One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
The bike will be the cheap bit, depending on injury, loss of earnings etc
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
So your aunt and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist and the cyclist can't have seen your aunt's car.
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
That was unwise in terms of the cyclist's own safety, but it's not the same as being at fault. Ultimately, the driver cut across traffic which had priority in circumstances where they saw a friendly but wrong hand gesture, but couldn't actually see whether or not there was traffic on the cycle lane they were cutting across.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
Indeed. Drones, as DavidL says, are revolutionary, but part of the reason they are revolutionary is that they're cheap. It's not just about spending more money, it's about how we spend it. We have allies, in Ukraine and in fellow NATO member Turkey, who are experts now in drone warfare. We can learn from them.
Making decision and doing things quicker - both on and off the battlefield.
Take artillery - the British military is still wedded to the idea that you line up your SPGs, set up the tea tent, have a conference, start shooting. They talk about shoot and scoot, but...
Instead of trying to add armour to the SPG - the Americans got to the stage of speccing an SPG heavier than a tank - the world is moving to systems that can stop, shoot and be gone in seconds.
Archer - which we are using as an interim, while a Proper System is specced to Unique British Requirements - is much much cheaper, has lower maintenance costs and manning requirements.
I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but didn't think either came across very well and gave what I saw a 0-0 draw. I thought Sunak was rude, spoke over Starmer too often and should have been put in his box by the moderator. Starmer was just dull 9no surprise), but I thought a couple of times he showed some fire when refuting lies from Sunak that had clearly riled him.
More interestingly, my daughter, who is much less political than me and probably more right wing (but still liberal) than her peers, thought Sunak was "very irritating".
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
Not sure. If the guy has a four grand bike he'll be onto a lawyer asap I'm afraid. Probably has it included as part of his insurance.
FWIW, your aunt should be up front with her insurer about it. The driver who hit my partner was not prosecuted by the police due to lack of evidence, but failed to respond to their insurer when my partner's lawyer issued the claim. This has left the driver pretty much uninsurable, which the police considered a decent outcome in the circs.
Thanks (and thanks all). My aunt is v happy to make amends, even if legally she was in the right (which it seems she wasn't by the comments here).
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
So this is the problem for Sunak. Objectively, the £2,000 is brilliant politics.
But there is such a Sunak-is-sh*t meme, any policy or line at all, even ones that have near universal support like National Service, turn to dust the moment he touches them.
Free owls? What about the poor mice you sadistic wee ****
One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
How can he breach the civil service code? He’s not a civil servant.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I believe being flashed/gestured to carry on with a manoeuvre by another vehicle is a no-no (ie we’re supposed to ignore them), though of course we all do it.
I'm currently teaching my partner's daughter to drive, and this is a timely reminder why you should never rely on indications by other drivers; always check yourself. I'll be sure to impress that on her when I take her out later today.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
Indeed. Drones, as DavidL says, are revolutionary, but part of the reason they are revolutionary is that they're cheap. It's not just about spending more money, it's about how we spend it. We have allies, in Ukraine and in fellow NATO member Turkey, who are experts now in drone warfare. We can learn from them.
Making decision and doing things quicker - both on and off the battlefield.
Take artillery - the British military is still wedded to the idea that you line up your SPGs, set up the tea tent, have a conference, start shooting. They talk about shoot and scoot, but...
Instead of trying to add armour to the SPG - the Americans got to the stage of speccing an SPG heavier than a tank - the world is moving to systems that can stop, shoot and be gone in seconds.
Archer - which we are using as an interim, while a Proper System is specced to Unique British Requirements - is much much cheaper, has lower maintenance costs and manning requirements.
Actually, quite a degree of scepticism is reported regarding "shoot and scoot" in Ukraine, particularly for tube artillery (it makes sense for longer range HIMARS). Stuff near the front is particularly vulnerable to FPV drones, and embedding artillery is often preferred (reportedly).
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Quite right. I was obliged to have BUPA for work but they are useless for anything really serious and for minor things it's only useful for queue jumping or having a more comfortable bed if you need an overnight stay
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
The bike will be the cheap bit, depending on injury, loss of earnings etc
No injury, he's fine, shouted at her, then apologised for shouting. All terribly decent. Just wondered what the process was and whether the speed was a mitigating factor.
If I was driving a car and undertook (perfectly legitimately) in stationary traffic because my lane was clear and hit another car turning across me would I say it was their or my fault.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
In which case, I shall tell you to fuck off. And when you have fucked off, fuck off some more.
Charming!
Did you read Cyclefree’s thread, or should she fuck off too?
What is your experience of sexism against women that puts you in a position to explain to a women that her views are “silly”?
This is a site where we discuss politics. You posted something I disagreed with, and I posted a response.
You did not argue with my response; and instead just said 'mansplaining', which I don't think I was.
It does, however, sound as though you are trying to silence any pro-trans voice. Since the majority of them on here are male, you can just shout 'mansplaining!' at them.
You also put 'silly woman' in quotes, which I did not say. I said it was a 'rather silly thing to say'. There's a rather large difference between saying someone said something silly, and calling them a 'silly woman'.
You therefore misquoted and misrepresented me.
You either misunderstood or misinterpreted the original post which was about left wing men’s reaction to women’s request to have the current ambiguity in the Equality Act clarified - dismissing it as trivial compared to other issues women face. Which was the point of the original post. I would recommend Cyclefree’s thread when you have a moment - as you point out there are few women on this group - ever wondered why?
Yes, and there should be more women. Mrs J would be a valuable contributor - although I don't think you'd like what she has to say on trans issues. I do try to convince her to post, but she values her privacy.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
Not sure. If the guy has a four grand bike he'll be onto a lawyer asap I'm afraid. Probably has it included as part of his insurance.
