo_A
These may well be an overestimate, but the general pattern is supported by confirmed losses as recorded by Oryx. The main thing to look at is the initial higher Russian tank losses at the start of June - this is when Ukraine attempted to make an armoured breakthrough and we had the photos of some Leopards and Bradleys lost.

These have since reduced, indicating Ukraine isn't pushing against the front in such an intense way. However, if you look at the rate of Russian artillery losses you can see that these have been at a high level since the start of May (when Ukraine's shaping operations began).

Interestingly Ukraine has been using HIMARS to target Russian artillery, air defence, etc, which indicates the importance they attach to degrading Russian artillery (and probably that the Russians no longer have any command points or animation dumps in range).

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

How is the back @MikeSmithson

Andy_JS said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

There are 3 films I'd like to see atm: Oppenheimer, Asteroid City, Mission Impossible (Dead Reckoning P1).

asteroid city is typical Wes Andersen - i enjoyed it but then think grand hotel budapest is a top top film

FrankBooth said:

rcs1000 said:

FrankBooth said:

If Nato isn't prepared, in spite of its enormous naval supremacy in the region, to stand up to Russia in and around the Black sea, what message does that send to China over Taiwan?

On the other hand, (most of) Taiwan is across a significant stretch of the Pacific Ocean, defended by a well armed adversory. Said adversory has a modern air force with latest gen F16s and Dassault fighters. As well as a growing fleet of submarines.

So why is the US so obsessive about not being outmanned in terms of ships etc vs China. I just cannot understand the contrast between the US willingness to confront China in the pacific with its feeble approach to confronting Russia in Ukraine.

Good point about the F-16s. So the US is happy to give them to a non-UN recognised state but not happy to give them to Ukraine thus far.

Ukranian pilots are being trained on F-16s right now (edit: the NATO summit announced training to begin at the start of August). Historically, when the authorities announce something regarding military aid to Ukraine, that usually means that the thing has already been happening for some time on the quiet.

It seems overwhelmingly likely that the moment the training program is complete F-16s will be transferred to Ukraine; the announcement will come a few days or weeks later when their presence in Ukraine becomes undeniable.

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Only three hours but it will seem like years.

state_go_away said:

Andy_JS said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

There are 3 films I'd like to see atm: Oppenheimer, Asteroid City, Mission Impossible (Dead Reckoning P1).

asteroid city is typical Wes Andersen - i enjoyed it but then think grand hotel budapest is a top top film

I was just about to say I don't think I've seen any Wes Anderson films before, but I have seen Grand Hotel Budapest.

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/22/is-housing-crisis-killing-romance-modern-dating-jane-austen

For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.

'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'

Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers

The Revs won't be able to afford to furnish, heat, light and repaint them, or cope with the gardens.

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/22/is-housing-crisis-killing-romance-modern-dating-jane-austen

For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.

'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'

There is a line in the headline, telling you all you need to know about how much the Guardian understands the world outside its narrow domain:

"With homes almost beyond reach for all but the luckiest..."

In much of ordinary, unfashionable, ignored, hard working England this is 'the lie direct'. I live in such a place.

Scene is to do with young twentysomethings, though. Not folk who already have a place.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jul/22/is-housing-crisis-killing-romance-modern-dating-jane-austen

For those who aren't keen on cricket, or are waiting for it to resume: the relevance of Miss Austen's romances to our time. More about modern economics than novel plot and style analysis, however.

'When I mention to friends the prospect of a “Jane Austen-style, housing-based marriage market”, they laugh, then grow more thoughtful. “I mean, whenever we have an argument, I think, ‘Would I want to have to sell up and find somewhere to live?’ The answer’s no,” says one. Another puts it bluntly: “My rent would double if we broke up.” A third laughs: “I’m never breaking up with him – we have a lovely home. Oh, and I love him.”'

Just need to bring back Jane Austen style Vicarages for Vicars rather than having old Rectories mostly now owned privately by bankers and lawyers

The Revs won't be able to afford to furnish, heat, light and repaint them, or cope with the gardens.

Newent and Dymock had - and still have - two stunningly beautiful late Georgian rectories with elegant gardens.

Divided into about five houses/flats now...

2.45 start if no more rain

Nigelb said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TimS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

Growing up by the coast I like the sound of seagulls and can sleep through it quite easily.

The most unpleasant wake up around here is foxes copulating, which by the sound of it is not always entirely consensual.

