Skip to content

First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,840
edited 2:43PM in General
First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied – politicalbetting.com

Quite a lot of rubbish in the papers today. Reminds me why I left Westminster in the first place!

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 125,232
    First?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,987
    Perhaps Burnham is trying to mend the bridges he burnt when he made an idiot of himself at conference?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed.

    That's the nub of the issue, though you could say the same about a lot of issues in Britain today. And there's less than no money left.

    It's not like the solutions for charging don't exist, it's just that it needs money to implement them.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    edited 3:03PM

    Perhaps Burnham is trying to mend the bridges he burnt when he made an idiot of himself at conference?

    A weapon of victory? For tanks, parking on the opposition's lawns of.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycztQPrhE4g
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed.

    That's the nub of the issue, though you could say the same about a lot of issues in Britain today. And there's less than no money left.

    It's not like the solutions for charging don't exist, it's just that it needs money to implement them.
    Indeed.

    And without implementation, then the status quo solution will be the continuation of millions of people buying, driving and refuelling ICE vehicles.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,258
    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,677
    Foxy said:

    I think this is at stage four of the Burnham cycle:


    Can we harness the Burnham cycle as a source of renewable energy?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    edited 3:21PM

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed.

    That's the nub of the issue, though you could say the same about a lot of issues in Britain today. And there's less than no money left.

    It's not like the solutions for charging don't exist, it's just that it needs money to implement them.
    Indeed.

    And without implementation, then the status quo solution will be the continuation of millions of people buying, driving and refuelling ICE vehicles.
    Well, that is a logical conclusion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government simply drove their popularity off another cliff by sticking to the timetable and pushing another increase in the cost of living onto people by forcing them to rely on more expensive public charging.

    Expect the price of second hand ICE cars to be high in the 2030s.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed.

    That's the nub of the issue, though you could say the same about a lot of issues in Britain today. And there's less than no money left.

    It's not like the solutions for charging don't exist, it's just that it needs money to implement them.
    Indeed.

    And without implementation, then the status quo solution will be the continuation of millions of people buying, driving and refuelling ICE vehicles.
    Well, that is a logical conclusion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the government simply drove their popularity off another cliff by sticking to the timetable and pushing another increase in the cost of living onto people by forcing them to rely on more expensive public charging.

    Expect the price of second hand ICE cars to be high in the 2030s.
    That is an option, but then that counteracts the suggestions being made FPT that "the market" will do this anyway and the ban is inconsequential.

    If the lack of affordable charging is not tackled, and the Budget only made it worse not better, then the market will respond to the incentives the Government is setting about - which is that BEV remains too expensive for those without off-road charging.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906

    Putting 'visitors' instead of Newcastle on scoreboard at the Stadium of Light.

    That level of pettiness from Sunderland is something I can only applaud.

    Sunderland's hatred of Newcastle runs so deep, they only put "visitors" and not their rivals' badge on the scoreboard 😭



    https://x.com/MenInBlazers/status/2000223798725955622/photo/1

    Funny, but also betrays a lack of confidence on their part.

    As if they were confident they could win, then Sunderland 1 - 0 Newcastle looks much more impressive than Sunderland 1 - 0 Visitors.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,360

    Foxy said:

    I think this is at stage four of the Burnham cycle:


    Can we harness the Burnham cycle as a source of renewable energy?
    I am not sure hot air engines are a source of renewable energy.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,134
    At 2.43pm @TSE posts “First?” on this thread. At 2.44pm @TSE posts “New thread” on the old thread. Seems a bit iffy to me.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,134

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,339

    Putting 'visitors' instead of Newcastle on scoreboard at the Stadium of Light.

    That level of pettiness from Sunderland is something I can only applaud.

    Sunderland's hatred of Newcastle runs so deep, they only put "visitors" and not their rivals' badge on the scoreboard 😭



    https://x.com/MenInBlazers/status/2000223798725955622/photo/1

    I remember years ago being at an event with the Leader of Sunderland City Council. He quite literally danced with joy when news came through of Newcastle losing a match.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,412
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,498

    Putting 'visitors' instead of Newcastle on scoreboard at the Stadium of Light.

    That level of pettiness from Sunderland is something I can only applaud.

    Sunderland's hatred of Newcastle runs so deep, they only put "visitors" and not their rivals' badge on the scoreboard 😭



    https://x.com/MenInBlazers/status/2000223798725955622/photo/1

    That's mackems for you.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,578
    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much disruption.
    In Richmond and Hammersmith, many streets have several streetlights with plugs for charging EVs.



