Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Can't say I remember too many IRA mainland bombings being exclusively aimed at property.
Poor Kemi. Strived for the role she always wanted only to find out she's crap at it. Any sensible person would exit gracefully to preserve their longer term prospects.
What is it about the modern Tory party that gives you Kemi, Truss and Boris. Does reading the Telegraph cause brain damage?
Boris did actually win a general election and of course Farage now leads the polls
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
As we are only at 2.6% by 2027, Starmer and Reeves are going to have to explain where the money is coming from
No, they aren't. They'll say they'll do it then not do it, as will many other countries. What will NATO do about it? Nothing.
Trump withdraws from NATO and then what ?
The EU will have autonomy and the US will be less resentful of the freeloaders with whom it no longer shares the same strategic objectives. Better for both parties.
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
Very true, same with mobile phone and domestic WiFi.
I also found with car insurance changing from being a wage slave to retired dropped my premiums, even though I only ever drove to work when the weather meant I couldn’t, or wouldn’t, cycle. So in the summer I could go,several weeks without driving to work.
Did I mention that London property is about to crater?
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
And add Starmer should also be wary of Trump. I don't expect an Iran war to be any more popular in the UK.
Some Trumpian mouthpiece just on R4 saying bombing Iran was polling well with folks back home. Real as opposed to fake polls I guess.
“At war” and a single night of limited bombing aimed at WMD facilities are qualitatively not the same thing, as you (and AOC) well understand.
It presents an interesting alt-history actually. Imagine if we had none of Colin Powell and Blair’s UN shenanigans. And W had just sent in B2s to take out the most notable legacy WMD sites in a night or three - Desert Fox v2. That old b*stare Hussein would probably be sat on his golden toilet sending out viral tweets.
Thank goodness none of the definitely not at war US hierarchy are mentioning regime change.
There should be regime change and pressure towards it.
I enjoy when people draw conclusions on what an insular Islamic regime in Iran is going to do as retaliation based on how traders in London and Tokyo price things.
'The markets' are as clueless as us on what happens next.
As far as I can see oil prices have failed to react to the Iran War developments over the weekend. So the market either believes that Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, will be unable to do so, or that there is enough capacity elsewhere to make up the difference.
Any other explanations?
I would have thought that, even if the market thought there was only a 20% chance of closure, that would command a hefty risk premium on the current price. So, is this just market complacency, or am I missing something big?
Iran have been shown to have all the power of a senile geriatric who can not open a wet paper bag.
The capability to close the Strait is completely different to that to hit Israel directly. Might it be a mistake to generalise from one to the other?
No.
If they try to close the Strait then America will come down on them like a tonne of bricks, and they have no air defences.
They're unable to cope with Israel who are flying unimpeded in their air space, how do you think they are they going to cope with an irate America who wants the Strait reopened?
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good option for them to close the Strait, but you would agree that Ian was seeking a nuclear weapon, yes?
And nuclear weapons mostly operate on the principle of deterrence, the promise that you will inflict annihilation on the enemy, even if that invites annihilation on return, as deterrence against attack, right?
But if Iran are unwilling to close the Strait in response to the destruction of their nuclear facilities, then they've shown themselves unwilling to follow through on a deterrence threat. It makes a nuclear weapon much less useful for them, because one would doubt that they'd use it.
Some of this might come down to good old fashioned capability. Can Iran close Hormuz for any length of time that makes it worthwhile before action (diplomatic or military) reopens it? At the moment they are using up all their weaponry on Israel, while Israel now have air superiority.
If I had to guess they’re going to hit a US base somewhere: probably 50/50 as to whether they give advance notice or not.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Can't say I remember too many IRA mainland bombings being exclusively aimed at property.
They used to call and give a code word allowing for evacuation. They didn’t much care if that failed and there were casualties, but it helped their cause not to kill civilians.
Political assassinations and murders of police officers were a different matter of course.
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
It depends on whether you think Lidar achieves something for this use case that Vision AI cannot.
This my theory:
We're much more accepting of human beings making mistakes than we are of machines. If Joe Smith has a lapse of concentration and runs someone over, it's very sad, but we understand it. We're all human after all.
We hold technology to a much higher standard. If a machine makes a mistake and runs someone over, we will be very unhappy indeed, and we'll demand something is done about it.
Musk is a utilitarian: he sees his FSD with cameras alone as being safer than a human driver, and I'm sure he's right. But we will hold robotaxis to a higher standard. The first time that a child is run over (and a child wll be run over), then those Robotaxis will be off the streets, and people will be demanding they don't start up again until Tesla can guarantee no child deaths.
LIDAR takes vehicles from better than human, to much better than human. It enables the vehicle to "see" things, even when humans or cameras cannot see them.
Regulators in various countries are already working towards codifying the various issues. Waymo has. after all, convinced a number of jurisdictions that their system is as safe as humans - they are moderately cautiously claiming that they are better. Which, given the driving of the average Bolt/Uber driver, is probably not hard.
There will, indeed, be an outcry at the first photogenic accident. But I don't think that this will stop vehicle automation world wide. The question will be if the data shows that automation is safer than equivalent drivers.
Did I mention that London property is about to crater?
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
London is a better city than it was a decade ago - or, perhaps, at any time.
The billionaire exodus drains wealth and tax revenue. But if the below filters down and property becomes more affordable, living in London will be better still.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Can't say I remember too many IRA mainland bombings being exclusively aimed at property.
They used to call and give a code word allowing for evacuation. They didn’t much care if that failed and there were casualties, but it helped their cause not to kill civilians.
Political assassinations and murders of police officers were a different matter of course.
The reason the PIRA started making the calls was
- the reaction to completely surprise attacks. Which was very negative in their own community. - an attempt to make the police look responsible. By giving faulty information. - attempts to manoeuvre responding police and emergency services into the blast zone of secondary attacks.
The WWE has ‘Night of the Champions’ Pay per View scheduled in Saudi Arabia this coming weekend.
Appreciate for too lowbrow for many here but I’ve always been a mark for wrestling.
WWE, owned by TKO, loves the money. But with the recent events and travel advice from the likes of the U.K. to the region, will they go ?
Also interesting recently the Mayor of London was ass kissing the WWE to get Wrestlemania back to London. Given the WWE is pro Trump and, often, black wrestlers have to leave to get on, it’s not a great look.
And add Starmer should also be wary of Trump. I don't expect an Iran war to be any more popular in the UK.
Some Trumpian mouthpiece just on R4 saying bombing Iran was polling well with folks back home. Real as opposed to fake polls I guess.
“At war” and a single night of limited bombing aimed at WMD facilities are qualitatively not the same thing, as you (and AOC) well understand.
It presents an interesting alt-history actually. Imagine if we had none of Colin Powell and Blair’s UN shenanigans. And W had just sent in B2s to take out the most notable legacy WMD sites in a night or three - Desert Fox v2. That old b*stare Hussein would probably be sat on his golden toilet sending out viral tweets.