FWIW, your aunt should be up front with her insurer about it. The driver who hit my partner was not prosecuted by the police due to lack of evidence, but failed to respond to their insurer when my partner's lawyer issued the claim. This has left the driver pretty much uninsurable, which the police considered a decent outcome in the circs.
Thanks (and thanks all). My aunt is v happy to make amends, even if legally she was in the right (which it seems she wasn't by the comments here).
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
I would snap that offer up!
However, I think you have to report the collision to the police if anyone was injured - I think that must be quite likely? And the insurer will likely require that they are informed too.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
"When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm. It is a great engineering firm but people invest in a company because they want to make money."
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
The bike will be the cheap bit, depending on injury, loss of earnings etc
No injury, he's fine, shouted at her, then apologised for shouting. All terribly decent. Just wondered what the process was and whether the speed was a mitigating factor.
If I was driving a car and undertook (perfectly legitimately) in stationary traffic because my lane was clear and hit another car turning across me would I say it was their or my fault.
Thanks again all - only on PB, etc.
Your aunt might be very lucky then!
Just double check that the insurer does not require it reported to them. Better to hear it from her than from a lawyer representing the cyclist.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
So your aunt and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist and the cyclist can't have seen your aunt's car.
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
That was unwise in terms of the cyclist's own safety, but it's not the same as being at fault. Ultimately, the driver cut across traffic which had priority in circumstances where they saw a friendly but wrong hand gesture, but couldn't actually see whether or not there was traffic on the cycle lane they were cutting across.
Yeah, that's my instinct too. Devil is in the detail though. Need to know how fast the bike was going and where it hit the car.
The hand signal is irrelevant.
My guess is that the insurance companies will call it 50/50 and do knock for knock.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
I agree with your last point. We are not going to be fighting USA, France or even China. For our prospective threats we don't need particularly state of the art kit, but rather reliable kit that is standardised enough to be produced in quantity. An aircraft carrier that struggles to leave the Solent is not a great investment.
A bit like covid though, that requires domestic manufacturing capacity, to not be subject to international whims.
They should definitely be trying to sell the aircraft carriers to India or anywhere who thinks they need them.
That's not really an option because they are both fairly shagged out. India have committed to Rafale/STOBAR. South Korea are building their own and are unlikely to be impressed by the state of the British shipbuilding art. Australia might have been a remote option if they get a sufficiently loony right wing government but AUKUS is rapidly hollowing out their naval budget,
Offer them to the new European navy ? (For nothing.)
The plan there, which will probably never amount to anything, is for the French to build a second PANG for EUMS with a Dutch/German/Belgian crew and a Spanish/Italian air wing.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
And a new Savanta poll has Starmer winning the debate.
My guess is the debate makes no difference at all. People have already decided the election.
YouGov had tons of supplementary questions where Starmer was by far the winner - on most of the issues discussed, on trust, etc. He even had something like +20% on "who did better", with Sunak on +11%. Sunak's only real win was on tax, and that may well unravel very quickly. He's certainly not going to get away with the same comments at any other debates.
Looks like people thought Sunak did ok at the debating, they just didn't like him, believe him, or change their mind on anything.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I believe being flashed/gestured to carry on with a manoeuvre by another vehicle is a no-no (ie we’re supposed to ignore them), though of course we all do it.
Legally all it means is “I am here” - reading any more into it than that is on the head of the one who acts on it - though as you write, we all interpret it as “go ahead” or “you first”.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
I agree with your last point. We are not going to be fighting USA, France or even China. For our prospective threats we don't need particularly state of the art kit, but rather reliable kit that is standardised enough to be produced in quantity. An aircraft carrier that struggles to leave the Solent is not a great investment.
A bit like covid though, that requires domestic manufacturing capacity, to not be subject to international whims.
They should definitely be trying to sell the aircraft carriers to India or anywhere who thinks they need them.
That's not really an option because they are both fairly shagged out. India have committed to Rafale/STOBAR. South Korea are building their own and are unlikely to be impressed by the state of the British shipbuilding art. Australia might have been a remote option if they get a sufficiently loony right wing government but AUKUS is rapidly hollowing out their naval budget,
Brazil? Maybe? They have proven they'll buy any old clapped out tat (Ocean) and perhaps DJT could be persuaded to sell them Wheelie Bin F-35s.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
I will suggest it. By the time I saw her last night she was several Glengoynes to the good (but was stone cold sober at the time of the incident).
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
So your aunt and the bus driver didn't see the cyclist and the cyclist can't have seen your aunt's car.
I think it ends up being one of those things but the cyclist shouldn't have been going so fast given that the rest of the traffic was stationary and there was a junction with a gap ahead..
That was unwise in terms of the cyclist's own safety, but it's not the same as being at fault. Ultimately, the driver cut across traffic which had priority in circumstances where they saw a friendly but wrong hand gesture, but couldn't actually see whether or not there was traffic on the cycle lane they were cutting across.
Yeah, that's my instinct too. Devil is in the detail though. Need to know how fast the bike was going and where it hit the car.
The hand signal is irrelevant.
My guess is that the insurance companies will call it 50/50 and do knock for knock.
Unfortunately it often doesn't seem to occur to drivers who wave on other road users or pedestrians that theirs may not be the only vehicle on the road.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
The road is two lanes wide, and the bus in one lane gestured to your aunt that he was staying put. It’s on her to check the other lane is clear as she crosses it, knowing that there’s a green light.
That said, traffic in the other lane should be prepared to stop within the distance it can see to be clear, even though it has right of way.
Your aunt’s insurance company is probably going to have to get the bike repaired.
The bike will be the cheap bit, depending on injury, loss of earnings etc
No injury, he's fine, shouted at her, then apologised for shouting. All terribly decent. Just wondered what the process was and whether the speed was a mitigating factor.