It's actually the male that is howling in pain as his penis is constricted by the female. Male foxes obviously not too bright. They probably ought to consider identifying as a different gender

Actually the ‘vixen scream’ is the female calling to attract mates.
Foxes clearly have a different set of aesthetic values to us.

Who else remembers Yates's Wine Lodges?

Ah, them was the days.

Just spotted this summary of PPC selections in Oxfordshire:

https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1682713230458667008

I hadn't realised Labour is lagging so much. The LibDems and Conservatives have each selected five from the seven constituencies (the Cons would have done six were it not for Henley going tits-up). But Labour haven't selected any, other than the obvious of Anneliese Dodds re-standing in Oxford East. I know Henley isn't exactly prime Labour territory but they should have a chance in Banbury and possibly Witney.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

Several Herefordshire villages had problems with people moving in next to a church and then complaining about the noise of the bells.

Church bells are lovely.

I used to live next to a mosque, which would wake me up at 5am.

For what it’s worth, our worst ‘waking up’ was at a seaside hotel in Bridport. At about 4am on a summer morning we discovered it was the favourite meeting place for a couple of dozen local seagulls, who screamed at each other for an hour or so! We tried to scare them off but they came back and carried on!

They are often noisy because they are hard of herring.

Are you having one of your terns?

It is because all the huffin' and puffin that people do on here

Big_G_NorthWales said:

2.45 start if no more rain

Fire up the Quattro....I mean Mark Wood.

I’m not in any hurry to see Oppenheimer. Just don’t think it’ll be as good as this:

https://youtu.be/AlUHKHLk_VU

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Only three hours but it will seem like years.

That doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement.

Either films are getting longer or my bladder smaller and back weaker. Possibly all three.

OldKingCole said:

Mortimer said:

Northern_Al said:

Mortimer said:

MattW said:

I'll FPT this one, though I'm out for a couple of hours. I'll address replies after lunch, if anyone is interested.

noneoftheabove said:

MattW said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pete, worth remembering the UK has generally very positive views of migrants, including compared to other European nations.

Also, I think you're misreading this, though understandably.

For what it's worth, my view is this is a cost of living matter, and one that (unusually) can be laid squarely on Labour's door. It's highly specific to areas involed in ULEZ expansion. For most people, cost of living is food inflation, energy prices, and mortgage rates getting hiked.

How anyone in labour thought a £12.50 a day tax on using your car or van to go about your legal business was a good idea amazes me

The desired outcome is laudable, but execution has been pathetic. Likewise 20mph in Wales. Dreadfully poorly implemented and pitch rolling. It's like Rishi suggested yesterday, Labour-Starmer arrogance and hubris will deliver Rishi the GE. Sheffield Rally anyone?

The problem is that labour cannot stop being authoritarian when common sense should be the word

It’s going to blow your mind when you find out who introduced ULEZ.

Boris never proposed extending ULEZ to the London suburbs, it was only for inner London, it is Khan who has extended it to outer London

Why is introducing ULEZ in inner London less authoritarian than doing it in outer London?

Because IT IS. We have to do something about pollution so lets tax polluting cars. Huzzah. No no, not my car, their car.

You are able to afford to drive a Tesla but attack those who cannot afford a ULEZ compliant car !!!

We've done this. 20 year old bangers are ULEZ compliant. The political argument is that ULEZ is a tax on the working poor. The working poor generally do not have a car in London. Those who do either find that it is already compliant, or had to change car to one slightly newer because you can't daily drive something ancient and non-compliant as the running cost becomes prohibitive.

I accept there will be a few edge cases - some diesels which really aren't suitable for local running about in London anyway. But almost all of the supposed victims of this are not victims.

What is revealing in some of the anti-ULEZ arguments is that people can't seem to conceive of the fact that most poor people in London don't even have a car. It's as if these people don't even exist.

Personally I find the cast of characters arguing against ULEZs - Susan Hall, Howard Cox, Foxy-Loxy and the Association of Bad Drivers - to be quite encouraging .

Now off out. Have a good day, all.

This divisive style of politics is self defeating. The chance of ULEZ being kept for 10 years+ is less because its champions are happy getting enough support to pass it, rather than bringing more of the public with them.

Yes many of the anti ULEZ people are idiots, but that does not mean ULEZ fans do not have an obligation to listen to and where possible address complaints.

I think ULEZ will have done it's job and be non-controversial within quite a short period. If the Govt targets are met, we will have broken the back of NOx pollution reduction by 2026-2028.

This issue I have is that I have yet to hear a single credible argument against the LTN in London, or an alternative proposal, given the 2028 target for LAs set by the Conservative Government.