Thank goodness none of the definitely not at war US hierarchy are mentioning regime change.
There should be regime change and pressure towards it.
But there's not boots on the ground.
So what's your problem?
Maybe you should volunteer?
But if he does that how will he conduct the mission from his armchair ?
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
There’s a difference between politically motivated damage of property and violence against people. The former has historically been referred to as sabotage or vandalism, the latter terrorism.
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Can't say I remember too many IRA mainland bombings being exclusively aimed at property.
They used to call and give a code word allowing for evacuation. They didn’t much care if that failed and there were casualties, but it helped their cause not to kill civilians.
Political assassinations and murders of police officers were a different matter of course.
Docklands being one such example (the two killed did not immediately evacuate when advised by police, IIRC).
There is a contrast with e.g. Islamist terrorism where the intent is clearly to kill as many as possible. Not defending the IRA, but there is a difference in MO.
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
But let's look at this a few steps ahead:
- While self-driving tech is being perfected, Alphabet owning cars and all data etc makes sense as it gives them control.
- Assuming they reach the critical threshold of being able to be driverless through the US extremely safely (other countries may be harder, but not sure that matters from a critical mass/profit perspective), then their technology has just become hugely valuable.
- At that point, you switch to licensing the technology to other car manufacturers (or broadening their range to sell directly to consumers, or both). The business model is no longer a taxi service, but personal cars as today but that are driverless. The consumer owns the car, the maintenance etc, but can travel without needing to 'drive' as such.
So I think Waymo's taxi service isn't their eventually business model. But rather a way to help them be the 'best' self driving car technology first.
Tesla is focussed on selling directly to consumers first, but with an inherently less safe technology.
As far as I can see oil prices have failed to react to the Iran War developments over the weekend. So the market either believes that Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, will be unable to do so, or that there is enough capacity elsewhere to make up the difference.
Any other explanations?
I would have thought that, even if the market thought there was only a 20% chance of closure, that would command a hefty risk premium on the current price. So, is this just market complacency, or am I missing something big?
Iran have been shown to have all the power of a senile geriatric who can not open a wet paper bag.
The capability to close the Strait is completely different to that to hit Israel directly. Might it be a mistake to generalise from one to the other?
No.
If they try to close the Strait then America will come down on them like a tonne of bricks, and they have no air defences.
They're unable to cope with Israel who are flying unimpeded in their air space, how do you think they are they going to cope with an irate America who wants the Strait reopened?
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good option for them to close the Strait, but you would agree that Ian was seeking a nuclear weapon, yes?
And nuclear weapons mostly operate on the principle of deterrence, the promise that you will inflict annihilation on the enemy, even if that invites annihilation on return, as deterrence against attack, right?
But if Iran are unwilling to close the Strait in response to the destruction of their nuclear facilities, then they've shown themselves unwilling to follow through on a deterrence threat. It makes a nuclear weapon much less useful for them, because one would doubt that they'd use it.
Some of this might come down to good old fashioned capability. Can Iran close Hormuz for any length of time that makes it worthwhile before action (diplomatic or military) reopens it? At the moment they are using up all their weaponry on Israel, while Israel now have air superiority.
If I had to guess they’re going to hit a US base somewhere: probably 50/50 as to whether they give advance notice or not.
Insurance? I've saved £900 from the old Model Y to the new Model Y...
Gracious me - how much was your original premium if you don’t mind me asking?
I had a similar reaction when acquaintances would tell me, during the interest rate rise, that their mortgage cost had gone up by more than our total monthly payment
If I made a £900 saving on car insurance the insurer would be paying me over £600!
On the stories about the use of ventilation shaft at Fordow and elsewhere in the attacks.
Since the Belgian Forts were pounded to surrender in WWI, it's been clear that while a deeply buried facility can (sometimes) *in general* resist attack, the necessary connections to the surface can't. In WWI, the pattern was shown a number of times - the weapons and connections on the surface were rapidly destroyed by bombardment, leaving a deep bunker to hide in.
Same in WWII. The rapid fall of Fort Drum, for example.
In the 1991 Gulf War, numerous "Nuke proof" structures were destroyed - because pin point weapons could hit the vulnerable spots.
"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man"
Did I mention that London property is about to crater?
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
London is a better city than it was a decade ago - or, perhaps, at any time.
The billionaire exodus drains wealth and tax revenue. But if the below filters down and property becomes more affordable, living in London will be better still.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
Like all one-word summaries, "terrorism" covers a multitude of sins, from massive to trivial. I think most people think of the more serious cases involving deaths, injuries and massive disruption. I'm against spray-painting planes, but it's not useful to call it terrorism.
Did I mention that London property is about to crater?
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
London is a better city than it was a decade ago - or, perhaps, at any time.
The billionaire exodus drains wealth and tax revenue. But if the below filters down and property becomes more affordable, living in London will be better still.
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
But let's look at this a few steps ahead:
- While self-driving tech is being perfected, Alphabet owning cars and all data etc makes sense as it gives them control.
- Assuming they reach the critical threshold of being able to be driverless through the US extremely safely (other countries may be harder, but not sure that matters from a critical mass/profit perspective), then their technology has just become hugely valuable.
- At that point, you switch to licensing the technology to other car manufacturers (or broadening their range to sell directly to consumers, or both). The business model is no longer a taxi service, but personal cars as today but that are driverless. The consumer owns the car, the maintenance etc, but can travel without needing to 'drive' as such.
So I think Waymo's taxi service isn't their eventually business model. But rather a way to help them be the 'best' self driving car technology first.
Tesla is focussed on selling directly to consumers first, but with an inherently less safe technology.
I would rather bet on Waymo out of the two.
The business model seems more like short term car rental than a taxi service. Albeit in this case ultra short term. You’re renting a car, which just happens not to require you to drive it.
So it’s surely about utilisation rates. The gap between the cost per day of a rental car and a taxi is already huge. The secret for rental companies is having the right cars in the right place at the right time, and not too much unutilised inventory.
There will be a price at which it breaks even. Question is whether that is above or below the with-driver price.
Bemusing to see pro-terrorist "protestors" object to being labelled as terrorists themselves, just because they engaged in an act of terrorism.
Peaceful protest doesn't include being violent. Turn violent and that's terrorism, not protest.
Do you think spray painting some RAF jets is terrorism? Do you think coming out to support the spray paiting of RAF jets in terrorism?
I'm starting to get quite concerned about the terrorists over in my local Church of Scotland congregation. Great scones though.
I think violence to further political aims is terrorism, yes.
Don't you?
If your congregation are engaging in violence, then yes they're terrorists, if they're not then what point are you trying to make?
