Why I’m reluctant to bet on a LAB majority – pt1 – politicalbetting.com
Why I’m reluctant to bet on a LAB majority – pt1 – politicalbetting.com
One of the biggest challenges about forecasting the next election is the very high proportion of 2019 Conservative voters who are now saying don’t know.
Comments
-
I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.1
-
It is error after error both forced and unforced.OnlyLivingBoy said:I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
I do not buy into Heatheners "It's 97 on Steroids" view but I think a small majority is in the offing. The Polls are not shifting back to the Tories and the news is continually not good for them,1 -
It feels like you're view is "the evidence says x but my gut says y". I don't see how anything but a Labour majority happens, short of SKS dying and Corbyn magically becoming leader again.0
-
Im waiting for Labour to fall short and doing a deal with the DUP2
-
Was it not Sir John Curtis who said: 'Those that 'don't know', don't vote'?3
-
Well, there are alternatives to Corbyn who would be worse. Cat Smith. Lloyd Russell Moyle. And of course, Richard Burgon...148grss said:It feels like you're view is "the evidence says x but my gut says y". I don't see how anything but a Labour majority happens, short of SKS dying and Corbyn magically becoming leader again.
0 -
It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.2 -
1
-
I think the polling for best PM also indicates a labour majority as well. SKS is opening up a clear lead and pissing off a few trots and corbynites (as the press may see/present it) is hardly going to hamper him.148grss said:It feels like you're view is "the evidence says x but my gut says y". I don't see how anything but a Labour majority happens, short of SKS dying and Corbyn magically becoming leader again.
0 -
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.1 -
I know nothing about politics or betting but I think a LAB majority is going to happen!
Just a small one though.0 -
People forget that, for all the "Things Can Only Get Better" collective memory of 1997, turnout was down more than 6% on the previous election. It then slipped substantially again in 2001.Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
Blair did get switchers, clearly, but persuading people not to bother actively vote against him was also quite a big part of his success.11 -
"Statement regarding announcement made today (5 September 2023) that a Section 114 notice has been issued.
Birmingham City Council has issued a s.114 Notice as part of the plans to meet the Council’s financial liabilities relating to Equal Pay claims and an in-year financial gap within its budget which currently stands in the region of £87m.
In June the Council announced that it had a potential liability relating to Equal Pay claims in the region of £650m to £760m, with an ongoing liability accruing at a rate of £5m to £14m per month.
The Council is still in a position where it must fund the equal pay liability that has accrued to date (in the region of £650m to £760m), but it does not have the resources to do so."
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/1381/statement_regarding_section_114_notice0 -
Throw in Rebecca Wrong-Daily and you could have a Cabinet to give the current one a run for its money.ydoethur said:
Well, there are alternatives to Corbyn who would be worse. Cat Smith. Lloyd Russell Moyle. And of course, Richard Burgon...148grss said:It feels like you're view is "the evidence says x but my gut says y". I don't see how anything but a Labour majority happens, short of SKS dying and Corbyn magically becoming leader again.
0 -
Looks like council on a sticky wicket re accountsAndy_JS said:"Statement regarding announcement made today (5 September 2023) that a Section 114 notice has been issued.
Birmingham City Council has issued a s.114 Notice as part of the plans to meet the Council’s financial liabilities relating to Equal Pay claims and an in-year financial gap within its budget which currently stands in the region of £87m.
In June the Council announced that it had a potential liability relating to Equal Pay claims in the region of £650m to £760m, with an ongoing liability accruing at a rate of £5m to £14m per month.
The Council is still in a position where it must fund the equal pay liability that has accrued to date (in the region of £650m to £760m), but it does not have the resources to do so."
https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/news/article/1381/statement_regarding_section_114_notice
‘A collective burying heads in the sand’
The council has admitted that its last three years of accounts are no longer admissible and were incorrectly closed and signed off, and, according to reports in Birmingham Live, external auditors confirm they have concerns about them all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/05/birmingham-city-council-declares-effective-bankruptcy/1 -
That'S more or less what I wrote yesterday. One week ago a Tory comeback seemed unlikely but possible. Now it seems unbelievable that they might get within 10 points of Labour.OnlyLivingBoy said:I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
0 -
@_adamcherry_
Probably share too many of these Downing Street Flickr posts but look at Rishi in these. Surprised they OK'd them given how miserable he seems.
https://twitter.com/_adamcherry_/status/1699029382277251459?s=200 -
Yes - he is in full on re-assurance mode; he and his team realise that Labour have to feel safe to vote for. The tories are doing their best to make themselves unelectable, but I daresay Corbyn would still lose to them.SirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
The Blair comparisons are pretty meaningless. Different time, different people. It won't be a repeat of 19xx or 20xx, it'll be 2024.4 -
The wave of enthusiasm in 97 was not one for Blair it was "there is no way we are going to let 92 happen again and let the Tories rule for another 5 years"Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
I predict that GE 2024 will have a similar sentiment.2 -
I can't envisage anyone but Starmer being the next PM
But I wouldn't bet on the wooden cadet getting a majority
He's impossibly boring to listen to. I try to hear what he says, but it so quickly turns into an annoying nasal noise that I can't follow it
But he's lucky: he's up against a rather rubbish government. He ought to get a majority, yet he's so very dull that I think Edweird Miliband would be more likely to get one0 -
It feels as though a Labour majority is nailed on. The polls are rock solid on this. Scotland is looking less likely to be a solely SNP fiefdom. Yes there is a big mountain to climb, but all the evidence points to a successful climb.
