How much damage is Dorries doing to the Tory brand? – politicalbetting.com

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

kle4 said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

Whilst I will not support the death penalty, public support has always been fairly high, and its actually pretty surprising it has not been a live issue long before now. Far more fringe issues have become political hot topics.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

kle4 said:

slade said:

A rather unusual set of local by-elections today. Apart from a Con defence in Dudley there is a Green defence in Bristol and a Vectis defence in Isle of Wight.

Vectis?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

But we haven't.

We have neglected our road infrastructure as a matter of policy for three decades now.

Build new roads and then convert things absolutely, no qualms with that. That's what the Dutch have done and we have failed to do.

BartholomewRoberts said:

I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.

If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.

I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Peter_the_Punter said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

UN judge in speech at Sadiq Khan's office says the UK owes £18 trillion in reparations for slavery.

Spain, France and the USA also listed as owing trillions in reparations

"UK’s £18tn slavery debt is an underestimation, UN judge says - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

It was a speech at City Hall, not "Sadiq Khan's Office". His office is in the building admittedly but I somehow doubt they could fit a speech in.

Presumably this was just a small part of the speech in which he ran through all the injustices in history, starting with what the Macedonians did under that sod Alexander, and putting a monetary value on the reparations necessary to square things up.

In some cases there would of course be a netting out. We could use the money the Romans owe us for their invasion to set off against our colonial bill. The Normans must owe us a few quid for 1066 and all that..

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I quite literally said an uncontrolled shut down is better than a controlled one, and now Rochdale just keeps repeating that if we hadn't had a controlled shut down we'd have had uncontrolled ones as if that's a killer argument. Yes, if we hadn't had a controlled shut down, we'd have had what is better. That's a better choice.

If the choice is scenario (A) shut down all schools, all the time, for months, or scenario (B) shut down individual classes in individual schools for a week if the teacher is off sick and no cover is available that week, then return back afterwards - then I prefer scenario B.

I'm not pretending that you could 'wish away' the pandemic, just live with it. And if the vulnerable choose to isolate, then let them choose that, free choice.

In practice everyone would have self isolated. And there would have been no mechanism for government support so business would have collapsed

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

Let's hope it's the idea that's left hanging.

I know this sort of thing always polls well, but I'd be shocked if the Tories pulled the trigger on reinstating the death penalty.

It’s not happening. The only people who mention it are opponents of the government, who want the Tories to think about re-introducing it.

Dare I suggest it, but the Letby case would be a particularly difficult one for the ultimate punishment, a lot of the evidence being circumstantial.

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Andy_JS said:

England is probably just as densely populated as the Netherlands if you exclude areas in England where it's difficult to build larger-than-village settlements, like the Lake District.

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

Let's hope it's the idea that's left hanging.

I know this sort of thing always polls well, but I'd be shocked if the Tories pulled the trigger on reinstating the death penalty.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

But we haven't.

We have neglected our road infrastructure as a matter of policy for three decades now.

Build new roads and then convert things absolutely, no qualms with that. That's what the Dutch have done and we have failed to do.

Edinburgh bypass 1989
Aberdeen bypass 2019
Glasgow M8 1980
Queensferry Crossing 2017
Inverness link (ongoing)

Not much cycle infrastructure gone in during that period despite all that road building.

So you are naming absolutely nothing between 1989 and 2017.

Kind of proves my point. Had there actually been some road building in that three decade period, there might have been able to be some cycling infrastructure built with it, but due to the lack of any road construction its not been viable.

And it seems that when the Queensferry Crossing was built access to the Forth Road Bridge was restricted for motor vehicles but not for cyclists?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

But we haven't.

We have neglected our road infrastructure as a matter of policy for three decades now.

Build new roads and then convert things absolutely, no qualms with that. That's what the Dutch have done and we have failed to do.