There has to be a moral judgement in there somewhere. Otherwise by your definition you'd have to class the Suffragettes as terrorists. Maybe by strict definition they are but only a zealot would make no distinction between them and Baader-Meinhof
Like all one-word summaries, "terrorism" covers a multitude of sins, from massive to trivial. I think most people think of the more serious cases involving deaths, injuries and massive disruption. I'm against spray-painting planes, but it's not useful to call it terrorism.
Call it what it is, Crimjnal damage and prosecute accordingly
Although reports I have read said this wasn’t the only issue arising to cause them being proscribed.
After all no one is calling for JSO to be categorised as a terror group.
BTW I hope your recent wedding went well and everyone had a great time.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
Why is he shocked, it was entirely predictable, they sympathise with terrorists.
Well quite. Don’t be nasty about Hezbollah, you’ll be arrested !!
The report on this was a bit odd this morning. Rowley whinging about he has "no power in law" to stop the protests in support of PA ?
But if PA are proscribed then a protest in favour of them is by definition illegal. Maybe they aren't proscribed yet though ? I thought it was something Cooper could do at the stroke of a pen but maybe she hasn't.
Some of those predicting a surge in oil prices this morning and some nitwit advising us to "fill up our cars now" are doing the usual PB over-reaction (up there with the Daily Brace). As others have reported, while there has been a slight rise in oil prices, they are still lower than this time last year and well down on the $103 from July 2022 when the world failed to come to an end.
It's interesting if you have a supermarket loyalty card, you pay less for certain goods (I know it's still a ripoff) but it seems there is no loyalty in insurance. I'd love to see the Government take a long hard look at insurance in general in this country as consumers are being gouged for car, home and life insurance and the market needs some serious investigation (when they can get insurance at all). We often talk about risk aversion on here - perhaps the insurance industry is a fine example. I also wonder how many people exist without any form of insurance.
As for who will lead the Conservatives at the next election, I don't know. IF Badenoch can get the Conservatives into a position where they will progress and be, if not the leading party, then the clear alternative to a weakened Labour Government, she will stay on and deserve to. William Hague made essentially no progress in four years as Conservative leader from 1997-2001 and quit immediately after the second landslide.
What is the benchmark for progress - 200 seats? Howard got the Conservatives to 198 from 166. As we mused before the last election, were the Conservatives to cease to be either first or second in terms of Commons seats, that would be a profound event - existential? Unlikely. Just as the Liberals kept going when as low as 6 seats in the Commons, the Conservatives could do the same and await a schism in Reform (not inconceivable).
The clear question is whether with another leader currently in the Commons the Conservatives would do any better. Would Jenrick or Cleverly win them more seats than Badenoch? I don't know. Would any Conservative stand aside to allow Reform a clear run at a Labour seat? I suspect not. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour (nor indeed Reform) can afford to be seen to be anything less than a national party aspiring to Government and that means contesting every seat and every by-election.
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
But let's look at this a few steps ahead:
- While self-driving tech is being perfected, Alphabet owning cars and all data etc makes sense as it gives them control.
- Assuming they reach the critical threshold of being able to be driverless through the US extremely safely (other countries may be harder, but not sure that matters from a critical mass/profit perspective), then their technology has just become hugely valuable.
- At that point, you switch to licensing the technology to other car manufacturers (or broadening their range to sell directly to consumers, or both). The business model is no longer a taxi service, but personal cars as today but that are driverless. The consumer owns the car, the maintenance etc, but can travel without needing to 'drive' as such.
So I think Waymo's taxi service isn't their eventually business model. But rather a way to help them be the 'best' self driving car technology first.
Tesla is focussed on selling directly to consumers first, but with an inherently less safe technology.
I would rather bet on Waymo out of the two.
My problem with Waymo vs Tesla and which has the better business model is faff: Waymo - buy cars. Bolt an array of cameras and sensors to them. Send them off into service in limited areas Tesla - have the car drive itself out of the factory into service.
My car has the exact same hardware as the Robotaxi cars.
As far as I can see oil prices have failed to react to the Iran War developments over the weekend. So the market either believes that Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, will be unable to do so, or that there is enough capacity elsewhere to make up the difference.
Any other explanations?
I would have thought that, even if the market thought there was only a 20% chance of closure, that would command a hefty risk premium on the current price. So, is this just market complacency, or am I missing something big?
Iran have been shown to have all the power of a senile geriatric who can not open a wet paper bag.
The capability to close the Strait is completely different to that to hit Israel directly. Might it be a mistake to generalise from one to the other?
No.
If they try to close the Strait then America will come down on them like a tonne of bricks, and they have no air defences.
They're unable to cope with Israel who are flying unimpeded in their air space, how do you think they are they going to cope with an irate America who wants the Strait reopened?
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good option for them to close the Strait, but you would agree that Ian was seeking a nuclear weapon, yes?
And nuclear weapons mostly operate on the principle of deterrence, the promise that you will inflict annihilation on the enemy, even if that invites annihilation on return, as deterrence against attack, right?
But if Iran are unwilling to close the Strait in response to the destruction of their nuclear facilities, then they've shown themselves unwilling to follow through on a deterrence threat. It makes a nuclear weapon much less useful for them, because one would doubt that they'd use it.
If they had a nuke then maybe they'd have used it, but they were defeated before they got one.
Now what do they stand to gain from pissing off America by closing the Strait. They'd be annihilated and they have nothing to retaliate with, lacking all power.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
450 killed by Israeli forces in food queues in the last 12 days. Whether he manages the sole bonus of getting rid of the Mullahs, there's absolutely no question that Netanyahu, and several of his ministers, should face justice at some point for Gaza.
Is there any independent verification of that number? Israel is not allowing journalists in, so thats part of this, and it may very well be true, but I regard both Hamas and Israel as liars in everything they say.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Did I mention that London property is about to crater?
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
House prices haven’t changed much in the last 10 years though. The real hikes were in the preceding 20.
It’s become less socially mixed, thanks to the housing benefit cap. In our area that has tended to make it a little less representative of the country and a bit more uniformly middle class. Nowhere near the living museum status of central Paris or Manhattan though.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
It was unaffordable 10 years ago.
Yes. It’s barely moved since then. So it was even more unaffordable - relatively - back then
So in what ways is it “better”? Still waiting to hear
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
It depends on whether you think Lidar achieves something for this use case that Vision AI cannot.
This my theory:
We're much more accepting of human beings making mistakes than we are of machines. If Joe Smith has a lapse of concentration and runs someone over, it's very sad, but we understand it. We're all human after all.
We hold technology to a much higher standard. If a machine makes a mistake and runs someone over, we will be very unhappy indeed, and we'll demand something is done about it.
Musk is a utilitarian: he sees his FSD with cameras alone as being safer than a human driver, and I'm sure he's right. But we will hold robotaxis to a higher standard. The first time that a child is run over (and a child wll be run over), then those Robotaxis will be off the streets, and people will be demanding they don't start up again until Tesla can guarantee no child deaths.