And yet. Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics.
Most people pay little attention to politics. etc
My personal belief is that swingback is about non politically engaged people actually starting to pay attention, They won't do that yet.
There is a similar issue with the tedious "stay out' vs 'rejoin' Brexit polling. Without an actual vote in prospect and without the terms (it won't be the same as before) the numbers are just reporting on general unhappiness, not an actual voting intention.
But I still think it will be at least a 50 seat plus labour majority1 -
I disagree. There was genuine enthusiasm for Blair and the whole New Labour/Cool Britannia vibe. Yes getting rid of the Tories was part of it, but not the whole thing.eristdoof said:
The wave of enthusiasm in 97 was not one for Blair it was "there is no way we are going to let 92 happen again and let the Tories rule for another 5 years"Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
I predict that GE 2024 will have a similar sentiment.1 -
Don't know is just the coping strategy. I did the same before GE19.0
-
The reason the Blair comparisons are happening is because Starmer is clearly trying to ape Blair. He is a bad tribute act singing old songs when the dance moves have changed.Ghedebrav said:
Yes - he is in full on re-assurance mode; he and his team realise that Labour have to feel safe to vote for. The tories are doing their best to make themselves unelectable, but I daresay Corbyn would still lose to them.SirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
The Blair comparisons are pretty meaningless. Different time, different people. It won't be a repeat of 19xx or 20xx, it'll be 2024.2 -
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/some-crimes-will-not-be-investigated-in-scotland-as-part-of-pilot-project/ar-AA1gerlJ?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=c7807a175c064a8792546f07602c2a66&ei=9
A Scottish Police force effectively decriminalises various crimes by stating they won;t be investigating them.0 -
Somebody said it yesterday, there were fewer Blairites in Blair's first cabinet than there are in Starmer's...148grss said:
The reason the Blair comparisons are happening is because Starmer is clearly trying to ape Blair. He is a bad tribute act singing old songs when the dance moves have changed.Ghedebrav said:
Yes - he is in full on re-assurance mode; he and his team realise that Labour have to feel safe to vote for. The tories are doing their best to make themselves unelectable, but I daresay Corbyn would still lose to them.SirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
The Blair comparisons are pretty meaningless. Different time, different people. It won't be a repeat of 19xx or 20xx, it'll be 2024.1 -
Yep. Also it's hard to separate out 'enthusiasm' into its positive and negative strains. Eg if you strongly want to see the back of the tories you'll probably greet a Labour win enthusiastically despite not being completely sold on Starmer or his policies.eristdoof said:
The wave of enthusiasm in 97 was not one for Blair it was "there is no way we are going to let 92 happen again and let the Tories rule for another 5 years"Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
I predict that GE 2024 will have a similar sentiment.
There was much enthusiasm for ending Tory rule in 97 and so there is today. I think what's happening is people are looking back at 97 and ascribing it as positive sentiment for Blair, whereas today they've decided it's all of the negative variety on the Tories.
My view (becoming quite longstanding now) is big Labour majority and let me add a rider - it'll be greeted enthusiastically.1 -
I think there is a way back if the Tories have a change of leadership.OnlyLivingBoy said:I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
However since that's improbable, then Labour majority should be odds-on IMHO.0 -
I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second6 -
"A pattern of discreet Brexit dilution is emerging. Sunak is caught between a political obligation imposed by his party to pretend that leaving the EU was a great achievement and the economic requirement imposed by reality to palliate the cost."
https://t.co/h7Z1kHIqTL0 -
Yes.glw said:
I keep coming back to the idea that we need to build an entire Birmingham every two years just to stand still. Hardly anyone seems to take it seriously, and yet unless my understanding of the scale of the issue is really out of whack I'm confident that I'm right. This has been staring us in the face for 20 years now.Malmesbury said:
Part of the problem is that “the system” is afraid that an honest appraisal of the cost of an increasing population will increase anti-immigrant racism.
You can see some of that here, with posters angrily stating that a population increasing much faster than the supply of properties isn’t the cause of a high housing prices.
Not long ago, someone objected to the idea of building on the cake required - new cities - on the grounds that it would “fundamentally change the character of the country”. The character of the country has already fundamentally changed.
Because it’s about people. It has been decided to move population growth to levels associated with developing countries - approaching 1% a year.
Go to such developing countries. What you see is this - villages become towns, towns become cities on a by-the-year basis. It is visible and obvious.
In this country we have tried to freeze time. The bucolic hamlet in the Cotswolds has been forced to remain a hamlet. In other times it would have been a town now.
Those other times have returned.
Then there is as you say the idea of freezing time, when Green Belts came into being the UK population was about 50 million people, it's now very close to 70 million, and likely to hit 80 million before 2050 now.
It is completely insane to watch a population increase by 40%, to see 60% steemrolling towards you, and to expect towns and cities to remain the same size forever, and also to oppose almost all new large-scale development.
This UK is run by and mosly populated by people with their head in the sand. It is utterly perplexing to me that we seem incapable of grasping the scale of the problem and the necessary actions.
The only thing likely to fix the UK's infrastructure and lack of development now is a major war that causes enormous distruction making change unavoidable.