If I was driving a car and undertook (perfectly legitimately) in stationary traffic because my lane was clear and hit another car turning across me would I say it was their or my fault.
Thanks again all - only on PB, etc.
Pleased to hear it was all terribly decent, anyway. Shouting is understandable because humans are emotional creatures but good that he then backpedalled. I agree with the consensus that your aunt was, legally, at fault - the rules of the road are that the vehicle with priority is in the right in a collision - but more broadly we should all recognise that humans are fallible and accidents happen. Hope your aunt (and indeed the cyclist) isn't too shaken up by it all. Unfortunately I'd just put it down to 'these things happen'.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I believe being flashed/gestured to carry on with a manoeuvre by another vehicle is a no-no (ie we’re supposed to ignore them), though of course we all do it.
I'm currently teaching my partner's daughter to drive, and this is a timely reminder why you should never rely on indications by other drivers; always check yourself. I'll be sure to impress that on her when I take her out later today.
People flashing for you to cross on a two lane road are some of the most dangerous road users in my opinion.
I will regularly refuse, as they're essentially encouraging you to drive out blind into the second lane of oncoming traffic.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
I have a dashcam and to be honest it makes me a more careful and aware driver as I know it records everything with time and date but also records my own actions
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
And note they cherry picked the higher cost scenario in all of them.
I find it odd that the civil service has anything to do with sort of thing. Leave it to IFS etc.
Once it has been done for one Government (no idea who did rid it first but it wasn’t this lot) is has to then be offered to all for fear of not being impartial if not. I mean Starmer isn’t going to say “no” in 4/5 years is he, so those who live by the sword….
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
Whilst 51-49 allows headlines like “Sunak won debate” the big gulf between them on who related/showed empathy and who did you trust to be telling the truth, are probably longer lasting shaping the actual opinion polls than the fact Sunak sneaked narrowest of wins.
Morale boost in Tory circles likely to be short lived. Could benefit labour too like a cold milkshake in the face after 2 days staring at those MRP. Starmer and his debate team can learn a lot from analysing this first leg, and perform better in the second leg, whilst Sunak has probably used up most his armoury and tactical surprises in this one.
The instant YouGov reaction poll didn't allow those front page headlines tonight, it was the perception of the journalists who watched Starmer and Sunak's performances during the debate that framed those headlines. And while the Labour leadership team will desperately be hoping that the reaction to it will be short lived in the GE media campaign cycle, its also clear Sunak and his team finally landed their biggest strategic attack goal when it comes to the fact that so far as we the public are concerned, we still don't have a clue what detailed policies Labour are going to introduce as a Government on a whole range of issues.
Two weeks into this GE and we discover that the manifesto's are not going to be published until the last minute allowing the public little or no scrutiny before we vote?! Now it won't surprise anyone on here that knows me that I won't be voting Labour, but a detailed policy heads up from the party who has been in Opposition for the last 14 years, and who according to the polls are heading for a record landslide victory in the GE in four weeks time of their plans for the country over the next 4/5 years would still be useful to all of us.
And as a footnote, the leadership debate tonight and Sunak's performance also totally knocked Farage's trip to Clacton and the milkshake incident off the front pages too. Its clear that Reform under Tice were simple not going to get the UK wide media coverage needed to paper over the gaps in their last minute on the ground individual constituency operations in many constituencies and Farage has been persuaded to stand & become party leader to try to make Reform seem more relevant in the UK political GE media cycle to compensate for that.
There you are everybody, I told you my analysis on PB is so balanced and fair it takes all these words from Tory supporters to try and say I have it wrong. 😇
Truth here, fitalass, is the debate wasn’t for benefit of journalists who love the Punch and Judy and headlines, it was for floating voters who are wondering, which of these two can I trust, which of these two understands the life I lead and problems in it - looking at it like that, gaps between Rishi and Starmer in the debate polling are huge and very stark.
I think the £2000 claim does work for Sunak. The number is invented but there is a grain of truth behind Labour taxing at least a bit more than the Conservatives.
If you think tax minimisation is the be-all-and-end-all for a government Sunak is your man. Starmer needs a better answer on why it isn't the be-all-and-all. It probably isn't for most people.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
Is SpaceX's CEO an 'engineer' ?
Her wiki page describes her as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell Gwynne Shotwell (née Rowley; born November 23, 1963[1]) is an American businesswoman and engineer. She is the president and chief operating officer of SpaceX, an American space transportation company, where she is responsible for day-to-day operations and company growth.[2]
And note they cherry picked the higher cost scenario in all of them.
I find it odd that the civil service has anything to do with sort of thing. Leave it to IFS etc.
Yes, quite. Seems bizarre that they are allowed to be involved in any shape or form.
Alistair Campbell was saying earlier that it’s a thing they used to do when in govt - they would go to the Treasury geeks and ask them to cost and test a plan without telling them it was the Tories’ plan and then if the plan was bad they would go on the airwaves savaging the plan showing the treasury had done the workings.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
Excellent thanks - and the speed was not a factor?
Unless his speed was so excessive as to be dangerous in its own right (ie doing 40mph in a domestic 30mph zone for example) I don't see how it is from any legal / right of way perspective. It might well be ill-advised (increased chance of such an event happening, and perhaps you should travel more slowly given that you know that other drivers often don't do what they should do - but that's not the same at all in terms of assigning blame / being at fault)
The debate will not have changed any minds of those who are supporting labour but where it may have an effect is on the 2019 conservative voting cohort and on those conservatives thinking of voting Reform
I do not expect any poll movement yet though the conservative v reform percentages will be the ones to watch over the next four weeks
Few comments, having finally organised myself this morning. As a result of another small step in recovery I don’t have access to a communication device on which I can write until 9.30 or so. First, on the clash with the bike, never rely on anyone else’s waves on and the like. Make sure yourself that it’s safe to proceed. That said, case as stated, it doesn’t sound as though the cyclist was blame-free; ‘riding furiously’ comes to mind. Secondly, on the debate last night, I thought Sunak went in harder and louder than Starmer was expecting. Starmer should have jumped on the £2000 tax harder and sooner. However, I came away thinking ‘Shouty Sunak’. I think we’ll hear a lot more about the £2000. Incidentally, as an OAP with an occupational pension I’m paying more tax this year than last, as is my wife. She didn’t take to Sunak at all. Thirdly, I hope TSE is progressing well. Look forward to him getting back.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
Agree with Eabhal. Your aunt, making the turn, has to ensure the road is clear. The cyclist has priority if going straight on.