LIDAR takes vehicles from better than human, to much better than human. It enables the vehicle to "see" things, even when humans or cameras cannot see them.
Regulators in various countries are already working towards codifying the various issues. Waymo has. after all, convinced a number of jurisdictions that their system is as safe as humans - they are moderately cautiously claiming that they are better. Which, given the driving of the average Bolt/Uber driver, is probably not hard.
There will, indeed, be an outcry at the first photogenic accident. But I don't think that this will stop vehicle automation world wide. The question will be if the data shows that automation is safer than equivalent drivers.
With self-driving cars, we also need to factor in cynical actors like JSO protestors sitting in the road, and crash for cash.
You'd also worry whether Tesla can anticipate hazards correctly for different countries. For instance, alighting bus passengers might cross in front of a bus here but not in America.
Some of those predicting a surge in oil prices this morning and some nitwit advising us to "fill up our cars now" are doing the usual PB over-reaction (up there with the Daily Brace). As others have reported, while there has been a slight rise in oil prices, they are still lower than this time last year and well down on the $103 from July 2022 when the world failed to come to an end.
It's interesting if you have a supermarket loyalty card, you pay less for certain goods (I know it's still a ripoff) but it seems there is no loyalty in insurance. I'd love to see the Government take a long hard look at insurance in general in this country as consumers are being gouged for car, home and life insurance and the market needs some serious investigation (when they can get insurance at all). We often talk about risk aversion on here - perhaps the insurance industry is a fine example. I also wonder how many people exist without any form of insurance.
As for who will lead the Conservatives at the next election, I don't know. IF Badenoch can get the Conservatives into a position where they will progress and be, if not the leading party, then the clear alternative to a weakened Labour Government, she will stay on and deserve to. William Hague made essentially no progress in four years as Conservative leader from 1997-2001 and quit immediately after the second landslide.
What is the benchmark for progress - 200 seats? Howard got the Conservatives to 198 from 166. As we mused before the last election, were the Conservatives to cease to be either first or second in terms of Commons seats, that would be a profound event - existential? Unlikely. Just as the Liberals kept going when as low as 6 seats in the Commons, the Conservatives could do the same and await a schism in Reform (not inconceivable).
The clear question is whether with another leader currently in the Commons the Conservatives would do any better. Would Jenrick or Cleverly win them more seats than Badenoch? I don't know. Would any Conservative stand aside to allow Reform a clear run at a Labour seat? I suspect not. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour (nor indeed Reform) can afford to be seen to be anything less than a national party aspiring to Government and that means contesting every seat and every by-election.
Insurance companies, Stodge? Yes, the government could well do with investigating them. Perhaps they could do so after they have finished with bookmakers, whose business is in many respects similar, except of course for the important difference that bookmakers generally pay out on winners.
When people refer to 'London', e.g. to do with property prices, what do they mean? Central London? Within Zone 3 or 4? Within the M25? There must be quite a variation between (say) a flat in Westminster and a house in Chigwell?
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
It was unaffordable 10 years ago.
Yes. It’s barely moved since then. So it was even more unaffordable - relatively - back then
So in what ways is it “better”? Still waiting to hear
I work in Enfield (if one considers that London), and socialise in the West End. Enfield town centre is definitely improved from 10-15 years ago, with better restaurants and shops on the whole. Redevelopment has been a success.
The West End, I’d say, is much the same as 10-15 years ago.
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
I should think car insurance is a fairly good proxy index for how old and boring you are, and how dull where you live is, plus of course how boring your cars are. We are old and boring and ours both come in at well under £300.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
I don’t live in London and I haven’t been for a few years so don’t know what it’s actually like but given the above is played out regularly on social media I’d get why some people think it’s declining.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
It was unaffordable 10 years ago.
Yes. It’s barely moved since then. So it was even more unaffordable - relatively - back then
So in what ways is it “better”? Still waiting to hear
Most cities get better in some ways and worse in others. I don’t know what he had in mind but a few obvious positive examples are: the Elizabeth line, cleaner air, Battersea power station finally renovated, and Canary Wharf several notches better than a decade ago.
Counter examples: Oxford street if anything even shitter than it used to be, queues for museums getting ridiculous, lots of old pubs shutting, and the cost of eating out soaring.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
Some of those predicting a surge in oil prices this morning and some nitwit advising us to "fill up our cars now" are doing the usual PB over-reaction (up there with the Daily Brace). As others have reported, while there has been a slight rise in oil prices, they are still lower than this time last year and well down on the $103 from July 2022 when the world failed to come to an end.
It's interesting if you have a supermarket loyalty card, you pay less for certain goods (I know it's still a ripoff) but it seems there is no loyalty in insurance. I'd love to see the Government take a long hard look at insurance in general in this country as consumers are being gouged for car, home and life insurance and the market needs some serious investigation (when they can get insurance at all). We often talk about risk aversion on here - perhaps the insurance industry is a fine example. I also wonder how many people exist without any form of insurance.
As for who will lead the Conservatives at the next election, I don't know. IF Badenoch can get the Conservatives into a position where they will progress and be, if not the leading party, then the clear alternative to a weakened Labour Government, she will stay on and deserve to. William Hague made essentially no progress in four years as Conservative leader from 1997-2001 and quit immediately after the second landslide.
What is the benchmark for progress - 200 seats? Howard got the Conservatives to 198 from 166. As we mused before the last election, were the Conservatives to cease to be either first or second in terms of Commons seats, that would be a profound event - existential? Unlikely. Just as the Liberals kept going when as low as 6 seats in the Commons, the Conservatives could do the same and await a schism in Reform (not inconceivable).
The clear question is whether with another leader currently in the Commons the Conservatives would do any better. Would Jenrick or Cleverly win them more seats than Badenoch? I don't know. Would any Conservative stand aside to allow Reform a clear run at a Labour seat? I suspect not. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour (nor indeed Reform) can afford to be seen to be anything less than a national party aspiring to Government and that means contesting every seat and every by-election.
Insurance companies, Stodge? Yes, the government could well do with investigating them. Perhaps they could do so after they have finished with bookmakers, whose business is in many respects similar, except of course for the important difference that bookmakers generally pay out on winners.
Given my record for picking winners, I wouldn't know. Anecdotally, I've heard of people going to "get paid" after a race but that's probably just an urban myth.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
It was unaffordable 10 years ago.
Yes. It’s barely moved since then. So it was even more unaffordable - relatively - back then
So in what ways is it “better”? Still waiting to hear
Most cities get better in some ways and worse in others. I don’t know what he had in mind but a few obvious positive examples are: the Elizabeth line, cleaner air, Battersea power station finally renovated, and Canary Wharf several notches better than a decade ago.
Counter examples: Oxford street if anything even shitter than it used to be, queues for museums getting ridiculous, lots of old pubs shutting, and the cost of eating out soaring.