Susan Hall seems to me to be either a fool, an ignoramus or a cynic - as she has claimed she will do things that the London Mayor does not have the power to do.

I'm inclined to a similar assessment of Mark Harper, based on what he has done so far. The ABD and Howard Cox's group are pantomime performers.

AFAICS all they have is the aim to create a divisive wedge issue and hope that enough people fall for it, which is why I keep calling it a Hail Mary pass. I suspect that is what we can also expect from Govt for the next year.

The main problem with the proliferation of LTNs and huge overspending on cycling networks recently is they're hyped by a small number of very loud activists who are hugely keen on their pet hobby (cycling).

This means that a) it fails to account for the needs of the majority of the population, who need to drive and b) creates resentment, because, like many of the Remainer activists in the 2017-19 Parliament, they're absolutely blinkered to alternative points of view.

The silent majority aren't in favour of road closures, or ULEZ etc zones.

The silent majority of which you speak seem pretty noisy to me, loudly asserting their right to untrammeled car driving.

When their liberties are taken away, of course.

One of my bugbears is people moving to a place and then complaining about situations that should have been obvious when they moved there. Next to schools, cricket grounds, outskirts of cities etc.

For quite a while in this small town there were complaints about noise from people who had fairly recently moved into houses next door to long-standing pubs.
By longstanding I mean three or four centuries old.

In the good, old USA, similar types of complaints from newcomers (probably even to Newcomerstown, Ohio!) concern agricultural practices & etc. in rural areas, and AIRPORTS in urban/suburban areas.

As for old and noisy "pubs" we call these "dive bars" and tend to regard them as either community treasures OR public nuisances. Often both!

Interesting battle going on between the Fitzpatrick brothers at the Open, both -1 I believe.

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Double feature with "Barbie"? And wearing your pink pork-pie hat!

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Only three hours but it will seem like years.

That doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement.

Either films are getting longer or my bladder smaller and back weaker. Possibly all three.

I guess with all these big budget tv shows that last for 8-10hrs and how expensive going to the cinema is, I wonder if there is some sort of thought that they have to give the public more bang for their buck? And I don't think directors need any encouragement to leave more in the film than cutting it out.

I think your average crap movie is heading closer to 90’, so the cinemas can get in more screenings, but the big event movies are now 150’-180’.

Really looking forward to Oppenheimer, first time in years I’ve gone looking for an IMAX, as the director intended. If they can go to so much effort when making the movie, it’s only right that their customers make the effort to watch it properly.

I go to the cinema 3-4 times a year, and usually go to the local boutique cinema with a couple of dozen leather seats and a bar.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Only three hours but it will seem like years.

That doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement.

Either films are getting longer or my bladder smaller and back weaker. Possibly all three.

There are a lot of unnecessarily long films these days. I try to avoid them.

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

Optics?

Regarding Mission Impossible, Barbie and Oppenheimer. I am seriously considering waiting for "The Meg 2", assuming it comes out in cinemas

Talking about deposits, more news re Mr Farage and the mess that kneejerk reactions [edit] might cause:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/22/bank-rule-changes-nigel-farage-closure-accounts-criminals-money-laundering

'Banks are free to deny additional services to customers for a number of reasons, from threats of violence towards bank staff to suspicions of financial crime, but usually avoid explaining their decisions in any substance or detail. Saying as little as necessary can be a helpful way to avoid signalling to customers that they are under investigation by the NCA or are of interest to any other government departments. While this can be frustrating for customers, banks are more concerned with following laws laid out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which make it an offence to disclose information regarding a potential investigation “in the course of a business in the regulated sector”.'

Carnyx said:

Talking about deposits, more news re Mr Farage and the mess that kneejerk reactions [edit] might cause:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/22/bank-rule-changes-nigel-farage-closure-accounts-criminals-money-laundering

'Banks are free to deny additional services to customers for a number of reasons, from threats of violence towards bank staff to suspicions of financial crime, but usually avoid explaining their decisions in any substance or detail. Saying as little as necessary can be a helpful way to avoid signalling to customers that they are under investigation by the NCA or are of interest to any other government departments. While this can be frustrating for customers, banks are more concerned with following laws laid out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which make it an offence to disclose information regarding a potential investigation “in the course of a business in the regulated sector”.'

So if they're narking on you they're not allowed to tell you, in short. "Potential" investigation, lol.

From a bird's eye view it's kinda hilarious that banks, yes banks, say they're so serious about watching out for money laundering and not assisting it.