Edinburgh bypass 1989
Aberdeen bypass 2019
Glasgow M8 1980
Queensferry Crossing 2017
Inverness link (ongoing)

Not much cycle infrastructure gone in during that period despite all that road building.

So you are naming absolutely nothing between 1989 and 2017.

Kind of proves my point. Had there actually been some road building in that three decade period, there might have been able to be some cycling infrastructure built with it, but due to the lack of any road construction its not been viable.

And it seems that when the Queensferry Crossing was built access to the Forth Road Bridge was restricted for motor vehicles but not for cyclists?

TheValiant said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More than 100 MPs received freebies worth £180,000 this summer
Exclusive: Oliver Dowden and Keir Starmer among those who enjoyed free tickets to events including the Chelsea flower show and the Derby
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/23/more-than-100-mps-received-freebies-worth-180000-this-summer

On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.

Something I despise personally:

Person gets rich (however, I don't know) and then gets a bit of a fame profile.
Poor people then offer rich person free stuff.
Rich person stays rich as he doesn't spend any money anymore, and poor people stay poor because they are giving away stuff for free.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.

However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.

The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pandemic-lockdown-masks-protect-virus-transmission-royal-society-report-2023-3vlhztc88

Things to file under: No shit, Sherlock.

It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.

Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.

Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.

Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.

Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.

And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.

Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.

It is bonkers to suggest that the NHS could have continued operating normally. In my Trust at one point 60% of inpatients were covid patients, our ICU had expanded 3 fold, by converting operating theatres and recovery areas to ICU beds. There were neither beds nor operating theatres nor staff to operate normally, even ignoring the fact that General Anaesthesia with covid infection had a high mortality.

I think it worth considering what actions were effective, and which had little effect on disease control, and also the social and economic effects, but wishing away a pandemic doesn't work.

Whereas I think that disease control isn't the be-all and end-all.

"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.

Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.

And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.

Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions were “unequivocally” effective in cutting the transmission of Covid-19 globally, according to a review by the Royal Society.

However, the authors of the report, which considered hundreds of studies into the use of masks, stay at home orders, test and trace, and border controls, said that future work should also quantify the social and economic costs of such measures.

The report involving more than 50 scientists from around the world, found that the strongest impact on coronavirus infections came from a full lockdown. Of 151 studies they considered that estimated an effect of stay at home orders, 119 found a substantial benefit, corresponding to a reduction in the “r number” — the rate of spread of the virus — by about 50 per cent.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pandemic-lockdown-masks-protect-virus-transmission-royal-society-report-2023-3vlhztc88

Things to file under: No shit, Sherlock.

It was also the wrong thing to do, illiberal, bad for children, bad for education and bad for the economy and the future of the NHS which now operates with a backlog and constrained taxes from a country that is broke.

Yes it would have been so much easier and convenient if there hadn't been a pandemic.

Does it actually occur to you that some of the effects were due to the virus rather than control methods.

Sure we could learn a lot from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc in terms of control. One lesson being that early control measures prevent a total shutdown.

Yes, they shut their borders. We didn't. and we had high volumes of traders coming in and out of Europe where the virus was endemic unlike them.

And no, most of the effects were due to the control methods being worse than the disease, not the virus. Had we kept schools open, then more would have died from the virus perhaps, but education would have been less harmed.

Evading death isn't the be-all and end-all that trumps everything else. Education and other factors matter just as much.

It is bonkers to suggest that the NHS could have continued operating normally. In my Trust at one point 60% of inpatients were covid patients, our ICU had expanded 3 fold, by converting operating theatres and recovery areas to ICU beds. There were neither beds nor operating theatres nor staff to operate normally, even ignoring the fact that General Anaesthesia with covid infection had a high mortality.

I think it worth considering what actions were effective, and which had little effect on disease control, and also the social and economic effects, but wishing away a pandemic doesn't work.

Whereas I think that disease control isn't the be-all and end-all.