A reasonable answer
For me the low level experience is of increased grottiness everywhere: graffiti, litter, shabby high streets. Plus a major decline in nightlife. Plus increased petty crime: phone theft, shoplifting. Plus obvious racial splintering
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
Thanks. Interesting! It’s actually quite heartening to hear of good things. I don’t like being down on London. It’s my city and I love it - I just despair sometimes and my pessimism has grown
Whatever the true answer, I sense London property is headed for a huge correction
Yes as it says, it is early access and not just to employees - I know someone who’s never worked for Tesla that has the early access. The supervisor in the front passenger seat feels like an interesting stop gap. He can’t do an emergency stop or swerve. But he can move over to the drivers side if the car has stopped and take control if it gets stuck. That will be done remotely once you’re past the early access / pilot period.
You are correct: some of the invite list are not Tesla employees.
The issue for Tesla - though - is that the latest published data on time between disengagements is just 371 miles. Now, I'm sure it will be better for the service area, because they'll have mapped it extensively, and it will have been chosen for not having complex intersections, etc. But -still- 371 miles is around 1% of the Waymo number.
This has always been a Tortoise and the Hare story though. I’m highly confident it won’t be long before waymo’s business model has been crushed. And at some point after that Uber’s
But Tesla bet wrong on LIDAR. The cost of LIDAR sensors has absolutely collapsed. Chinese cars are coming with them fitted as standard - and we're not talking about $100,000 cars - we're talking about some cars that cost less than a Model Y having them.
It depends on whether you think Lidar achieves something for this use case that Vision AI cannot.
This my theory:
We're much more accepting of human beings making mistakes than we are of machines. If Joe Smith has a lapse of concentration and runs someone over, it's very sad, but we understand it. We're all human after all.
We hold technology to a much higher standard. If a machine makes a mistake and runs someone over, we will be very unhappy indeed, and we'll demand something is done about it.
Musk is a utilitarian: he sees his FSD with cameras alone as being safer than a human driver, and I'm sure he's right. But we will hold robotaxis to a higher standard. The first time that a child is run over (and a child wll be run over), then those Robotaxis will be off the streets, and people will be demanding they don't start up again until Tesla can guarantee no child deaths.
LIDAR takes vehicles from better than human, to much better than human. It enables the vehicle to "see" things, even when humans or cameras cannot see them.
Regulators in various countries are already working towards codifying the various issues. Waymo has. after all, convinced a number of jurisdictions that their system is as safe as humans - they are moderately cautiously claiming that they are better. Which, given the driving of the average Bolt/Uber driver, is probably not hard.
There will, indeed, be an outcry at the first photogenic accident. But I don't think that this will stop vehicle automation world wide. The question will be if the data shows that automation is safer than equivalent drivers.
With self-driving cars, we also need to factor in cynical actors like JSO protestors sitting in the road, and crash for cash.
You'd also worry whether Tesla can anticipate hazards correctly for different countries. For instance, alighting bus passengers might cross in front of a bus here but not in America.
Tesla and other manufacturers have already put a dent in crash-for-cash and other such behaviour. Playing games round a vehicle with 360 degree camera coverage is for the stupid.
Judging by social media looks like both Iran and Israel still going at it this morning.
Morning all Im guessing the Iranian foreign minister didn't go meet Putin to discuss Spartak Moscows season then Looks like a power plant hit in Ashdod in Israel causing a partial blackout and a lot of hits on Tehran including a TV station and a prison, going for the nuclear stuff is hard man
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
I certainly know the landmark. Not sure I’d pay loads for it - not because it lacks in stunning views but because Newquay is - let’s be generous - quite a cheap and cheerful seaside resort. It’s not St Mawes or Padstow or even Falmouth
I'm in East Ham and I'm happy not to call a spade a garden implement.
I've lived here with Mrs Stodge for 20 years and it's worse now than it was. Now, I could just sit here and blame the migrants so I will. The original Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians who came to East Ham after Freedom of Movement have mostly moved on - the original food shops they set up have all closed (Lithuanica is probably the last) and we now have the Romanians who dominate the shops in what could be called "Little Bucharest".
The other reason it's worse is Mayor Roksana Fiaz who has been a disaster for the Borough. Sir Robin Wales, the previous Council leader and Blairite, did a good job and on many measures Newham was a decent place in the 2000s and early 2010s. Yes, there were problems but the services were reliable, the streets well maintained and the Council responsive.
Under Fiaz, and I understand there are money issues from housing, it's all gone downhill and it's no surprise the Newham Independents are making headway on local anger with how the Council is run.
And yet...people still want to come and live here - rental accommodation is at a premium and the new tower blocks of flats are snapped up.
Anecdotally and @Leon can comment on this - my friend in Mylor tells me a lot of St Ives properties are for sale. This is not because the owners want to sell them but a way of avoiding paying the double council tax imposed on "second homes". The town is still completely unaffordable for the locals but now has a glut of properties for sale as apparently if you put a property on the market it is exempt from the double council tax (up to £7k in some instances).
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
The underwriters read PB ?
Mine is up for renewal too, quoted £224. Sadly shows 9+ rather than 30 years NCD...
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
I would posit that prime central London has probably stagnated a little or got a tad tattier, while the inner city ring around it (South Bank as you say, Canary Wharf, Bermondsey, Hackney and Shoreditch etc) has improved considerably.
I don’t know NW1 well enough to judge, but certainly the tourist heartland of the West End could do with a makeover in places. Starting with the logistically almost impossible but potentially transformative pedestrianising of Oxford Street and the kicking out of the crap tat-purveying shops.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Is London being better than it was 10 years ago consistent with your views on the disaster of Brexit?
So you'd have been better off investing in Fredos.
That's the direction we need London prices to be going.
It's a pity it isn't falling behind faster.
Houses should be homes not investments.
The ideal situation for housing is a soft landing like we’ve seen - real terms decreases but headline increases. That way we avoid negative equity, lenders will continue lending, but houses become relatively affordable over time.
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
I certainly know the landmark. Not sure I’d pay loads for it - not because it lacks in stunning views but because Newquay is - let’s be generous - quite a cheap and cheerful seaside resort. It’s not St Mawes or Padstow or even Falmouth
Thanks Leon.
Newquay wouldn't interest us anyway. We'd be going for the views, the dogwalks, and a touch of luxury. It would definitely be off season too.
We'll probably do it. We like your home county, even if some of the locals are a bit strange...(or maybe because they are.)
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
"And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him."
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
I live in NW1. Have you ever been to NW1, or indeed north London? Most of my friends in London are left wing - yet they all feel the city has gone down hill
Good morning. The weather looks a bit changeable today but the garden is enjoying the mix of sun and rain.
I'm about to the do the annual charade of negotiating my car insurance down to a reasonable price. Last year I knocked £300 off by fabricating a quote from another provider - my 6 years of loyalty means nothing, apparently.
It's a tax on those without the time or wherewithal to challenge their renewal prices.