Those who wanted change are going to get change. It isn’t the change they wanted
Be careful what you wish for. Oftentimes, what you wish for gets… *you*
0 -
A wave of enthusiasm that saw turnout drop by over 6%?Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.1 -
This right here is the problem.Scott_xP said:@YouGov
·
4h
84% of Britons - and 78% of Tory voters - say the government seems tired
All Britons
Tired: 84% (inc. 49% "very tired")
Energetic: 8%
Con voters
Tired: 78%
Energetic: 13%
I am a naturally right of centre voter. But I find it very, very hard to escape the feeling that the country is broken. And it was the Tories who broke it.
Across vast swathes of public policy, the rot feels inescapable.
Living costs are rapidly increasing.
The rail network is unreliable and crippled by strikes.
The immigration system can’t cope. The boats are still arriving.
The NHS is teetering on the brink and can no longer provide a fully functioning GP service in many places.
Schools are falling down.
We have hit a period of deep malaise. It feels inconceivable that the governing party will get away with it in an election which is due in the next 12-14 months.
I also thought that by now the government may be starting to get a grip on the bad economic news and they would be starting to get themselves on an even keel. There appears to be little prospect of that right now. It’s entirely plausible that they will be in this stage of perma-crisis all the way up to the election.
My view for a long time has been lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the uphill struggle they have in seat numbers will mean a HP with Lab as largest party or a small Lab majority. I am now starting to think that majority will be larger. The only thing that gives me pause at the moment is that Labour are coming across as very ‘continuity Tories’ rather than embracing the change mantle - and they need to be better as setting out some key principles to make the country better rather than suggesting they’ll preside over the decline in a slightly more competent way.
1 -
Specifically the Brexiteersnumbertwelve said:I am a naturally right of centre voter. But I find it very, very hard to escape the feeling that the country is broken. And it was the Tories who broke it.
1 -
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second2 -
I blame myself for this. Went for a slap-up Mayday lunch with an old friend and by 6pm we were both too pissed to go home and vote. Viewed the Adoration of Saint Tony through a monumental hangover that has never really gone away.DoubleCarpet said:
A wave of enthusiasm that saw turnout drop by over 6%?Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.1 -
Or to put it another way: Everything's a bit shyte now!numbertwelve said:
This right here is the problem.Scott_xP said:@YouGov
·
4h
84% of Britons - and 78% of Tory voters - say the government seems tired
All Britons
Tired: 84% (inc. 49% "very tired")
Energetic: 8%
Con voters
Tired: 78%
Energetic: 13%
I am a naturally right of centre voter. But I find it very, very hard to escape the feeling that the country is broken. And it was the Tories who broke it.
Across vast swathes of public policy, the rot feels inescapable.
Living costs are rapidly increasing.
The rail network is unreliable and crippled by strikes.
The immigration system can’t cope. The boats are still arriving.
The NHS is teetering on the brink and can no longer provide a fully functioning GP service in many places.
Schools are falling down.
We have hit a period of deep malaise. It feels inconceivable that the governing party will get away with it in an election which is due in the next 12-14 months.
I also thought that by now the government may be starting to get a grip on the bad economic news and they would be starting to get themselves on an even keel. There appears to be little prospect of that right now. It’s entirely plausible that they will be in this stage of perma-crisis all the way up to the election.
My view for a long time has been lack of enthusiasm for Labour and the uphill struggle they have in seat numbers will mean a HP with Lab as largest party or a small Lab majority. I am now starting to think that majority will be larger. The only thing that gives me pause at the moment is that Labour are coming across as very ‘continuity Tories’ rather than embracing the change mantle - and they need to be better as setting out some key principles to make the country better rather than suggesting they’ll preside over the decline in a slightly more competent way.0 -
Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.Anabobazina said:
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second1 -
Let's take the recent Opinium poll that the header is derived from.
It has the conservatives on 28%. This is towards the top for current polling.
Labour are on 42%; this is at the lower end of current polling.
Keeping other parties the same for Labour to not get an overall majority would need conservatives to gain at least 4% to 32% and Labour to lose 4% to 38%.
Conservatives were last at or above 32% in September last year before the fiscal statement with Opinium. Similarly with Labour on 38%.
It's been almost a year since then.
What reasons would anyone vote conservative at the next election who is not planning to now? Is that sufficient for a 4% increase in the conservative vote?
0 -
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second0 -
Opinium for the last time INCLUDES swingbackVerulamius said:Let's take the recent Opinium poll that the header is derived from.
It has the conservatives on 28%. This is towards the top for current polling.
Labour are on 42%; this is at the lower end of current polling.
Keeping other parties the same for Labour to not get an overall majority would need conservatives to gain at least 4% to 32% and Labour to lose 4% to 38%.
Conservatives were last at or above 32% in September last year before the fiscal statement with Opinium. Similarly with Labour on 38%.
It's been almost a year since then.
What reasons would anyone vote conservative at the next election who is not planning to now? Is that sufficient for a 4% increase in the conservative vote?2 -
Why them?Scott_xP said:
Specifically the Brexiteersnumbertwelve said:I am a naturally right of centre voter. But I find it very, very hard to escape the feeling that the country is broken. And it was the Tories who broke it.