Now, I'd be (and have been) cautious in such a situation, would wonder why the bus wasn't moving, would look for the reason and would also have yielded to let your aunt across if the bus driver was waiting. But, legally, has to be her fault. The turning driver has to ease across until they can see that there's nothing coming down the inside too - particularly given the cycle lane.
Imagine the cycle lane was a full lane - you'd not suggest for a moment that the bus in right hand lane (from bus POV) yielding means you don't have to check for anyone coming up the left hand lane. If there as no marked cycle lane it becomes a bit more ambiguous morally, but I think the legal answer would still be the same (cycle allowed to come up the inside and has right of way).
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
Excellent thanks - and the speed was not a factor?
Unless his speed was so excessive as to be dangerous in its own right (ie doing 40mph in a domestic 30mph zone for example) I don't see how it is from any legal / right of way perspective. It might well be ill-advised (increased chance of such an event happening, and perhaps you should travel more slowly given that you know that other drivers often don't do what they should do - but that's not the same at all in terms of assigning blame / being at fault)
Yes, I think trying to mitigate based on speed is risky because the cyclist will have it all recorded on a bike computer. IF he wasn't actually caning it then you start to look dishonest. You'd have to be 100% sure he was doing something over 30mph, which is actually quite hard work on a bike (for most).
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
As I mentioned a while back, I had a near-incident on my bike in the village. I was turning out of a junction, where a car was waiting to turn right onto my road. He waved me on, and he (and I) missed the fact that another car was going in the other lane, legally undertaking the car turning right. I got halfway across the road when the other driver saw me (his vision blocked by the other car), and we both stopped a few feet away from a collision. Fortunately it was a 20MPH zone...
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Labour made a commitment to 2.5% for Defence on April 12, in advance of the Tories. I think it very likely that we will spend the money poorly, without really thinking through what is needed for modern war.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades now. Hopefully a realisation of what a modern defensive war actually looks like, will start to drive future decision-making.
A good starting point would be for everyone in NATO to agree to streamline common procurement, and that most of the increased budgets be spent on a limited number of specific areas such as small drones and artillery ammunition. Each country needs to stop re-inventing the wheel for its own specific requirements, and to please its own vested interests.
The current problem isn’t the state of technology, it’s the sheer numbers of equipment required. Having 50 brand new next-gen main battle tanks, means little when you lose half a dozen per day. Let’s build 500 of the last-gen version instead, and half a million rounds of ammo for them.
A significant issue is that warfare can change very rapidly. For nearly twenty years we were fighting insurgencies in two countries, so we pivoted our military more to fight that. Whereas now we're back to a conventional-war-in-Europe style situation - one we're even more unsuited for because of the last couple of decades of insurgency fighting.
Even an economy the size of the US's finds it hard to cover all possible scenarios. Should they concentrate on forces at sea to counter China over Taiwan, or land forces to counter Russia?
It's always the question: which threat(s) should we concentrate on? And the threats are not always visible, except with hindsight after the event.
Then there's the sad old fact that technology is costly to develop, buy, run and maintain, and modern weapons systems are massively complex. And might be destroyed by a new weapon (e.g. drones) that cost a hundredth or thousandth the cost.
I'm unsure what the answer is: more flexibility perhaps, and an improved domestic infrastructure. But I cannot conceive of a way we can match all the potential threats there are.
The answer is that the defence industry needs to learn the lesson of the space industry. Making everything slower and more expensive, then saying “military equipment inflation” and shrugging isn’t going to cut it anymore
I like the comparison to the space industry, and the way the old school was turned upside-down by the new startups in under a decade. Boeing postponed their launch again last week, as SpaceX launched three times at a fraction of the cost.
Everyone’s building bigger and better tanks and air defences, and the Ukranians are now eating their lunch with $1k use-once grenade drones that can blow a $10m tank half way to the moon.
The other lesson from Boeing (and SpaceX) is having engineers at the top table matters. Being run by bean counters obsessed by costs and subsisting on Pentagon subsidies leads eventually to doors falling off.
Good point. IIRC the SpaceX senior management is almost all engineers, including the maverick chairman. The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
Is SpaceX's CEO an 'engineer' ?
Her wiki page describes her as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell Gwynne Shotwell (née Rowley; born November 23, 1963[1]) is an American businesswoman and engineer. She is the president and chief operating officer of SpaceX, an American space transportation company, where she is responsible for day-to-day operations and company growth.[2]
I meant Musky Baby, who I don't particularly see as being an engineer. Shotwell certainly is IMO, and does not get the credit she deserves for SpaceX's success.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
Excellent thanks - and the speed was not a factor?
Unless his speed was so excessive as to be dangerous in its own right (ie doing 40mph in a domestic 30mph zone for example) I don't see how it is from any legal / right of way perspective. It might well be ill-advised (increased chance of such an event happening, and perhaps you should travel more slowly given that you know that other drivers often don't do what they should do - but that's not the same at all in terms of assigning blame / being at fault)
Yes, I think trying to mitigate based on speed is risky because the cyclist will have it all recorded on a bike computer. IF he wasn't actually caning it then you start to look dishonest. You'd have to be 100% sure he was doing something over 30mph, which is actually quite hard work on a bike (for most).