    Click on https://www.zapmap.com/live/ to see what is available near you.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,110

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    Before it even gets to the end points at people's homes or work, it has to come over the grid. So what does National Grid say about it? Quite interesting in that you may not even need a domestic end point!

    https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero-stories/can-grid-cope-extra-demand-electric-cars
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,849
    Foxy said:

    I think this is at stage four of the Burnham cycle:


    Who is it even meant to fool? You don't get floated as a leadership challenger so persistently without at least some nodding and winking at it.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,025
    Barnesian said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much disruption.
    In Richmond and Hammersmith, many streets have several streetlights with plugs for charging EVs.



    Click on https://www.zapmap.com/live/ to see what is available near you.
    I've used streetlight chargers myself, and they are pretty convenient. However, they are run by commercial operators and are therefore expensive. What those who park their cars on the road need is some way of charging that uses their own domestic supply, preferably at a cheap night rate.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,817

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    When you think about it, it's actually pretty strange that people are allowed to store their cars on the public highway, thus obstructing other users of said highway. If I had my way, I'd ban the storage of cars on the road completely. This would both free up our streets and eliminate the need for roadside charging. However, I appreciate this policy might be a little difficult to push though politically, and I will keep quiet about it during my paper candidacy for the upcoming council elections.
    I think people should be allowed to use said parking spots for whatever purpose they wish, and they should be auctioned off by the council. Efficient use of land etc etc
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,134
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    Demand will also depend on how cars are taxed.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,134

    Barnesian said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much disruption.
    In Richmond and Hammersmith, many streets have several streetlights with plugs for charging EVs.



    Click on https://www.zapmap.com/live/ to see what is available near you.
    I've used streetlight chargers myself, and they are pretty convenient. However, they are run by commercial operators and are therefore expensive. What those who park their cars on the road need is some way of charging that uses their own domestic supply, preferably at a cheap night rate.
    Build millions of blocks of flats, with underground parking and charging points at each parking space. Also helps solve the housing crisis.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 12,118
    System said:

    First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied – politicalbetting.com

    Quite a lot of rubbish in the papers today. Reminds me why I left Westminster in the first place!

    Read the full story here

    That’s not a denial. It’s not even a non-denial denial. It’s sophistry.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,651
    edited 4:42PM
    Credit where due: At a Fred Meyer "hypermarket" where I sometimes shop, there are 12 Tesla charging stations. When I visit there, usually on Tuesday mornings* -- which would not be their busiest times -- typically about half of them are in use. This has proved to be a better solution than putting the stations in the basement of a local public library, which the local government has done. (I remember being startled to see one of those actually in use.)

    Google maps will show you a picture of them; just search on "Fred Meyer + Totem Lake". The stations are in the northwest corner of the main parking lot.

    (Why Tuesday mornings? Because on the first Tuesday of every month they have discounts for oldies like me. Maybe I can get a photo for you if I visit on January 6th. Or sooner.)
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 12,118

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,412
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    No idea on timeframe - I'd guess beyond my lifetime - but I think this is pretty grounded and realistic as 'visions of the future' go. Certainly when I take one of my little trips forward and I look down at our towns and cities I do not see stationary lumps of metal strewn around all over the place.

    I say this wistfully rather than in a spirit of celebration because I've always enjoyed the private motoring experience. Plus it's been a mainstay of our culture. It's a great and inevitable development, the end of all that, but as so often with such leaps of progress we'll be losing something.

    "Standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona, such a fine sight to see
    It's a girl, my lord, in an autonomous electric transit unit, slowing down to ..."

    Just not going to be playing that. Nobody is.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    No idea on timeframe - I'd guess beyond my lifetime - but I think this is pretty grounded and realistic as 'visions of the future' go. Certainly when I take one of my little trips forward and I look down at our towns and cities I do not see stationary lumps of metal strewn around all over the place.

    I say this wistfully rather than in a spirit of celebration because I've always enjoyed the private motoring experience. Plus it's been a mainstay of our culture. It's a great and inevitable development, the end of all that, but as so often with such leaps of progress we'll be losing something.

    "Standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona, such a fine sight to see
    It's a girl, my lord, in an autonomous electric transit unit, slowing down to ..."

    Just not going to be playing that. Nobody is.
    Grease Lightning just wouldn’t have been the same in an autonomous SUV
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,578

    Barnesian said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much disruption.
    In Richmond and Hammersmith, many streets have several streetlights with plugs for charging EVs.