0 -
Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.0 -
On topic, while I'd be wary of backing Labour for a majority at the 1/2 odds available at present (at best), I do think it's well over a 50% chance.
Remember that the 2019 Con voters included a lot of first-time Con voters, motivated by Brexit and Corbyn. One of those is 'done', and while done quickly it was not done well, and the other is history. On top of which, the Tories have been an absolute shambles in office, Ukraine and - to a degree - Covid apart. It is entirely reasonable to think that many of the DKs will just sit it out.
The comparison with 1997 is instructive. The Labour vote only increased by around 2m but the Tory one dropped by some 5m. I think it's entirely plausible that something similar will happen next year (though of course Labour is starting this next election way further back than it did under Blair).3 -
What a surprise that you want to leave the engine running..Dura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second1 -
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second0 -
That's debatable.Eabhal said:
Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.Anabobazina said:
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".
Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.
Common sense should apply here I think.0 -
1997’s music was way better than the crap the kids are listening to these days.148grss said:
The reason the Blair comparisons are happening is because Starmer is clearly trying to ape Blair. He is a bad tribute act singing old songs when the dance moves have changed.Ghedebrav said:
Yes - he is in full on re-assurance mode; he and his team realise that Labour have to feel safe to vote for. The tories are doing their best to make themselves unelectable, but I daresay Corbyn would still lose to them.SirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.
The Blair comparisons are pretty meaningless. Different time, different people. It won't be a repeat of 19xx or 20xx, it'll be 2024.
(Said my parents in 1997, but substituting the early ‘70s).1 -
A few months back, I was surprised (and pleased) that my local posties were now using electric postal vans. It seems an ideal duty for them.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Apparently they have over 5,000 of them.
https://fleetworld.co.uk/royal-mail-deploys-5000th-electric-van-on-delivery-and-collection-fleet/
I've also seen an electric Amazon delivery e-bike in Huntingdon. I think these organisations *are* aware; just give them a few years to replace the majority of their fleets.0 -
Maybe what we should legislate for is delivery vehicles being electric.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second1 -
Public owned monopolies are bad because they always deliver crap service. Why? Politics.CorrectHorseBat said:Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.
The service is underfunded, and investment in particular, because the Treasury doesn't like stumping up cash and investment is the easiest thing to cut because there's no immediate impact on the front line. Plus, pressure is always to lower bills, so the in-house accounting will tend not to add up putting more pressure on spending / the Treasury-begging-bowl. Plus unions know that there's more chance of getting a better settlement for their workers by striking if the govt is directly in charge so they do it more often where the public feel the impact straight away.
Private monopolies can get around some of those problems, and tend to mitigate others. However, unless there's a powerful, independent and effective watchdog / regulator overseeing them, you end up instead with the traditional problems of private monopolies instead.4 -
Electric milk floats were once commonplaceJosiasJessop said:A few months back, I was surprised (and pleased) that my local posties were now using electric postal vans. It seems an ideal duty for them.
2 -
The stop/start damage is a thing. There is also a spike in pollution when you start an ICE. Catalytic converters take time to warm up etc.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
This is nicely solved by electric delivery vehicles which don’t mind such usages patterns.4 -
Water is a monopoly, but also water has been much better managed under private ownership than public ownership.CorrectHorseBat said:Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.
The quality of our rivers etc was far, far worse pre-privatisation.
Primary difference between public and private ownership is that post-privatisation fines for discharges etc became a cost of doing business, and a rational business seeks to minimise cost, so water companies cleaned up their act in order to minimise fines and thus maximise profits.
Under public ownership, if sewage is discharged then nobody is held to account for that. Fining a public body for discharges is meaningless, since its all Treasury money anyway and nobody cares.
You need sensible regulations though. You need Ofwat to be doing their job, setting standards, and holding firms to account, not just leave it to the private market and wish everything will be OK.0 -
Because they can put prices up and customers can't get elsewhere.CorrectHorseBat said:Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.0 -
A few months back I watched a review of a Ford electric Transit van. Its range was low - about 150 miles from memory. But the presenter pointed out that the vast majority of these vans do nowhere near that mileage daily, which surprised me at first until I thought about it.jamesdoyle said:
Maybe what we should legislate for is delivery vehicles being electric.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
The same with electric busses as well - I bet the new ones that run from the Park and Rides in Cambridge don't get a massive daily mileage. As a total guess, say eight miles per return journey; one journey per hour over ten hours.
For some things, electric is already the best.2 -
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.Dura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second0 -
I would love to do my routes in an electric milk floatScott_xP said:
Electric milk floats were once commonplaceJosiasJessop said:A few months back, I was surprised (and pleased) that my local posties were now using electric postal vans. It seems an ideal duty for them.
I never go over 25mph. Going at 15mph would take me about five minutes longer each day0 -
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.4 -
You have just described the system we have at presentAndy_JS said:
Because they can put prices up and customers can't get elsewhere.CorrectHorseBat said:Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.0 -
I suspect all new commercial vehicles are bought with that in mind.Sandpit said:
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.Dura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
But not every person doing a delivery is doing so with vehicles bought for that purpose, or owned by the firm.
A lot of deliveries are done via self-employed people who are paid to do a block of deliveries in their own vehicles. For many people this can be a second income rather than their full time job, and they do it with whatever vehicle they happen to already own and drive.