It's also pretty easy to change the .gpx file to make Strava read whatever you want...
If this latest 2k tax claim is tendentious, the truth is both main parties are as bad as each other. Not long ago, Labour was trying to turn Hunt’s vague aspiration to end NI into a 46 billion black hole. The reality is that the real black hole is the one connected to the spending plans (accepted by both main parties) that the Chair of the OBR (a more sober figure in public life it would be hard to imagine) called ‘worse than fiction’. Only when we force the parties to answer questions on this will we actually get a sense of what the next 5 years will be like for all of us.
There’s going to be a lot of people disappointed in Starmer’s Labour government, either through a lack of spending increases or tax increases - or quite possibly both.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I have sympathy for her - but your Aunt is at fault here. The cyclist had a green light and right of way. She was turning across the traffic and should ensure that it was clear before proceeding. Whilst the bus driver wasn't helpful (to put it mildly), his indication was simply that he wasn't going anywhere and she was free to cross in front of him. She should have moved such that she was in front of the bus, and edging out into the potential cyclists path until she could see that the full width of the road was clear to cross.
Excellent thanks - and the speed was not a factor?
Unless his speed was so excessive as to be dangerous in its own right (ie doing 40mph in a domestic 30mph zone for example) I don't see how it is from any legal / right of way perspective. It might well be ill-advised (increased chance of such an event happening, and perhaps you should travel more slowly given that you know that other drivers often don't do what they should do - but that's not the same at all in terms of assigning blame / being at fault)
Yes, I think trying to mitigate based on speed is risky because the cyclist will have it all recorded on a bike computer. IF he wasn't actually caning it then you start to look dishonest. You'd have to be 100% sure he was doing something over 30mph, which is actually quite hard work on a bike (for most).
It's also pretty easy to change the .gpx file to make Strava read whatever you want...
Having thought about things overnight and in light of the letter from the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury... I think Starmer is a much more adept politician than the Conservative Party realises.
Starmer allowed Sunak to claim repeatedly that Labour would increase taxes by £2000 per household knowing that there was a letter from the PS to Darren Jones stating the exact opposite. Starmer gave Sunak sufficient rope and left him to finish the job. The fact that Claire Coutinho went one stage further this morning on the Today Programme is like the cherry on the cake.
In addition, there's the clip of Starmer pointing out to Sunak that the company which Sunak cites on on costs (I can't remember which topic it was) had put out an analysis of the Conservative plans and it would cost more than those of Labour. The sideways glance from Sunak to somebody off camera - slightly panicked as if to say "Why do I not know about this? What's he talking about?" suggests Starmer bluffed him again.
Two moments from last night's debate that allow Starmer to present Sunak as no different to Boris (lying) and Truss (not aware of all of the facts). Starmer is a canny operator.
Farage/Clacton is having massive cut through in my cohort btw. Almost Palestine levels.
Lots of anger about the Greens getting hundreds of council seats but no representation in the media, but this inadvertently just keeps highlighting Farage. It might boost youth turnout a little?
Labour need to do the advert with Sunak in Farage's pocket ASAP.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
When I posted this last night,
“ - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour”
I was actually wrong, it is actually based on labour policy commitments, so I need to put my hand up and admit that.
As explained on today’s more or less, it is promises, but fed into the treasury super computer in a particularly bent way to get garbage result out.
When I said it would fall apart in a couple of days, I was wrong on that too, it won’t even make it to this lunchtime before Rishi is proved a fraud for using it. 🤦♀️
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
I think the £2000 claim does work for Sunak. The number is invented but there is a grain of truth behind Labour taxing at least a bit more than the Conservatives.
If you think tax minimisation is the be-all-and-end-all for a government Sunak is your man. Starmer needs a better answer on why it isn't the be-all-and-all. It probably isn't for most people.
The problem is how do you actually say that without allowing Rishi to reply with so you will tax people even more...
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
And it's very likely that the Sun will (reluctantly) change it's mind on July 3rd / 4th because it wants to say it won it.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
When I posted this last night,
“ - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour”
I was actually wrong, it is actually based on labour policy commitments, so I need to put my hand up and admit that.
As explained on today’s more or less, it is promises, but fed into the treasury super computer in a particularly bent way to get garbage result out.
When I said it would fall apart in a couple of days, I was wrong on that too, it won’t even make it to this lunchtime before Rishi is proved a fraud for using it. 🤦♀️
I enjoyed your postings last night (and today) and think they were fair and balanced. It will be interesting to see how this day goes and who wins the news cycle.
I called the debate clearly for Sunak but the three snap polls overall give it easily to Starmer, so maybe I was wrong about that.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I believe being flashed/gestured to carry on with a manoeuvre by another vehicle is a no-no (ie we’re supposed to ignore them), though of course we all do it.
I'm currently teaching my partner's daughter to drive, and this is a timely reminder why you should never rely on indications by other drivers; always check yourself. I'll be sure to impress that on her when I take her out later today.
People flashing for you to cross on a two lane road are some of the most dangerous road users in my opinion.
I will regularly refuse, as they're essentially encouraging you to drive out blind into the second lane of oncoming traffic.
Crazy to think a professional driver did this.
I've been the cyclist in this exact scenario (replacing the bus with a tall transit van). There wasn't a marked bike lane but the road split into two lanes at the junction and was wider than the one pictured.
Driver says 'but he flashed me to go'...
Never trust someone in a white transit, but as you say, you'd think a bus driver would know better.
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think you should revisit the Sun's poll. Even among Tory 2019 voters he only gets two thirds and among all voters he's eviscerated! Unless they think their readers can't actually understand what they've written?