"Controlling" the virus did what it was supposed to which was flatten the curve, so that the NHS handled nothing but Covid ICU for longer.

Not controlling the virus would have meant a bigger peak, more deaths, but a faster come down of the peak and return to normal too.

And controlling the virus damaged kids education, which is a price not worth paying.

Yes there's no easy answers. In that situation where there's no easy answers, why is it beyond the pale to suggest the answer with more deaths of the vulnerable and sick might be the better answer than harming the education of the young and healthy?

Not controlling the virus would NOT have led to a “faster come down of the peak and return to normal”. Where did you get that bizarre idea from?

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596319

Rishi Sunak inadvertently failed to declare childcare interest, rules MPs watchdog

Stupid Sunak

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Flanner said:

Can anyone help answer this question - or better yet, these questions?

About a week ago, there was a fascinating, but unsourced, chart someone showed here about changes in home tenure in England over the past more or less century (I think 1918-2021 or 2022). Googling the issue finds lots of rough approximations - but usually starting only around 1980, finishing in 2011, only at ten-year intervals or conflating State-owned and quango-owned social housing.

Can anyone post a link to the PB subject that caused the chart to be posted? And is there any possibility anyone may remember where the data comes from? It's the history of what we'd now call housing associations I'm particularly chasing today.

Thanks

I posted this chart, is this which you mean?

img src="https://i.ibb.co/PjNvbsb/image.png"/>

Link to comment: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4514174#Comment_4514174
Discussion was in response to a (false) claim that there was a fall in home ownership in the 90s, there wasn't, the 90s saw home ownership reach a record high.

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/uk-rental-housing-markets/

Of course home ownership rose in the 1990s, that’s what happens when prices fall.

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

UN judge in speech at Sadiq Khan's office says the UK owes £18 trillion in reparations for slavery.

Spain, France and the USA also listed as owing trillions in reparations

"UK’s £18tn slavery debt is an underestimation, UN judge says - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

It was a speech at City Hall, not "Sadiq Khan's Office". His office is in the building admittedly but I somehow doubt they could fit a speech in.

Presumably this was just a small part of the speech in which he ran through all the injustices in history, starting with what the Macedonians did under that sod Alexander, and putting a monetary value on the reparations necessary to square things up.

In some cases there would of course be a netting out. We could use the money the Romans owe us for their invasion to set off against our colonial bill. The Normans must owe us a few quid for 1066 and all that..

The North in particular is owed on that score.
Add in the Tudor depredations, and it's time for some serious levelling up.

Though if course if the UK is on the hook for a trillion a year (as claimed) for the next decade, we're all going to be living in grinding poverty.

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

StillWaters said:

Carnyx said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Carnyx said:

Pulpstar said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More than 100 MPs received freebies worth £180,000 this summer
Exclusive: Oliver Dowden and Keir Starmer among those who enjoyed free tickets to events including the Chelsea flower show and the Derby
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/23/more-than-100-mps-received-freebies-worth-180000-this-summer

On one level, trivial, but on another, more likely to damage MPs' brand than Nadine's no-show.

Why on earth are MPs accepting these gifts ?

In a few cases, I suppose they may be legitimately connected with the MP's interests - e.g. in gambling or hortoculture on a Committee. Yet they have expenses to claim for that sort of thing. And remember what Which do - they never accept freebies whether washing machines or holidays when they are testing. Independence is all.

There is no way you could claim a ticket to the Chelsea Flower Show on MPs' expenses. I also don't really understand why you think charging such things to the public purse would be better than taking a free ticket.

The comparison with "Which?" magazine is also a bit ludicrous. Nobody is relying on Oliver Dowden for recommendations over whether or not to go to the Chelsea Flower Show.

Independence. Rather than being beholden
to the donor.

If you take bribes from everyone you are beholden to no one?

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

JosiasJessop said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Just near me: the massive A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge road, and the A428 Caxton Gibbett to Black Cat has started. So yes, major new roads.