Realistically speaking this is a temporary issue anyway. As old vehicles wear out they'll be replaced with newer vehicles, with newer technologies. Sometimes we can put too much effort into resolving already resolved problems - rather than waiting for the resolution to work its way through the system.1 -
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.0 -
Yes, except that electric is a lot more expensive at the moment in capital cost, not just the vehicles but especially the charging infrastructure at the depot. Massive companies like Amazon and RM can afford it, but smaller delivery operations struggle.JosiasJessop said:
A few months back I watched a review of a Ford electric Transit van. Its range was low - about 150 miles from memory. But the presenter pointed out that the vast majority of these vans do nowhere near that mileage daily, which surprised me at first until I thought about it.jamesdoyle said:
Maybe what we should legislate for is delivery vehicles being electric.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
The same with electric busses as well - I bet the new ones that run from the Park and Rides in Cambridge don't get a massive daily mileage. As a total guess, say eight miles per return journey; one journey per hour over ten hours.
For some things, electric is already the best.
I have fond memories of milk floats, was a part-time job of mine as a student to help out the local milkie. They had a couple of tonnes of lead-acid batteries, and would get stranded every so often!0 -
You have just described the system we have at presentAndy_JS said:
Because they can put prices up and customers can't get elsewhere.CorrectHorseBat said:Why exactly is a monopoly itself bad? The Tories seem to have convinced us that publicly owned monopolies are bad and yet under private ownership there's been essentially no change. No more competition, not cheaper prices etc.
Perhaps a pragmatic government should just accept some things like water are monopolies.
Indeed, and probably next was the stock response that "public bodies will always be starved of investment", that's a favourite of there's, as if it's somehow a law of physics.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
Of course, one need only look to other countries that somehow manage to invest properly in public services – although that is clear Furrin Magick, or summat.0 -
Set again that, a lot of the Conservative voters of 2019 must be incredibly soft- as you've said.david_herdson said:On topic, while I'd be wary of backing Labour for a majority at the 1/2 odds available at present (at best), I do think it's well over a 50% chance.
Remember that the 2019 Con voters included a lot of first-time Con voters, motivated by Brexit and Corbyn. One of those is 'done', and while done quickly it was not done well, and the other is history. On top of which, the Tories have been an absolute shambles in office, Ukraine and - to a degree - Covid apart. It is entirely reasonable to think that many of the DKs will just sit it out.
The comparison with 1997 is instructive. The Labour vote only increased by around 2m but the Tory one dropped by some 5m. I think it's entirely plausible that something similar will happen next year (though of course Labour is starting this next election way further back than it did under Blair).
And compared with here and now, the last days of Major were a model of competent and humane government.
(The question is whether the party will fall apart over everything in the way that Team 97 did over Europe. Conservatives don't do imminent defeat well, in general.)0 -
Yup - taxis are another classic for this. 100 miles is a big day for many taxis.JosiasJessop said:
A few months back I watched a review of a Ford electric Transit van. Its range was low - about 150 miles from memory. But the presenter pointed out that the vast majority of these vans do nowhere near that mileage daily, which surprised me at first until I thought about it.jamesdoyle said:
Maybe what we should legislate for is delivery vehicles being electric.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
The same with electric busses as well - I bet the new ones that run from the Park and Rides in Cambridge don't get a massive daily mileage. As a total guess, say eight miles per return journey; one journey per hour over ten hours.
For some things, electric is already the best.
Amazon are moving to an all electric fleet for their delivery vans, IIRC.
The various parcel delivery systems and their combinations are actually heavily optimised - the amount Amazon spends on RM delivery vs their own vans varies according to closely monitored numbers, for example.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
It’s the letters part of the system where there are problems.2 -
Some Oxford colleges are asking for all deliveries to be sent to a warehouse on the outskirts and a consolidate last mile delivery will be done in an environmental way every evening..SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.3 -
I always turn mine off. In fact, I've a mind to hacking the car to turn it off permanently (apparently it is only a single bit flip).Sandpit said:
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.Dura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
It has a habit of turning the engine off when coasting to a junction - particularly roundabouts. I lose power steering and cannot pull out swiftly if required. It is thus quite dangerous.
Also, after having had an unexpected starter motor failure in the middle lane of the M62, I don't even like turning the engine off when stuck in a queue on a main road unless it is a 'people wandering about the central reservation' type stoppage.1 -
If Sunak stays, I would see Labour getting a majority. If he goes, then all bets are off, as what happens next is an unknown quantity. The new leader could be better, or *gulps* worse.OnlyLivingBoy said:I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
0 -
On that night in 1997 I went to a General Election party where the intention was that you took a drink for each seat the Tories lost. It rapidly became clear that this was a very foolish idea.Alphabet_Soup said:
I blame myself for this. Went for a slap-up Mayday lunch with an old friend and by 6pm we were both too pissed to go home and vote. Viewed the Adoration of Saint Tony through a monumental hangover that has never really gone away.DoubleCarpet said:
A wave of enthusiasm that saw turnout drop by over 6%?Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.5 -
That must have made you lait on occasion.Sandpit said:
Yes, except that electric is a lot more expensive at the moment in capital cost, not just the vehicles but especially the charging infrastructure at the depot. Massive companies like Amazon and RM can afford it, but smaller delivery operations struggle.JosiasJessop said:
A few months back I watched a review of a Ford electric Transit van. Its range was low - about 150 miles from memory. But the presenter pointed out that the vast majority of these vans do nowhere near that mileage daily, which surprised me at first until I thought about it.jamesdoyle said:
Maybe what we should legislate for is delivery vehicles being electric.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
The same with electric busses as well - I bet the new ones that run from the Park and Rides in Cambridge don't get a massive daily mileage. As a total guess, say eight miles per return journey; one journey per hour over ten hours.