Team Sunak were delighted with their £2000* tax attack line on Labour after debate last night. But this morning it has become issue of honesty. Problematic.
(*over four years btw)
The bizarre bit is why is it over 4 years, rather than 5? Can't they use the same assumptions and a five year assumed term to make it £2500? Or does £2k just sound better?
I mean, if you're making shit up, why not inflate it as much as possible?
Hello. My name is Nigel. I need to get myself on TV and in the papers. I will buy you a happy meal and one milkshake. Please chuck it on me. It is better than paying for advertising on Instagram and Tik Tok etc. Many thanks. It is no problem. I am a big boy and can handle it. Shame it was not Piers Morgan who did it or Jeremy Clarkson. The three egomaniacs. It is only about them and nobody else.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
@soph_husk Backlash to Rishi Sunak’s £2,000 attack line flooding in
Chris Morris, CEO of Full Fact: "It's clearly unacceptable to present your own analysis as the conclusions of independent civil servants when it's not.
“Public trust in politics is hanging by a thread and a high-profile falsehood will turn even more people away from the democratic process. We want to see this corrected as soon as possible."
Team Sunak were delighted with their £2000* tax attack line on Labour after debate last night. But this morning it has become issue of honesty. Problematic.
(*over four years btw)
The bizarre bit is why is it over 4 years, rather than 5? Can't they use the same assumptions and a five year assumed term to make it £2500? Or does £2k just sound better?
I mean, if you're making shit up, why not inflate it as much as possible?
Has to be plausible - and I suspect the figure has been carefully focus grouped...
Team Sunak were delighted with their £2000* tax attack line on Labour after debate last night. But this morning it has become issue of honesty. Problematic.
(*over four years btw)
The bizarre bit is why is it over 4 years, rather than 5? Can't they use the same assumptions and a five year assumed term to make it £2500? Or does £2k just sound better?
I mean, if you're making shit up, why not inflate it as much as possible?
Curious. I would definitely go with £2,500 - implies more precision in your modelling.
Agree; even though two potential voters are absent due to sickness. It’s the vote on the day which counts, although the system ought to allow for such absentees.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
@soph_husk Backlash to Rishi Sunak’s £2,000 attack line flooding in
Chris Morris, CEO of Full Fact: "It's clearly unacceptable to present your own analysis as the conclusions of independent civil servants when it's not.
“Public trust in politics is hanging by a thread and a high-profile falsehood will turn even more people away from the democratic process. We want to see this corrected as soon as possible."
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Looking at that box though - I don't think it's possible to check for cyclists....
@faisalislam Number 10 stressing that the “Amount to” in the PM’s quote from last night below means that the PM did not say 2k was a civil service number… and so James Bowler letter does not contradict him…
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
As I mentioned a while back, I had a near-incident on my bike in the village. I was turning out of a junction, where a car was waiting to turn right onto my road. He waved me on, and he (and I) missed the fact that another car was going in the other lane, legally undertaking the car turning right. I got halfway across the road when the other driver saw me (his vision blocked by the other car), and we both stopped a few feet away from a collision. Fortunately it was a 20MPH zone...
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
This is one reason I am sceptical of the Highway Code's new hierarchy of risks concerning giving priority to pedestrians crossing at junctions. Since it's me who will end up in the back of an ambulance, I'm not crossing until I'm sure the driver has seen me and is slowing, and it is often impossible to tell with cyclists or motorcyclists. Other pedestrians (and cyclists) will take it as an excuse to leap into the path of moving cars because that's their right.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Maybe voters should listen to the issues and the arguments with the same sense of duty they do in a criminal trial as part of a jury.
What's interesting is that, down the pub or over dinner, many do unpack them to an extended degree. But they won't watch politicians talk about them for long and get bored.
The contrast with how we used to do political debates is very marked. Politicians treated each other with respect, didn't attempt to shout down or over the other and were given time to expound their points.
Watch just a bit of Heath and Foot debating the Common Market here:
It really is chalk and cheese in terms of quality of debate, and moderation.
Yesterday’s debate was perfect example why British democracy was reluctant for so long to import this from US. And also why those with poll leads are reluctant to throw all that hard work and arguments won into a roulette wheel days before the actual voting.
One thing it does do, which very much grates with UK Democracy and any liberal democracy, is it frames the whole election and how you should vote, into a choice between just two parties. In that sense we should question more how just two leaders can get away with having their own debate.
A favorable article about Ed Davey and the Lib Dems campaign by Alice Thomson in The Times today might be a straw in the wind.
After the rather sad "Leaders debate", I could see the Lib Dems pushing up their numbers. The Liberal Democrats are kind of the anti-Farage choice: they are a real party, with representation across all levels of politics, just came second in the locals (and let us remember that Farage basically got nothing, despite significantly better coverage). More to the point they have a really focussed and disciplined campaign.
Farage is a media balloon, as much hated and loathed as any politician. The Lib Dems are far more the "none of the above" party.
I think the Lib Dems could get to the upper end of their expectations and even into their hopes, the way things are going.
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I can.
Shouldn't you introduce yourself before opening with so trenchant an opinion ?
Yes, it's not that we don't trust you, Tabby, and you are very welcome to join in the fun, but we do see a sharp increase in the number of Russian trolls at this time of the election cycle.
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/China border, which side do you bury the dead?
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
When I posted this last night,
“ - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour”
I was actually wrong, it is actually based on labour policy commitments, so I need to put my hand up and admit that.
As explained on today’s more or less, it is promises, but fed into the treasury super computer in a particularly bent way to get garbage result out.