£248 this year for me, which was lower than last year. This insurer shows my full 19 years NCD too which I like rather than just the 9+ Churchill did.
£248? What the fuck are you driving? A P-reg Saxo?
I've just done mine. Got done up the wrong 'un to the tune of 4 grand and that's with SORNing two cars.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
I would posit that prime central London has probably stagnated a little or got a tad tattier, while the inner city ring around it (South Bank as you say, Canary Wharf, Bermondsey, Hackney and Shoreditch etc) has improved considerably.
I don’t know NW1 well enough to judge, but certainly the tourist heartland of the West End could do with a makeover in places. Starting with the logistically almost impossible but potentially transformative pedestrianising of Oxford Street and the kicking out of the crap tat-purveying shops.
With Oxford Street, think cyberpunk. Raise the street.
Leave the buses where they are. Put a walkable roof over the whole thing. The first 30 feet of height in the building is all shops, anyway
Suddenly, the noise and most of the grime goes away (filters on the air in and out of downstairs). People living above the street look down on a linear park - think on the gardens created in Paris on the abandoned elevated railway lines.
To shop, you go downstairs to the old pavements, via escalators. Wall off the road with glass to make it nicer - door systems fro bus stops.
As time goes by, shops will open new entrances at the walkway level.
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
I certainly know the landmark. Not sure I’d pay loads for it - not because it lacks in stunning views but because Newquay is - let’s be generous - quite a cheap and cheerful seaside resort. It’s not St Mawes or Padstow or even Falmouth
Thanks Leon.
Newquay wouldn't interest us anyway. We'd be going for the views, the dogwalks, and a touch of luxury. It would definitely be off season too.
We'll probably do it. We like your home county, even if some of the locals are a bit strange...(or maybe because they are.)
Cheers
Ignoring the luxury last week I found (and was staying at) a very good farmhouse holiday home in St Ives.
Biggest advantage is that it is countryside - but has a bus from the holiday park next door to St Ives and it’s a £9 taxi ride back
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
I certainly know the landmark. Not sure I’d pay loads for it - not because it lacks in stunning views but because Newquay is - let’s be generous - quite a cheap and cheerful seaside resort. It’s not St Mawes or Padstow or even Falmouth
Thanks Leon.
Newquay wouldn't interest us anyway. We'd be going for the views, the dogwalks, and a touch of luxury. It would definitely be off season too.
We'll probably do it. We like your home county, even if some of the locals are a bit strange...(or maybe because they are.)
Cheers
Well then yes - do it! Newquay isn’t large and as soon as you’re a mile out of town you’ve got world class coastal scenery and glorious beaches - Porth Joke, Watergate, Bedruthan Steps. Doggy heaven
And if there’s one place in Newquay where you can pretend you’re not in Newquay - it’s there. The views must be wild
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
"London" is just too big a measurement, I guess. You could have vast improvements in 3 or 4 boroughs that most Londoners would not notice, but nevertheless improve the overall average.
I think the clean air is a huge deal. The pollution is palpable the moment you step off the train, particularly if you've arrived from Inverness, and eats away at you over time. I think it's also much quieter - EVs, bicycles.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
The only areas of London I think haven’t improved are Oxford Street (obvious) and Camden - which probably explains why Leon thinks how he does.
As far as I can see oil prices have failed to react to the Iran War developments over the weekend. So the market either believes that Iran won't try to close the Strait of Hormuz, will be unable to do so, or that there is enough capacity elsewhere to make up the difference.
Any other explanations?
I would have thought that, even if the market thought there was only a 20% chance of closure, that would command a hefty risk premium on the current price. So, is this just market complacency, or am I missing something big?
Sky reporting little reaction in the markets this morning, so maybe Iran will sabre rattle but not cause too much escalation
The oil-producing non-friends of Iran have every incentive to increase oil output if the Strait of Hormuz gets blocked, so no, there shouldn't be a serious spike in the oil price, much to VVP's chagrin
In the short term, oil demand is pretty price inelastic. If you removed Saudi, Kuwaiti and UAE oil exports, Qatari synthetic oil, as well as LNG cargoes, it would likely have a pretty severe impact on prices. In fact, I'd reckon that - just as with the severing of Russian gas exports to Europe - it would impact energy prices for everyone, everywhere.
And don't forget, there's usually only a limited amount that most oil fields can do to increase production in the short term.
In the medium term, high oil prices would spur tight production in the Permian. And longer term, high oil prices make new oil fields more economic. But short term... missing barrels from the Middle East would need to be compensated for by either lower consumption or (in the US at least) drawing down on the strategic oil reserve.
Going back to the insurance thread I recently needed to add my son to our car insurance policy. I should say that he's 60+ and has a blameless driving record for 40-odd years.
I was told that there would be an admin charge of £15, and received a bill for £5.
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
Yes, I wouldn't disagree. Dalston and Shoreditch are areas I wouldn't have gone near 30 years ago but are now very pleasant - even Haggerston is not what it was.
You have Stratford which has changed out of all recognition in the last 30 years thanks to the Olympics and improved transport and that has rippled out a little but not much to the east and south east and places like Barking, East Ham and Ilford continue to struggle.
As for "Norf London", I don't know it so well. I quite like Kentish Town but Camden and Archway aren't nice. As for "NW1", they wouldn't let me in at the gates...
What do PBers think? Is London better or worse than it was 10 years ago? Fraser Nelson cites several stats that back up his point. Cleaner air, less crime
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
Better except unaffordable property prices. But that's the killer.
Ok, that’s fascinating. Genuinely
Why? Why and how is it better?
Public transport is much better. The open walk through style of train carriages have spread to main line - underground and overground. Combined with air conditioning, they are a massive improvement.
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
I would posit that prime central London has probably stagnated a little or got a tad tattier, while the inner city ring around it (South Bank as you say, Canary Wharf, Bermondsey, Hackney and Shoreditch etc) has improved considerably.
I don’t know NW1 well enough to judge, but certainly the tourist heartland of the West End could do with a makeover in places. Starting with the logistically almost impossible but potentially transformative pedestrianising of Oxford Street and the kicking out of the crap tat-purveying shops.
I agree on pedestrianising Oxford Street. It’s been declining for a decade or more and it obviously needs a huge jolt
This could be it. They should turn the entire street into open air dining, al fresco bars, shisha places. It could be epic
Comments
In between there are the cases of violent acts aimed at property that nonetheless carry a high risk of killing or injuring people (as with most IRA mainland bombings).
Mind you, it makes up for it in repair bills.
It worked to scare off Boris J, could it work on Bobby J?
I also found with car insurance changing from being a wage slave to retired dropped my premiums, even though I only ever drove to work when the weather meant I couldn’t, or wouldn’t, cycle. So in the summer I could go,several weeks without driving to work.