For some things, electric is already the best.
I have fond memories of milk floats, was a part-time job of mine as a student to help out the local milkie. They had a couple of tonnes of lead-acid batteries, and would get stranded every so often!2 -
On topic
0 -
On topic, voters who switch between Labour and Conservative are a rare breed. This whole swing malarkey is really an incorrect interpretation of rising and falling differential turnout between the two camps.
The 2019 first time Tories will go back to being non-voters, with a tranche of One Nation types also staying at home, while the 2019 abstainers will be back to vote Labour.
Well that's what I reckon, anyway.2 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
On topic
Similarly on topic:Sunil_Prasannan said:On topic
Lots of days since CON led an opinion poll!2 -
Yes, my last point was that while the 1997 comparison may be valid in many ways, even if Starmer makes as many gains as Blair, he'd only end up with a majority in the forties. FWIW, I think it's quite likely that Labour will make that many gains, in part because they have a soft opposition to go at in Scotland too (though Rutherford & Hamilton West will be an interesting and important test of that theory).Stuartinromford said:
Set again that, a lot of the Conservative voters of 2019 must be incredibly soft- as you've said.david_herdson said:On topic, while I'd be wary of backing Labour for a majority at the 1/2 odds available at present (at best), I do think it's well over a 50% chance.
Remember that the 2019 Con voters included a lot of first-time Con voters, motivated by Brexit and Corbyn. One of those is 'done', and while done quickly it was not done well, and the other is history. On top of which, the Tories have been an absolute shambles in office, Ukraine and - to a degree - Covid apart. It is entirely reasonable to think that many of the DKs will just sit it out.
The comparison with 1997 is instructive. The Labour vote only increased by around 2m but the Tory one dropped by some 5m. I think it's entirely plausible that something similar will happen next year (though of course Labour is starting this next election way further back than it did under Blair).
And compared with here and now, the last days of Major were a model of competent and humane government.
(The question is whether the party will fall apart over everything in the way that Team 97 did over Europe. Conservatives don't do imminent defeat well, in general.)0 -
A wave of apathy from the more committed (i.e. would never vote Labour, maybe occasionally Plaid Cymru, HYUFD approved) Tories, then?DoubleCarpet said:
A wave of enthusiasm that saw turnout drop by over 6%?Alanbrooke said:
Blair came in on a wave of enthusiasm Starmer enthuses no one. Turnout could be stunted compared to the last GESirNorfolkPassmore said:It seems to me that Starmer recognises the point raised by OGH. His reshuffle and recent policy shifts are all aimed at shifting voters from the DK/Won't column to Labour.
The alternative strategy would be to rely on depressed Tory turnout and enthusiasm from the Labour core. But we've seen that fail in the recent past, and it isn't terribly credible coming from a base as bad as Corbyn left him in 2019.0 -
Love to know who you think would be able to get middle of the road Tories more likely to vote than Sunak...Luckyguy1983 said:
If Sunak stays, I would see Labour getting a majority. If he goes, then all bets are off, as what happens next is an unknown quantity. The new leader could be better, or *gulps* worse.OnlyLivingBoy said:I feel like with this latest crisis the government has crossed the Rubicon into the kind of territory where there is no way back. I wouldn't bet against a Labour majority.
There are a few options that could get right wing UKIP voters out to vote Tory but I don't think that would help them in winnable seats..0 -
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.3 -
Opinium takes a particular approach to the allocation of don't knows which is favourable to the Conservatives as it is mainly ex conservative voters who do not know.CorrectHorseBat said:
Opinium for the last time INCLUDES swingbackVerulamius said:Let's take the recent Opinium poll that the header is derived from.
It has the conservatives on 28%. This is towards the top for current polling.
Labour are on 42%; this is at the lower end of current polling.
Keeping other parties the same for Labour to not get an overall majority would need conservatives to gain at least 4% to 32% and Labour to lose 4% to 38%.
Conservatives were last at or above 32% in September last year before the fiscal statement with Opinium. Similarly with Labour on 38%.
It's been almost a year since then.
What reasons would anyone vote conservative at the next election who is not planning to now? Is that sufficient for a 4% increase in the conservative vote?
This is why the conservative % is at the higher range of polls and the Labour % at the lower.
My point still stands though; if you take another polling house you might need a 6% increase in Conservative vote and a 6% decrease in Labour vote to get to 32|38.
What would cause such a significant shift in votes?
In most general elections there tends to be a swing back to the rulling party but that is because they can control the agenda better than the opposition.
Are the Conservatives in that position?
0 -
It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.BartholomewRoberts said:
That's debatable.Eabhal said:
Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.Anabobazina said:
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".
Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.