OK I'm not aware of that so thought I'd look it up, and look what I found: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/a14-cambridge-to-huntingdon/local-communities/

Improving connections for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders
Cyclists, walkers and horse riders can now enjoy approximately 24 miles of new routes, which were included in the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

This includes:

Approximately 8 miles of new route between Cambridge and Fenstanton, allowing onwards access towards Huntingdon via existing routes.
Over 7 miles of connections in and around the upgraded A1 near Brampton and Buckden.
And approximately 9 miles of other connections around the scheme.
By working with Cambridgeshire County Council we have also secured funding for additional links to join existing routes. The £3.1m programme includes five projects:

Extending a cycle path ending in Girton to provide a cycling and equestrian route into Cambridge.
A foot and cycle path along the A1198 (Ermine Street) to improve a popular rural route between Papworth and Cambourne.
A pedestrian and cycle path between Bar Hill and Longstanton.
A pedestrian and cycle path between Wood Green and Godmanchester.
Improved connections between Longstanton and Northstowe.
We are still finalising the design for these routes, and work is expected to start this year (2020).

So building a 12 mile bypass of road has unlocked 24 miles of cycling paths. Twice as much new cycling mileage as there is new car mileage.

Sounds fantastic. If only there was much, much, much more of that going on.

But you said there were bugger all new roads. So a cycle path going one way along bugger all, and coming back the other side to make 2 x bugger all in total, is still bugger all - bugger all being what is known as an infinitesimal for those what have don Maths a levvel.

*confused*

Richard_Tyndall said:

Eabhal said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Wow

The first bit was easy. Thatbsi stuff I have actually done archaeological work for. The second list is a cheat from Wikipedia with a couple of others thrown in that I am aware of.

But as I say there are loads more.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

bondegezou said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

It seems a tad OTT to criticise the Tories for something you think they will do but that they haven’t actually done.

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

Rubbish. The A46 was 20 miles of new road. The Norwich Northern Distributor Road was 12 miles of new road.

Where do you expect to build brand new roads over any great distance when we already have such a dense road network? These are not 'minor' projects. They are exactly the sort of road building projects that we need to through take traffic away from town and city centres and to upgrade trunk routes. The A1 has been upgraded to motorway standard over much of its length over the past 30 years and that is still ongoing.

You seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong about the scale of roadbuilding.

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

'Half the public (49 per cent) would support reinstating the death penalty for ‘any murder’, a figure that has risen by eight points since February. More than half (52 per cent) back capital punishment for anyone who assassinates a Royal, a figure that rises to 54 per cent for those who kill a police officer, 59 per cent for a multiple murderer and 63 per cent for a child murderer. This last figure is up by six points since February. Other crimes have also been affected by this surge in support for the noose, with 59 per cent of the public saying they back the death penalty for those convicted of terrorism or multiple rapes.'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

The Tories however despite 13 years in government have not reintroduced the death penalty for any crime and likely will not have a manifesto commitment to restore it either and nor will Labour make a promise to do so in their manifesto.

Just be grateful we have representative not direct democracy, with only RefUK perhaps likely to even consider restoring the death penalty for some crimes. If we went to a referendum on it it certainly would be back for some crimes. Another reason we don't need more referendums

Sean_F said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

UN judge in speech at Sadiq Khan's office says the UK owes £18 trillion in reparations for slavery.

Spain, France and the USA also listed as owing trillions in reparations

"UK’s £18tn slavery debt is an underestimation, UN judge says - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

It was a speech at City Hall, not "Sadiq Khan's Office". His office is in the building admittedly but I somehow doubt they could fit a speech in.

Presumably this was just a small part of the speech in which he ran through all the injustices in history, starting with what the Macedonians did under that sod Alexander, and putting a monetary value on the reparations necessary to square things up.