Right on cue
"London isn't as sought after as it was a decade ago" - some eye-catching quotes in this great piece on the "chronic decline" of the prime central London housing market, from my colleague Damian Shepherd“
https://x.com/john_stepek/status/1937044368432746590?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
'The markets' are as clueless as us on what happens next.
If I had to guess they’re going to hit a US base somewhere: probably 50/50 as to whether they give advance notice or not.
Last week I was using the metro and it was the old stock, first time for a while I’ve used old rolling stock.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14e07mn524o
https://x.com/mitchprothero/status/1937063176123629617
Political assassinations and murders of police officers were a different matter of course.
There will, indeed, be an outcry at the first photogenic accident. But I don't think that this will stop vehicle automation world wide. The question will be if the data shows that automation is safer than equivalent drivers.
London is a better city than it was a decade ago - or, perhaps, at any time.
The billionaire exodus drains wealth and tax revenue. But if the below filters down and property becomes more affordable, living in London will be better still.
https://x.com/FraserNelson/status/1937045662920810734
- the reaction to completely surprise attacks. Which was very negative in their own community.
- an attempt to make the police look responsible. By giving faulty information.
- attempts to manoeuvre responding police and emergency services into the blast zone of secondary attacks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79q1jv8p24o
Why is he shocked, it was entirely predictable, they sympathise with terrorists.
Appreciate for too lowbrow for many here but I’ve always been a mark for wrestling.
WWE, owned by TKO, loves the money. But with the recent events and travel advice from the likes of the U.K. to the region, will they go ?
Also interesting recently the Mayor of London was ass kissing the WWE to get Wrestlemania back to London. Given the WWE is pro Trump and, often, black wrestlers have to leave to get on, it’s not a great look.
There is a contrast with e.g. Islamist terrorism where the intent is clearly to kill as many as possible. Not defending the IRA, but there is a difference in MO.
- While self-driving tech is being perfected, Alphabet owning cars and all data etc makes sense as it gives them control.
- Assuming they reach the critical threshold of being able to be driverless through the US extremely safely (other countries may be harder, but not sure that matters from a critical mass/profit perspective), then their technology has just become hugely valuable.
- At that point, you switch to licensing the technology to other car manufacturers (or broadening their range to sell directly to consumers, or both). The business model is no longer a taxi service, but personal cars as today but that are driverless. The consumer owns the car, the maintenance etc, but can travel without needing to 'drive' as such.
So I think Waymo's taxi service isn't their eventually business model. But rather a way to help them be the 'best' self driving car technology first.
Tesla is focussed on selling directly to consumers first, but with an inherently less safe technology.
I would rather bet on Waymo out of the two.
If I made a £900 saving on car insurance the insurer would be paying me over £600!
Since the Belgian Forts were pounded to surrender in WWI, it's been clear that while a deeply buried facility can (sometimes) *in general* resist attack, the necessary connections to the surface can't. In WWI, the pattern was shown a number of times - the weapons and connections on the surface were rapidly destroyed by bombardment, leaving a deep bunker to hide in.
Same in WWII. The rapid fall of Fort Drum, for example.
In the 1991 Gulf War, numerous "Nuke proof" structures were destroyed - because pin point weapons could hit the vulnerable spots.
"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man"
Perhaps he’s trying this devious plan again
So it’s surely about utilisation rates. The gap between the cost per day of a rental car and a taxi is already huge. The secret for rental companies is having the right cars in the right place at the right time, and not too much unutilised inventory.
There will be a price at which it breaks even. Question is whether that is above or below the with-driver price.
New car has me as the Registered Keeper - £520
Although reports I have read said this wasn’t the only issue arising to cause them being proscribed.
After all no one is calling for JSO to be categorised as a terror group.
BTW I hope your recent wedding went well and everyone had a great time.
And yet I don’t know a single person of any age that agrees with him. At most they might say it’s stagnant, no change - the majority would say worse
So what’s going on?
But if PA are proscribed then a protest in favour of them is by definition illegal. Maybe they aren't proscribed yet though ? I thought it was something Cooper could do at the stroke of a pen but maybe she hasn't.
Some of those predicting a surge in oil prices this morning and some nitwit advising us to "fill up our cars now" are doing the usual PB over-reaction (up there with the Daily Brace). As others have reported, while there has been a slight rise in oil prices, they are still lower than this time last year and well down on the $103 from July 2022 when the world failed to come to an end.
It's interesting if you have a supermarket loyalty card, you pay less for certain goods (I know it's still a ripoff) but it seems there is no loyalty in insurance. I'd love to see the Government take a long hard look at insurance in general in this country as consumers are being gouged for car, home and life insurance and the market needs some serious investigation (when they can get insurance at all). We often talk about risk aversion on here - perhaps the insurance industry is a fine example. I also wonder how many people exist without any form of insurance.
As for who will lead the Conservatives at the next election, I don't know. IF Badenoch can get the Conservatives into a position where they will progress and be, if not the leading party, then the clear alternative to a weakened Labour Government, she will stay on and deserve to. William Hague made essentially no progress in four years as Conservative leader from 1997-2001 and quit immediately after the second landslide.
What is the benchmark for progress - 200 seats? Howard got the Conservatives to 198 from 166. As we mused before the last election, were the Conservatives to cease to be either first or second in terms of Commons seats, that would be a profound event - existential? Unlikely. Just as the Liberals kept going when as low as 6 seats in the Commons, the Conservatives could do the same and await a schism in Reform (not inconceivable).
The clear question is whether with another leader currently in the Commons the Conservatives would do any better. Would Jenrick or Cleverly win them more seats than Badenoch? I don't know. Would any Conservative stand aside to allow Reform a clear run at a Labour seat? I suspect not. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour (nor indeed Reform) can afford to be seen to be anything less than a national party aspiring to Government and that means contesting every seat and every by-election.
Waymo - buy cars. Bolt an array of cameras and sensors to them. Send them off into service in limited areas
Tesla - have the car drive itself out of the factory into service.
My car has the exact same hardware as the Robotaxi cars.
Now what do they stand to gain from pissing off America by closing the Strait. They'd be annihilated and they have nothing to retaliate with, lacking all power.
Why? Why and how is it better?
https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/1937057884359053690?s=61
https://x.com/danneidle/status/1937061000450019568?s=61
BTW for 'what's wrong with London' Goodwin's latest diatribe is a starting point. I think house prices in outer London are still rising.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/london-is-so-over?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=858965&post_id=166539702&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
It’s become less socially mixed, thanks to the housing benefit cap. In our area that has tended to make it a little less representative of the country and a bit more uniformly middle class. Nowhere near the living museum status of central Paris or Manhattan though.
So in what ways is it “better”? Still waiting to hear
That's probably because of the people you associate with. They're either other right-wing nutcases, or sane people who just nod politely as they think: "who is this ranting nutter? I'd better just agree..."
That's a thing about conversations: they can be directed quite easily, especially if people have not got firm views on the matter.