Common sense should apply here I think.0 -
I don't do anything as I don't deliver Chinese tat for a living. I'm just saying that starting a diesel vehicle a hundred times a day is asking for trouble and that’s why the drivers don't do it.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second1 -
I assume Hermes Evri* are the greenest delivery company as they appear not to stop, but just lob the parcel through the vehicle window in the vague direction of your (if they're having a good day) house as they go past?Malmesbury said:
The stop/start damage is a thing. There is also a spike in pollution when you start an ICE. Catalytic converters take time to warm up etc.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
This is nicely solved by electric delivery vehicles which don’t mind such usages patterns.
*replace with most hated courier as appropriate, if anyone hates one more than Evri2 -
December 6th 2021, R+W.londonpubman said:1 -
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.SandyRentool said:
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.0 -
Some manufacturers just implement stop/go in the ecu without any hardware changes. Hence why starters are a consumable item in Ford Rangers.Sandpit said:
They should buy vehicles designed for stop/go operation, with appropriate battery/starter/ignition systems. The technology’s been in cars for a decade now - although I always turn it off as well, don’t trust it to suddenly fire up the engine on the throttle as the lights go green in front.Dura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
1 -
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.SandyRentool said:
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.1 -
If a driver is stood next to the vehicle, have they left it unattended?RobD said:
It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.BartholomewRoberts said:
That's debatable.Eabhal said:
Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.Anabobazina said:
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".
Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.
Common sense should apply here I think.
If a driver gets out, picks up their parcel they're dropping off, puts it in front of the door, rings the bell, takes a photo to show they've dropped it off and then is back in their car all within a minute and without ever leaving sight of their vehicle, then have they actually left it unattended?
I don't know incidentally, genuinely asking a question. I always switch my vehicle off if I'm leaving it, but then I'm not doing deliveries.0 -
It's coming up to the one year anniversary, later this month, of the last time Labour *didn't* have a double-digit lead in any UK/GB opinion poll.londonpubman said:Sunil_Prasannan said:On topic
Similarly on topic:Sunil_Prasannan said:On topic
Lots of days since CON led an opinion poll!1 -
It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".0 -
A
You’re assuming the vans are 1/5 full or less.SandyRentool said:
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.SandyRentool said:
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.2 -
Mid-Bedfordshire by-election date is 19th October according to the BBC.0
-
True story – a neighbour once dropped off a parcel for me 'delivered' by Evri, after finding it lobbed in her hedge – she lives five doors around the corner on a different street.Selebian said:
I assume Hermes Evri* are the greenest delivery company as they appear not to stop, but just lob the parcel through the vehicle window in the vague direction of your (if they're having a good day) house as they go past?Malmesbury said:
The stop/start damage is a thing. There is also a spike in pollution when you start an ICE. Catalytic converters take time to warm up etc.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
This is nicely solved by electric delivery vehicles which don’t mind such usages patterns.
*replace with most hated courier as appropriate, if anyone hates one more than Evri1 -
Lots of people on this forum seem to own cars that don't work0
-
No, its not obvious, you only think its obvious as you are superficially paying attention only to the top of the iceberg.SandyRentool said:
It's obvious. Each van travels five times the distance. More time, more fuel, more traffic. And there wouldn't be five depots with a single integrated delivery system.BartholomewRoberts said:
Why? If each van is full when it departs its depot, then the same number of vans is needed either way.SandyRentool said:
Nonsense. Five vans driving around five housing estates, delivering 20% of the parcels to each is a ridiculous set up when the alternative is one van delivering all of the parcels on each estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
If the five vans are eg coming from five different depots, then how is it more efficient to unnecessarily move the goods to the one central depot, resort the goods yet again, then send out five vans still as a secondary step, now from another hub? How does that actually improve matters?
Sometimes what may seem inefficient above the surface can actually be supremely efficient below the surface, or vice-versa.
Sometimes a well run, well regulated monopoly is best. Avoiding unnecessary duplication is a good thing.
The iceberg effect is worth remembering for almost any business or industry. The visible bit you are seeing is only a tiny fraction of what is happening and what happens below the surface matters.
No, each van doesn't travel five times the distance. If the bulk of the distance is primarily between the depot and the relevant postcode area, then going to five neighbouring estates within the same postcode area is miniscule 'extra' mileage. Being efficient getting from A to B is the bulk of the relevant efficiency, not from B1 to B4.
I can get 4 different deliveries to my house in the same day. But if those 4 deliveries are coming from 4 different places - and if those vans are all filled with drop offs near to me - then each of those vans is operating efficiently.0 -
Funnily enough our Hermes/Evri delivery service is superb but that is 100% down to the great bloke that covers our area - he's brilliant. Unfortunately, whenever he goes on holiday we get the service Evri-one else does and it's utter chaos.Selebian said:
I assume Hermes Evri* are the greenest delivery company as they appear not to stop, but just lob the parcel through the vehicle window in the vague direction of your (if they're having a good day) house as they go past?Malmesbury said:
The stop/start damage is a thing. There is also a spike in pollution when you start an ICE. Catalytic converters take time to warm up etc.Anabobazina said:
Polluting the streets as you do, very nice of youDura_Ace said:
500-800 CCA to start a diesel engine. That is a lot of load on the battery/voltage reg if you are doing it a hundred times a day. I'd leave it running.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
This is nicely solved by electric delivery vehicles which don’t mind such usages patterns.