In some cases there would of course be a netting out. We could use the money the Romans owe us for their invasion to set off against our colonial bill. The Normans must owe us a few quid for 1066 and all that.

We might even be in pocket rather than out of it at the end of the day, especially if you work out the compound interest.

The complete ledger will be very interesting. Has it been published yet?

The net wealth of the UK is £10.7 trn. These hucksters think that every household in the country should be fined twice what they own because of what some people did hundreds of years ago.

There is , as you imply, not a country in the world that would not be paying out vast sums of money on this basis. The Middle East and North Africa would presumably owe a shedload of money to Mediterranean and Balkan Europe.

Dura_Ace said:

We need another 9/11 or similar very soon because this car/bike/Dutch bullshit is so boring it's giving me tinnitus and piles.

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

Rubbish. The A46 was 20 miles of new road. The Norwich Northern Distributor Road was 12 miles of new road.

Where do you expect to build brand new roads over any great distance when we already have such a dense road network? These are not 'minor' projects. They are exactly the sort of road building projects that we need to through take traffic away from town and city centres and to upgrade trunk routes. The A1 has been upgraded to motorway standard over much of its length over the past 30 years and that is still ongoing.

You seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong about the scale of roadbuilding.

We don't have a dense network. The Netherlands do, they have 36% more road miles per 100km^2 than we do.

We've added roughly ten million to our population. Proportionately that should have been many millions of new homes, and tens of thousands of miles of new roads.

We haven't kept pace in construction in either homes, nor infrastructure. We need both, because we have the people living here.

Yes the limited projects we have had are worthwhile but there should be an order of magnitude more of them.

The argument that a x% increase in population warrants a corresponding x% increase in the length of roads in the country is too simplistic. For starters, it assumes all the roads were at capacity to begin with, which clearly isn’t the case.

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

'Half the public (49 per cent) would support reinstating the death penalty for ‘any murder’, a figure that has risen by eight points since February. More than half (52 per cent) back capital punishment for anyone who assassinates a Royal, a figure that rises to 54 per cent for those who kill a police officer, 59 per cent for a multiple murderer and 63 per cent for a child murderer. This last figure is up by six points since February. Other crimes have also been affected by this surge in support for the noose, with 59 per cent of the public saying they back the death penalty for those convicted of terrorism or multiple rapes.'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

The Tories however despite 13 years in government have not reintroduced the death penalty for any crime and likely will not have a manifesto commitment to restore it either and nor will Labour make a promise to do so in their manifesto.

Just be grateful we have representative not direct democracy, with only RefUK perhaps likely to even consider restoring the death penalty for some crimes. If we went to a referendum on it it certainly would be back for some crimes. Another reason we don't need more referendums

Support for the death penalty usually rises, once some heinous crime gets reported.

Letby deserves to be put to death, but bring back hanging, and you run into all kinds of practical difficulties. The jury spent days poring over the evidence. Would they have given her the benefit of the doubt, had they known she'd be hanged?

It's easy enough to agree that the Letbys of this world deserve to be hanged, but do all murderers deserve to be hanged? In most cases, if we examined the evidence, we would probably say no. Most murders take place in a terrible moment of madness, rather than the kind of ruthless cold-blooded killing that Letby practised. So, we'd be left arguing over which murderers deserved death and which didn't, since we're obviously not going to hang 6-700 people a year.

Then, you get the miscarriages of justice.

Hanging probably lasted a generation longer in this country than it would otherwise, because of the Nuremberg trials. No one disputed that leading Nazis deserved the rope (and most of them got away with their crimes).

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

bondegezou said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

It seems a tad OTT to criticise the Tories for something you think they will do but that they haven’t actually done.

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

Rubbish. The A46 was 20 miles of new road. The Norwich Northern Distributor Road was 12 miles of new road.

Where do you expect to build brand new roads over any great distance when we already have such a dense road network? These are not 'minor' projects. They are exactly the sort of road building projects that we need to through take traffic away from town and city centres and to upgrade trunk routes. The A1 has been upgraded to motorway standard over much of its length over the past 30 years and that is still ongoing.

You seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong about the scale of roadbuilding.

We don't have a dense network. The Netherlands do, they have 36% more road miles per 100km^2 than we do.

We've added roughly ten million to our population. Proportionately that should have been many millions of new homes, and tens of thousands of miles of new roads.

We haven't kept pace in construction in either homes, nor infrastructure. We need both, because we have the people living here.

Yes the limited projects we have had are worthwhile but there should be an order of magnitude more of them.

Why? We build and upgrade roads where there is a need and where it is possible. Sadly the places where we most ned to build more roads - on the approaches to and in the centre of towns and cities - it usually isn't practical. Outside of cities I very rarely if ever run into traffic jams and those which I did all now seem to be the subject of planned or completed upgrades.

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

'Half the public (49 per cent) would support reinstating the death penalty for ‘any murder’, a figure that has risen by eight points since February. More than half (52 per cent) back capital punishment for anyone who assassinates a Royal, a figure that rises to 54 per cent for those who kill a police officer, 59 per cent for a multiple murderer and 63 per cent for a child murderer. This last figure is up by six points since February. Other crimes have also been affected by this surge in support for the noose, with 59 per cent of the public saying they back the death penalty for those convicted of terrorism or multiple rapes.'

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

The Tories however despite 13 years in government have not reintroduced the death penalty for any crime and likely will not have a manifesto commitment to restore it either and nor will Labour make a promise to do so in their manifesto.

Just be grateful we have representative not direct democracy, with only RefUK perhaps likely to even consider restoring the death penalty for some crimes. If we went to a referendum on it it certainly would be back for some crimes. Another reason we don't need more referendums

Support for the death penalty usually rises, once some heinous crime gets reported.

Letby deserves to be put to death, but bring back hanging, and you run into all kinds of practical difficulties. The jury spent days poring over the evidence. Would they have given her the benefit of the doubt, had they known she'd be hanged?

It's easy enough to agree that the Letbys of this world deserve to be hanged, but do all murderers deserve to be hanged? In most cases, if we examined the evidence, we would probably say no. Most murders take place in a terrible moment of madness, rather than the kind of ruthless cold-blooded killing that Letby practised. So, we'd be left arguing over which murderers deserved death and which didn't, since we're obviously not going to hang 6-700 people a year.

Then, you get the miscarriages of justice.

Hanging probably lasted a generation longer in this country than it would otherwise, because of the Nuremberg trials. No one disputed that leading Nazis deserved the rope (and most of them got away with their crimes).

The start point of 6-700 can be immediately discounted, as people currently receiving a whole life tariff might get the death penalty. That's 68 people right now.

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

Rubbish. The A46 was 20 miles of new road. The Norwich Northern Distributor Road was 12 miles of new road.

Where do you expect to build brand new roads over any great distance when we already have such a dense road network? These are not 'minor' projects. They are exactly the sort of road building projects that we need to through take traffic away from town and city centres and to upgrade trunk routes. The A1 has been upgraded to motorway standard over much of its length over the past 30 years and that is still ongoing.

You seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong about the scale of roadbuilding.

We don't have a dense network. The Netherlands do, they have 36% more road miles per 100km^2 than we do.

We've added roughly ten million to our population. Proportionately that should have been many millions of new homes, and tens of thousands of miles of new roads.

We haven't kept pace in construction in either homes, nor infrastructure. We need both, because we have the people living here.

Yes the limited projects we have had are worthwhile but there should be an order of magnitude more of them.

The argument that a x% increase in population warrants a corresponding x% increase in the length of roads in the country is too simplistic. For starters, it assumes all the roads were at capacity to begin with, which clearly isn’t the case.