You'd also worry whether Tesla can anticipate hazards correctly for different countries. For instance, alighting bus passengers might cross in front of a bus here but not in America.
The West End, I’d say, is much the same as
10-15 years ago.
But, I could not comment on the city as a whole.
https://x.com/crimeldn/status/1936680557062001151?s=61
I don’t live in London and I haven’t been for a few years so don’t know what it’s actually like but given the above is played out regularly on social media I’d get why some people think it’s declining.
Perception, rather than reality, innit.
Counter examples: Oxford street if anything even shitter than it used to be, queues for museums getting ridiculous, lots of old pubs shutting, and the cost of eating out soaring.
My kids think this. Everyone thinks this
For me the low level experience is of increased grottiness everywhere: graffiti, litter, shabby high streets. Plus a major decline in nightlife. Plus increased petty crime: phone theft, shoplifting. Plus obvious racial splintering
COVID smashed the stupid rules on not having outside dining. In a number of places this has got as far as pedestrianising outside groups of restaurants. All that is needed is Lahti L39 to deal with the Deliveroo riders who ignore the pedestrianisations.
The number of sports clubs using the River Thames has massively expanded - canoeing, rowing and sailing.
Many public spaces have been reworked from that semi-desolate state to actual use. I used to work in Shell Centre, in Waterloo. The area was rather desolate, the building wrapping round a fountain that had to be permanently switched off, since wind re-circulation effects chucked all the water out of the fountain...
The area has been completely redeveloped and is a thriving hub. All that needs to finish it off, is the demolition of the South Bank Centre and the dead office block by Waterloo station.
And so on.
Do you know this place?
https://observer.co.uk/style/interiors/article/the-high-and-dry-home-on-its-own-cornish-island
Mrs PtP and I are thinking of spending a few days there and wondered if you had any experience of it or views you might share. It's a bit pricey but we thought the experience might be worth it.
Be greateful if you could assist.
Whatever the true answer, I sense London property is headed for a huge correction
Im guessing the Iranian foreign minister didn't go meet Putin to discuss Spartak Moscows season then
Looks like a power plant hit in Ashdod in Israel causing a partial blackout and a lot of hits on Tehran including a TV station and a prison, going for the nuclear stuff is hard man
I've lived here with Mrs Stodge for 20 years and it's worse now than it was. Now, I could just sit here and blame the migrants so I will. The original Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians who came to East Ham after Freedom of Movement have mostly moved on - the original food shops they set up have all closed (Lithuanica is probably the last) and we now have the Romanians who dominate the shops in what could be called "Little Bucharest".
The other reason it's worse is Mayor Roksana Fiaz who has been a disaster for the Borough. Sir Robin Wales, the previous Council leader and Blairite, did a good job and on many measures Newham was a decent place in the 2000s and early 2010s. Yes, there were problems but the services were reliable, the streets well maintained and the Council responsive.
Under Fiaz, and I understand there are money issues from housing, it's all gone downhill and it's no surprise the Newham Independents are making headway on local anger with how the Council is run.
And yet...people still want to come and live here - rental accommodation is at a premium and the new tower blocks of flats are snapped up.
Anecdotally and @Leon can comment on this - my friend in Mylor tells me a lot of St Ives properties are for sale. This is not because the owners want to sell them but a way of avoiding paying the double council tax imposed on "second homes". The town is still completely unaffordable for the locals but now has a glut of properties for sale as apparently if you put a property on the market it is exempt from the double council tax (up to £7k in some instances).
Not a P-reg Saxo.
I don’t know NW1 well enough to judge, but certainly the tourist heartland of the West End could do with a makeover in places. Starting with the logistically almost impossible but potentially transformative pedestrianising of Oxford Street and the kicking out of the crap tat-purveying shops.
1st April 2015: £439,403
1st April 2025: £566,614
CPI April 2015: 99.9
CPI April 2025: 138.2
General inflation increase: 38%
London housing increase: 29%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/d7bt/mm23
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/uk-house-price-index-data-downloads-april-2025
So you'd have been better off investing in Fredos.
It's a pity it isn't falling behind faster.
Houses should be homes not investments.
Or at least, lots of areas in London have improved very significantly, while others remain great.
Bermondsey where I lived 13 years ago is so much nicer than it was.
Kings Cross has been transformed. Battersea likewise. Canary Wharf has far more going on than it once did. Stratford also.
Balham, Hackney and other previously up-and-coming areas are much better.
While the sleepier parts like of Richmond, Wimbledon, West Hampstead etc remain very nice.
I struggle to think of any area getting a lot worse. My experience on a daily basis is clearly very different to yours.
Newquay wouldn't interest us anyway. We'd be going for the views, the dogwalks, and a touch of luxury. It would definitely be off season too.
We'll probably do it. We like your home county, even if some of the locals are a bit strange...(or maybe because they are.)
Cheers
“What Turning a Blind Eye to Deviant Behavior Is Doing to London”
https://x.com/merrynsw/status/1937062623037534559?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Mybe you should get one to reduce your premiums
Leave the buses where they are. Put a walkable roof over the whole thing. The first 30 feet of height in the building is all shops, anyway
Suddenly, the noise and most of the grime goes away (filters on the air in and out of downstairs). People living above the street look down on a linear park - think on the gardens created in Paris on the abandoned elevated railway lines.
To shop, you go downstairs to the old pavements, via escalators. Wall off the road with glass to make it nicer - door systems fro bus stops.
As time goes by, shops will open new entrances at the walkway level.
Biggest advantage is that it is countryside - but has a bus from the holiday park next door to St Ives and it’s a £9 taxi ride back
And if there’s one place in Newquay where you can pretend you’re not in Newquay - it’s there. The views must be wild
I think the clean air is a huge deal. The pollution is palpable the moment you step off the train, particularly if you've arrived from Inverness, and eats away at you over time. I think it's also much quieter - EVs, bicycles.
And don't forget, there's usually only a limited amount that most oil fields can do to increase production in the short term.
In the medium term, high oil prices would spur tight production in the Permian. And longer term, high oil prices make new oil fields more economic. But short term... missing barrels from the Middle East would need to be compensated for by either lower consumption or (in the US at least) drawing down on the strategic oil reserve.
Going back to the insurance thread I recently needed to add my son to our car insurance policy. I should say that he's 60+ and has a blameless driving record for 40-odd years.
I was told that there would be an admin charge of £15, and received a bill for £5.
You have Stratford which has changed out of all recognition in the last 30 years thanks to the Olympics and improved transport and that has rippled out a little but not much to the east and south east and places like Barking, East Ham and Ilford continue to struggle.
As for "Norf London", I don't know it so well. I quite like Kentish Town but Camden and Archway aren't nice. As for "NW1", they wouldn't let me in at the gates...
This could be it. They should turn the entire street into open air dining, al fresco bars, shisha places. It could be epic