When I said it would fall apart in a couple of days, I was wrong on that too, it won’t even make it to this lunchtime before Rishi is proved a fraud for using it. 🤦♀️
I like this. Irrespective of one's political views, somebody can put their hand up and say "I was wrong". Call me naive, but Rishi could do worse than to follow the example of @MoonRabbit and do something similar about the "independent Treasury officials" line.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
As I mentioned a while back, I had a near-incident on my bike in the village. I was turning out of a junction, where a car was waiting to turn right onto my road. He waved me on, and he (and I) missed the fact that another car was going in the other lane, legally undertaking the car turning right. I got halfway across the road when the other driver saw me (his vision blocked by the other car), and we both stopped a few feet away from a collision. Fortunately it was a 20MPH zone...
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
Indeed. It's always worth keeping in mind that people are fallible, or may not be familiar with the road layout, or don't know exactly where they are going. When someone cuts across into the lane in front of you, they aren't usually doing it to annoy you; most likely they simply didn't realise they were in the wrong lane. While there are a few idiots around, most of us are just trying to get from A to B with as little hassle as possible, and sometimes we make mistakes.
Having thought about things overnight and in light of the letter from the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury... I think Starmer is a much more adept politician than the Conservative Party realises.
Starmer allowed Sunak to claim repeatedly that Labour would increase taxes by £2000 per household knowing that there was a letter from the PS to Darren Jones stating the exact opposite. Starmer gave Sunak sufficient rope and left him to finish the job. The fact that Claire Coutinho went one stage further this morning on the Today Programme is like the cherry on the cake.
In addition, there's the clip of Starmer pointing out to Sunak that the company which Sunak cites on on costs (I can't remember which topic it was) had put out an analysis of the Conservative plans and it would cost more than those of Labour. The sideways glance from Sunak to somebody off camera - slightly panicked as if to say "Why do I not know about this? What's he talking about?" suggests Starmer bluffed him again.
Two moments from last night's debate that allow Starmer to present Sunak as no different to Boris (lying) and Truss (not aware of all of the facts). Starmer is a canny operator.
It's a nice theory.
I hope it's true; if so, it might even make the next debate interesting. Though I confidently expect both of them to aimlessly flounder around again.
Agree; even though two potential voters are absent due to sickness. It’s the vote on the day which counts, although the system ought to allow for such absentees.
Oh the system should definitely have a way to accommodate those that are sick. It’s not the pairing system though because no party that scents a scalp will live up to pairing, Labour wouldn’t if the shoe was on the other foot.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv224x3pmv9o
One other point. If the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented a Civil-Service document for political purposes, surely that must be a potential breach of the civil-service code. He's not just put a slant on their figures. He's wrongly assigned authorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop and all that.
Making decision and doing things quicker - both on and off the battlefield.
Take artillery - the British military is still wedded to the idea that you line up your SPGs, set up the tea tent, have a conference, start shooting. They talk about shoot and scoot, but...
Instead of trying to add armour to the SPG - the Americans got to the stage of speccing an SPG heavier than a tank - the world is moving to systems that can stop, shoot and be gone in seconds.
Archer - which we are using as an interim, while a Proper System is specced to Unique British Requirements - is much much cheaper, has lower maintenance costs and manning requirements.
More interestingly, my daughter, who is much less political than me and probably more right wing (but still liberal) than her peers, thought Sunak was "very irritating".
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
And note they cherry picked the higher cost scenario in all of them.
But there is such a Sunak-is-sh*t meme, any policy or line at all, even ones that have near universal support like National Service, turn to dust the moment he touches them.
Free owls? What about the poor mice you sadistic wee ****
Stuff near the front is particularly vulnerable to FPV drones, and embedding artillery is often preferred (reportedly).
The Boeing senior management is almost all accountants and MBAs.
If I was driving a car and undertook (perfectly legitimately) in stationary traffic because my lane was clear and hit another car turning across me would I say it was their or my fault.
Thanks again all - only on PB, etc.
And I stand by my original comment.
However, I think you have to report the collision to the police if anyone was injured - I think that must be quite likely? And the insurer will likely require that they are informed too.
I would invoke @MattW at this point
Harry Fucking Stonecipher
Just double check that the insurer does not require it reported to them. Better to hear it from her than from a lawyer representing the cyclist.
[@Steven_Swinford]
The hand signal is irrelevant.
My guess is that the insurance companies will call it 50/50 and do knock for knock.
Hope we are going to get some pictures.
Looks like people thought Sunak did ok at the debating, they just didn't like him, believe him, or change their mind on anything.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
I agree with the consensus that your aunt was, legally, at fault - the rules of the road are that the vehicle with priority is in the right in a collision - but more broadly we should all recognise that humans are fallible and accidents happen. Hope your aunt (and indeed the cyclist) isn't too shaken up by it all. Unfortunately I'd just put it down to 'these things happen'.
I will regularly refuse, as they're essentially encouraging you to drive out blind into the second lane of oncoming traffic.
Crazy to think a professional driver did this.
Truth here, fitalass, is the debate wasn’t for benefit of journalists who love the Punch and Judy and headlines, it was for floating voters who are wondering, which of these two can I trust, which of these two understands the life I lead and problems in it - looking at it like that, gaps between Rishi and Starmer in the debate polling are huge and very stark.
If you think tax minimisation is the be-all-and-end-all for a government Sunak is your man. Starmer needs a better answer on why it isn't the be-all-and-all. It probably isn't for most people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell
Gwynne Shotwell (née Rowley; born November 23, 1963[1]) is an American businesswoman and engineer. She is the president and chief operating officer of SpaceX, an American space transportation company, where she is responsible for day-to-day operations and company growth.[2]
If you mean the other guy, he has degrees in both physics and economics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
I do not expect any poll movement yet though the conservative v reform percentages will be the ones to watch over the next four weeks
First, on the clash with the bike, never rely on anyone else’s waves on and the like. Make sure yourself that it’s safe to proceed. That said, case as stated, it doesn’t sound as though the cyclist was blame-free; ‘riding furiously’ comes to mind.