Well it generally scales with population density, which is why comparing UK to Netherlands (they have double the road density we do) is unreasonable, but comparing England to Netherlands (they have 36% more road density) seems more reasonable.

A 20% increase in population does roughly equate to a 20% increase in demand. But we've fallen well short of boosting either roads of housing supply by 20% to match the population growth.

Netting for population, our road capacity is going backwards not forwards. Just like our housing capacity.

Again, unless demand was already at 100% of road capacity, an increase in demand doesn’t necessarily require a one-to-one increase in capacity.

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RobD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

El_Capitano said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The Dutch have had five decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, continuously building new roads and cycling infrastructure.

We have have had 3 decades of encouraging cycling as a matter of policy, but without bothering to build the roads or accompanying cycling infrastructure that goes with new roads.

Have we caught up with the Dutch? Is cycling as popular today in the UK as it was in the Netherlands in the 00s at a comparable stage of development of cycling as policy? I wouldn't say so.

Building roads & cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands has worked far better than telling people to ride a bike but without building roads.

We aren't going to catch up with the Dutch, unless we actually do what the Dutch are actually doing. Rather than a mythical version of what the Dutch are doing, pretending that they're simply telling people to ride a bike and that's that.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have. Indeed, that's precisely what the Dutch did when they ran out of money for new roads.

Happily, councils everywhere have worked this out as the cost-effective way to get more people moving through our towns and cities, and continue to make progress despite the fuss being kicked up.

You just can't face the truth that we would need to remove some space from drivers on current roads to achieve the rates of cycling and cycle safety that the Dutch have.

What are you talking about?

I have said so repeatedly! It's like you're not reading what I've been writing.

On this page alone

Once: More roads, built with cycling infrastructure as standard = safer cycling and better driving. It also allows retrofitting old roads once new roads (with cycling infrastructure) are built to alleviate the traffic which is a double-win for cycling, which is why the Dutch have been doing this for fifty years now.

Twice: Building new roads (with cycling infrastructure) relieves demand on old ones which can then be retrofitted to be low traffic roads with cycling infrastructrure too.

Three times a lady: Converting old roads to local access roads, once new roads are built, like the Dutch do is precisely what I've been recommending for weeks while we've been having this conversation.

I am entirely in favour of converting old roads once new ones are built. I have advocated it. I am not at all against converging old roads and am fully in favour of copying the Dutch and investing in our transportation so it's achievable.

The Dutch unlike us never ran out of money or stopped construction. Which is why their system works.

But we've already built the new roads?

Yeah. I agree with much of what Barty says but since the 1970s (when the Dutch started investing seriously in cycle infrastructure) we have had 50 years of new roads after new roads. Even right now we have a £27bn major roads programme, and that's just Highways England - i.e. not the many new roads being built by local authorities.

The difference is that our new roads have, by and large, not been built with cycling infrastructure.

What new roads?

We've had bugger all new roads as a matter of policy for decades now.

The few new roads we do get now come with cycling provision as standard, we need much, much more of that.

Not so.

There has been major road building all across England in the last decade. Just a few of the many examples that I have done bits of work for.

Lincoln Eastern ring road
A14 project including the new Huntingdon bypass
A46 Dualling from Widmerpool to Newark
A6 to Manchester Airport relief road
Gedling Access Road - which is effectively a Nottingham Eastern bypass
Congleton Link road
Norwich Northern Distributor Road

And being built at the moment

Inverness Trunk Road Link
Silvertown Tunnel
Stubbington bypass
A585 Little Singleton bypass
A120 Little Hadham bypass
Preston Western Distributor Road
Heyhouses Link Road
Wichelstowe Southern Access
Grantham Southern Bypass
Etruria Valley Link Road
North Northallerton Link Road
Newtownards Movilla Road to Donaghadee Road and Bangor Road Link
Larne Distributor (South)
Ballyclare Western Relief Road
M6-M54 Link road

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Yes minor bypasses and bits and pieces here and there. The A14 one is 12 miles and one of the biggest.