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

I think @RochdalePioneers may have a wood burning stove which would be interesting to hear his comments

Match started

Also o/t but interesting esp in view of recent discussions here re the Nazi camps: a work-to-death camp on one of the CIs is to be formally investigated by a government inquiry.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/22/nazi-atrocities-jews-prisoners-war-alderney-channel-island-uk

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

Why does it need to be an either/or? Oxford is doing both - extending Smoke Control Zones to the whole city and (eventually) expanding their existing Zero Emission Zone.

bondegezou said:

Sean_F said:

WRT the by elections, it's evident that Reform/Reclaim are of no interest to the voters, and that the Conservatives will pick up most of them.

The Conservatives were 5% up in Selby, on the constituency poll, and 12% up in Uxbridge.

Reclaim got a higher vote in Uxbridge than their national polling… given they do not feature at all in national polling…

Reform UK, in the 2 by-elections they stood in, got a bit over 3%, which is roughly half what they poll nationally. That doesn’t suggest to me that the Conservatives will pick up “most” of those currently saying they’ll vote Reform… maybe half.

Whilst I think you are right that Reform are overstated in the polls, by-elections aren't perhaps a great measure as typically being big, set-piece, head-to-head battles. They are ideal situations for also-rans to be squeezed.

General Election contests have some of that too, but the intensity of campaigns in individual seats is simply less because there are so many individual contests going on at once.

viewcode said:

Andy_JS said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MikeSmithson said:

Off to see Oppenheimer this afternoon. First time in an actual cinema for years

Only three hours but it will seem like years.

That doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement.

Either films are getting longer or my bladder smaller and back weaker. Possibly all three.

There are a lot of unnecessarily long films these days. I try to avoid them.

Agreed. When was the last hit movie on/under 120 minutes?

Several animated films are still under that length, like “Inside Out” (2015), “Song of the Sea” (2014) or “Your Name” (2016).

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014) is a mere 99 minutes. Marvel’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp” (2018) is just under at 118 minutes. There was also 2017’s “Dunkirk”.

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

I think @RochdalePioneers may have a wood burning stove which would be interesting to hear his comments

I have one. It is designed to as smoke minimal as possible as I understand it. Clearview 650.

Had it about ten years. We use it in winter and keep the gas heating off when it is being used.

Starting to think I perhaps should use it less often looking at the growing evidence on pariculates.

Monbiot came out the other month and said he had made a mistake installing woodburners several years ago instead of using gas.

It is not the first time I have heard negative comments about wood burners

All Aus have to do is not bat like lunatics. The weather will do the rest.

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

ydoethur said:

Northern_Al said:

Nigelb said:

Inspection at 2pm.

Bloody Ofsted, working on a Saturday. Probably a safeguarding issue.

They don't need to work on a Saturday to cause safeguarding issues given how badly they're being managed at the moment.

Ha. I knew you'd respond, somehow.....

What do you make about this news that Sir Martin Oliver is to be the new Chief?* In among all the usual dishonest guff the DfE have put out about Spielman's successes I'd say he's got a very difficult job on his hands to repair the damage. Do you know whether he might be up to it?

*I know officially he's only the preferred candidate but absolutely imploding in front of the Select Committee to the extent they recommended reopening the process didn't stop Spielman.

Don't know anything about him, really. I'll make enquiries with my sources.

Re. earlier references to seagulls: I'm sure that on my morning runs I get bothered more by gulls when I'm wearing a red cap. Perhaps they've evolved to follow red so they can get to carrion fast?

Peck said:

Re. earlier references to seagulls: I'm sure that on my morning runs I get bothered more by gulls when I'm wearing a red cap. Perhaps they've evolved to follow red so they can get to carrion fast?

Red = food? Herring gulls anyway; the young peck the red spot on the parents' bill while soliciting food IIRC.

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

Because you can’t install a massive camera surveillance system under the pretence of banning wood burning stoves?

Because lots of opinion forming types like to believe that a wood burning fireplace is Green.

Give me my Log Burner or give me Death!

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/sadiq-khan-mayor-u-turn-eco-wood-burners-pollution-fears

"Wood burning in homes now produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK."

You could do a lot more to reduce air pollution by banning wood burning stoves then with ULEZs. So why incur the massive political costs of a ULEZ?

Because you can’t install a massive camera surveillance system under the pretence of banning wood burning stoves?

Because lots of opinion forming types like to believe that a wood burning fireplace is Green.

Give me my Log Burner or give me Death!

Also, you can’t generate a nine-figure annual income for City Hall, from banning wood burning stoves.