*replace with most hated courier as appropriate, if anyone hates one more than Evri
He now warns us when he's going on holiday and Mrs. P. takes a 'holiday' from eBay.2 -
That's got nothing to do with the definition of "unnecessarily" is. To me unattended means not in the immediate vicinity of, i.e. next to.BartholomewRoberts said:
If a driver is stood next to the vehicle, have they left it unattended?RobD said:
It doesn't matter what unnecessarily means, the first part of the rule says you shouldn't leave a car unattended with the engine running. The unnecessarily bit is when you are in it.BartholomewRoberts said:
That's debatable.Eabhal said:
Already is I think - a "must not" in the Highway Code.Anabobazina said:
The engine running thing from deliverymen is effing maddening and should be made illegal IMOBlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
Rule 123
The driver and the environment. You MUST NOT leave a parked vehicle unattended with the engine running or leave a vehicle engine running unnecessarily while that vehicle is stationary on a public road. Generally, if the vehicle is stationary and is likely to remain so for more than a couple of minutes, you should apply the parking brake and switch off the engine to reduce emissions and noise pollution. However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
The question is what is "unnecessarily". Eg in midwinter I will start my engine a couple of minutes before leaving the house, to warm it up and defrost everything, that is I would say "necessary".
Similarly if you're stepping out of the car for 30 seconds to drop a parcel then getting back is it unnecessary to leave it running? At first glance would have thought so, but on second thought given the damage stop/start can cause and the further reference to "... more than a couple of minutes ..." in the rule, then arguably a delivery person doing their job falls under necessary.
Common sense should apply here I think.
If a driver gets out, picks up their parcel they're dropping off, puts it in front of the door, rings the bell, takes a photo to show they've dropped it off and then is back in their car all within a minute and without ever leaving sight of their vehicle, then have they actually left it unattended?
I don't know incidentally, genuinely asking a question. I always switch my vehicle off if I'm leaving it, but then I'm not doing deliveries.0 -
.
Its the only answer, yes.Eabhal said:
It's part of the reason the roads are clogged up. A large chunk of the additional mileage in the last few years, particularly on minor roads, is delivery vans.BartholomewRoberts said:
Because multiple parcel vans are efficient. They mean that you can get whatever you want same or next day far quicker than getting it posted via Royal Mail.SandyRentool said:
Well said.BlancheLivermore said:I think we should renationalise Royal Mail
But The Crown should own it, rather than the government - “Royal” shouldn’t just be a deceptive trademark
It should be an NPO near monopoly; it could price itself cheap enough to take out all of the competition
I already deliver loads of Amazon parcels because we’re cheaper than getting their own drivers to do it
We’re obliged to deliver to every house on our routes every day; why have five more vans visiting your street every day delivering parcels?
Every other delivery van I’ve seen on my post routes has always left the engine running while they deliver their parcel. Why do they do this? Starting an engine takes one second
I remember making the point about the inefficiency of multiple parcels vans right here a number of years ago, only to be castigated by the capitalist herd, telling me that I didn't understand the efficiencies of the free market.
If the alternative is instead of having a private parcel van that's doing 30-40 deliveries all in the same postcode area is each of those people makes a trip to the shops, then that's less efficient.
Of course, your answer will be "mOre RoAdS".
Each of those delivery vans is typically operating efficiently, businesses spend a fortune to ensure its efficient. Its the consumers who have decided that instead of going to the shops and buying everything once a week in one shopping trip, that buying an individual item when they want/need it is what they'll do instead.
Unless you want to lower customer service back to 20th century and mean that people have to travel to the shops, then we need the roads to work for people and what they're buying.0 -
I agree. I think the motivations of the DKs have been misrepresented in the thread header by the comment "they are not saying they will not vote in the next election". It implies too strongly that most of them will end up voting.david_herdson said:On topic, while I'd be wary of backing Labour for a majority at the 1/2 odds available at present (at best), I do think it's well over a 50% chance.
Remember that the 2019 Con voters included a lot of first-time Con voters, motivated by Brexit and Corbyn. One of those is 'done', and while done quickly it was not done well, and the other is history. On top of which, the Tories have been an absolute shambles in office, Ukraine and - to a degree - Covid apart. It is entirely reasonable to think that many of the DKs will just sit it out.
The comparison with 1997 is instructive. The Labour vote only increased by around 2m but the Tory one dropped by some 5m. I think it's entirely plausible that something similar will happen next year (though of course Labour is starting this next election way further back than it did under Blair).
Of the 29% of 2019 Con voters who are now "Wont Vote/DKs", only 3% answered "Won't vote". It would be ludicrously low to think that anything like as little as only 3% of 2019 Conservatives won't vote given all the antics that their once favoured party has been through since. As all of those former voters are clearly disillusioned with the Conservative Party they backed in 2019, surely a lot more will end up not voting at all.
Delving into the Opinium tables, there's some evidence that the eventual outcome will be non-voting. Of the 2019 Con voters, apart from the 3% down as "don't vote", there's another 15% who put their chances of voting at 50/50 or less. There won't be a perfect overlap with the "don't knows", but given that disillusionment often fosters apathy it's surely going to be quite strong. And on the other hand if there are at present any significant numbers of disillusioned 2019 Conservative voters who doesn't yet know their voting intention despite being highly motivated to vote, I'd guess that a fair few of them will be highly motivated to vote the Conservatives out but have yet to decide which other party to support in order to do that.
2