For a country that's added nearly 10 million population in the past two decades, that's pathetically little and barely scratching the surface of what is required.

And each of those typically comes with much cycling development, like the 24 miles of cycle paths to go with the 12 mile A14 project already discussed.

Rubbish. The A46 was 20 miles of new road. The Norwich Northern Distributor Road was 12 miles of new road.

Where do you expect to build brand new roads over any great distance when we already have such a dense road network? These are not 'minor' projects. They are exactly the sort of road building projects that we need to through take traffic away from town and city centres and to upgrade trunk routes. The A1 has been upgraded to motorway standard over much of its length over the past 30 years and that is still ongoing.

You seem to be looking for any excuse to avoid admitting you were wrong about the scale of roadbuilding.

We don't have a dense network. The Netherlands do, they have 36% more road miles per 100km^2 than we do.

We've added roughly ten million to our population. Proportionately that should have been many millions of new homes, and tens of thousands of miles of new roads.

We haven't kept pace in construction in either homes, nor infrastructure. We need both, because we have the people living here.

Yes the limited projects we have had are worthwhile but there should be an order of magnitude more of them.

The argument that a x% increase in population warrants a corresponding x% increase in the length of roads in the country is too simplistic. For starters, it assumes all the roads were at capacity to begin with, which clearly isn’t the case.

Well it generally scales with population density, which is why comparing UK to Netherlands (they have double the road density we do) is unreasonable, but comparing England to Netherlands (they have 36% more road density) seems more reasonable.

A 20% increase in population does roughly equate to a 20% increase in demand. But we've fallen well short of boosting either roads of housing supply by 20% to match the population growth.

Netting for population, our road capacity is going backwards not forwards. Just like our housing capacity.

Again, unless demand was already at 100% of road capacity, an increase in demand doesn’t necessarily require a one-to-one increase in capacity.

CorrectHorseBat said:

bondegezou said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/poll-two-thirds-of-public-back-death-penalty-for-letby/

Poll: two thirds of public back death penalty for Letby

So we know where the Tories will go next. Utterly despicable.

It seems a tad OTT to criticise the Tories for something you think they will do but that they haven’t actually done.

I am sure after the success of Brexit this is where they will go next. Leaving the ECHR seems a dead cert so why not this next?

Taz said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

UN judge in speech at Sadiq Khan's office says the UK owes £18 trillion in reparations for slavery.

Spain, France and the USA also listed as owing trillions in reparations

"UK’s £18tn slavery debt is an underestimation, UN judge says - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

It was a speech at City Hall, not "Sadiq Khan's Office". His office is in the building admittedly but I somehow doubt they could fit a speech in.

Presumably this was just a small part of the speech in which he ran through all the injustices in history, starting with what the Macedonians did under that sod Alexander, and putting a monetary value on the reparations necessary to square things up.

In some cases there would of course be a netting out. We could use the money the Romans owe us for their invasion to set off against our colonial bill. The Normans must owe us a few quid for 1066 and all that..

The North in particular is owed on that score.
Add in the Tudor depredations, and it's time for some serious levelling up.

Though if course if the UK is on the hook for a trillion a year (as claimed) for the next decade, we're all going to be living in grinding poverty.

Not a bit of it, Nigel.

Those wealthy Yanks must owe us a ton for the War of Independence, The French for the Napoleonic Wars, the Germans for u know what, and of course the Japanese.

We'll be quids in, mate, by the time it's all reckoned up. We'll be able to afford a few trillion a year, and then some.

Can't wait to see the figures. When's the UN publishing them?

Be fair to the UN Judge, he is prepared to kindly allow us between 10 and 25 years to pay our dues.

Most reasonable.

All of the charities and NGO's will be very supportive of these spurious claims as they will be the ones to administer it. There is alot of grift around.

We can add it to the trillions in climate reparations we owe too.