Secondly, on the debate last night, I thought Sunak went in harder and louder than Starmer was expecting. Starmer should have jumped on the £2000 tax harder and sooner. However, I came away thinking ‘Shouty Sunak’. I think we’ll hear a lot more about the £2000.
Incidentally, as an OAP with an occupational pension I’m paying more tax this year than last, as is my wife.
She didn’t take to Sunak at all.
Thirdly, I hope TSE is progressing well. Look forward to him getting back.
I do hope this becomes a 'thing'. Mrs DA archly observed that he should always wear a raincoat.
Now, I'd be (and have been) cautious in such a situation, would wonder why the bus wasn't moving, would look for the reason and would also have yielded to let your aunt across if the bus driver was waiting. But, legally, has to be her fault. The turning driver has to ease across until they can see that there's nothing coming down the inside too - particularly given the cycle lane.
Imagine the cycle lane was a full lane - you'd not suggest for a moment that the bus in right hand lane (from bus POV) yielding means you don't have to check for anyone coming up the left hand lane. If there as no marked cycle lane it becomes a bit more ambiguous morally, but I think the legal answer would still be the same (cycle allowed to come up the inside and has right of way).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/28309634/moments-tough-talking-rishi-won-key-voters/
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv224x3pmv9o
If this latest 2k tax claim is tendentious, the truth is both main parties are as bad as each other. Not long ago, Labour was trying to turn Hunt’s vague aspiration to end NI into a 46 billion black hole. The reality is that the real black hole is the one connected to the spending plans (accepted by both main parties) that the Chair of the OBR (a more sober figure in public life it would be hard to imagine) called ‘worse than fiction’. Only when we force the parties to answer questions on this will we actually get a sense of what the next 5 years will be like for all of us.
https://x.com/tombradby/status/1798276958016446755
There’s going to be a lot of people disappointed in Starmer’s Labour government, either through a lack of spending increases or tax increases - or quite possibly both.
Starmer allowed Sunak to claim repeatedly that Labour would increase taxes by £2000 per household knowing that there was a letter from the PS to Darren Jones stating the exact opposite. Starmer gave Sunak sufficient rope and left him to finish the job. The fact that Claire Coutinho went one stage further this morning on the Today Programme is like the cherry on the cake.
In addition, there's the clip of Starmer pointing out to Sunak that the company which Sunak cites on on costs (I can't remember which topic it was) had put out an analysis of the Conservative plans and it would cost more than those of Labour. The sideways glance from Sunak to somebody off camera - slightly panicked as if to say "Why do I not know about this? What's he talking about?" suggests Starmer bluffed him again.
Two moments from last night's debate that allow Starmer to present Sunak as no different to Boris (lying) and Truss (not aware of all of the facts). Starmer is a canny operator.
Lots of anger about the Greens getting hundreds of council seats but no representation in the media, but this inadvertently just keeps highlighting Farage. It might boost youth turnout a little?
Labour need to do the advert with Sunak in Farage's pocket ASAP.
“ - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour”
I was actually wrong, it is actually based on labour policy commitments, so I need to put my hand up and admit that.
As explained on today’s more or less, it is promises, but fed into the treasury super computer in a particularly bent way to get garbage result out.
If you got time to listen to first 5 minutes https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zv06
When I said it would fall apart in a couple of days, I was wrong on that too, it won’t even make it to this lunchtime before Rishi is proved a fraud for using it. 🤦♀️
But the Sun is not the force it was.
https://x.com/JLPartnersPolls/status/1798258155391942656
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction
- moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
I called the debate clearly for Sunak but the three snap polls overall give it easily to Starmer, so maybe I was wrong about that.
I guess we'll see if it has much effect on VI.
Driver says 'but he flashed me to go'...
Never trust someone in a white transit, but as you say, you'd think a bus driver would know better.
I mean, if you're making shit up, why not inflate it as much as possible?
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
Backlash to Rishi Sunak’s £2,000 attack line flooding in
Chris Morris, CEO of Full Fact: "It's clearly unacceptable to present your own analysis as the conclusions of independent civil servants when it's not.
“Public trust in politics is hanging by a thread and a high-profile falsehood will turn even more people away from the democratic process. We want to see this corrected as soon as possible."
@AndrewSparrow
Why Treasury says it cannot endorse claim Labour would raise taxes by £2,000
The Treasury says Sunak is a liar. That's the headline Labour wanted.
Shouldn't you introduce yourself before opening with so trenchant an opinion ?
@faisalislam
Number 10 stressing that the “Amount to” in the PM’s quote from last night below means that the PM did not say 2k was a civil service number… and so James Bowler letter does not contradict him…
One thing it does do, which very much grates with UK Democracy and any liberal democracy, is it frames the whole election and how you should vote, into a choice between just two parties. In that sense we should question more how just two leaders can get away with having their own debate.
After the rather sad "Leaders debate", I could see the Lib Dems pushing up their numbers. The Liberal Democrats are kind of the anti-Farage choice: they are a real party, with representation across all levels of politics, just came second in the locals (and let us remember that Farage basically got nothing, despite significantly better coverage). More to the point they have a really focussed and disciplined campaign.
Farage is a media balloon, as much hated and loathed as any politician. The Lib Dems are far more the "none of the above" party.
I think the Lib Dems could get to the upper end of their expectations and even into their hopes, the way things are going.
Can anyone explain how JL have such different results on the debate to YouGov?
If a plane crashes on the Ukraine/China border, which side do you bury the dead?
thanks again
So embarrassing but not Humza-style career ending.
I hope it's true; if so, it might even make the next debate interesting.
Though I confidently expect both of them to aimlessly flounder around again.