    Click on https://www.zapmap.com/live/ to see what is available near you.
    I've used streetlight chargers myself, and they are pretty convenient. However, they are run by commercial operators and are therefore expensive. What those who park their cars on the road need is some way of charging that uses their own domestic supply, preferably at a cheap night rate.
    Richmond Council is providing a borough-wide scheme to help residents charge electric vehicles (EVs) more easily and safely at home.

    Following a successful trial, the new initiative installs footway channels – discreet gullies cut across pavements – allowing safe, convenient cable routing from properties to kerbside parked EVs, without creating a trip hazard.

    https://www.richmond.gov.uk/news/news_july_2025/innovative_ev_home_charging_scheme_launched

    An innovative Lib Dem Council!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,886
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much disruption.
    In Richmond and Hammersmith, many streets have several streetlights with plugs for charging EVs.



    Click on https://www.zapmap.com/live/ to see what is available near you.
    I've used streetlight chargers myself, and they are pretty convenient. However, they are run by commercial operators and are therefore expensive. What those who park their cars on the road need is some way of charging that uses their own domestic supply, preferably at a cheap night rate.
    Richmond Council is providing a borough-wide scheme to help residents charge electric vehicles (EVs) more easily and safely at home.

    Following a successful trial, the new initiative installs footway channels – discreet gullies cut across pavements – allowing safe, convenient cable routing from properties to kerbside parked EVs, without creating a trip hazard.

    https://www.richmond.gov.uk/news/news_july_2025/innovative_ev_home_charging_scheme_launched

    An innovative Lib Dem Council!
    Very discreet!
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,339
    Nigelb said:

    Sounds a reasonable theory of the case.

    https://x.com/MikeLevin/status/1999625620549161290
    For those, who still had ANY doubts or hopes, let me explain the simple truth of our reality.

    1) The only interest the current US administration has is making sure everyone in Trumps circle gets their profit. People in that circle are extremely cynical, possess no moral compass or empathy, and they have employed aggressive business practices throughout their lives. Nothing personal, just business.

    2) Whenever some “humanitarian” deeds happen, they happen ONLY as a cover for getting a new source of profit. For example, the release of Belarusian political prisoners was done in exchange for desanctioning the BelarusKaliy* ; I can bet €100 that somebody from the Trump’s circle is already in touch with the company, and has arranged some very profitable scheme.

    3) Same goes with all negotiations with Russia. Putin, according to Trump, is a typical man of his circle. One you can do business with, disregarding all these boring ethical and national security concerns. Again, I am pretty sure, the main content of the private “negotiations” has nothing to do with ensuring peace; it is purely business talk.

    4) Russia is an immensely rich country in terms of resources. Many American (and quite some European) businessmen are waiting impatiently for any solution that gives them access to the Russian resources and money associated with.

    5) People tend to live in denial when something so earth-shuttering as the large scale, open corruption in the US happens. They start searching for a second layer, say there are deeper forces in play. No, it is what it looks like: the people who currently rule the most powerful country on Earth, try to make as much profit as possible. No matter how...


    *At the same time the Administation desanctions Belarus potash, it's imposing tariffs on the Canadian supply.

    That sounds all too plausible. "Normal" politics have been superseded by rule by, and for, the oligarchs. When you figure that out, you can better understand what is going on. Trump, in his basic world view, is closer to Putin than Zelenskyy (whom he evidently despises).
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,025
    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Sadly, you are probably right.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,220
    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    They do have something specifically to explore that - though without the dating bit admittedly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/14/dining-across-the-divide-andy-louisa

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    They've already been replacing the leccy cable in our road for greater future demands (heating, jam jars, etc. etc.)>
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    edited 5:08PM
    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    They do have something specifically to explore that - though without the dating bit admittedly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/14/dining-across-the-divide-andy-louisa

    A Labour voter and a Labour voter who now leans Green. Quite the political chasm!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,439
    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    No idea on timeframe - I'd guess beyond my lifetime - but I think this is pretty grounded and realistic as 'visions of the future' go. Certainly when I take one of my little trips forward and I look down at our towns and cities I do not see stationary lumps of metal strewn around all over the place.

    I say this wistfully rather than in a spirit of celebration because I've always enjoyed the private motoring experience. Plus it's been a mainstay of our culture. It's a great and inevitable development, the end of all that, but as so often with such leaps of progress we'll be losing something.

    "Standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona, such a fine sight to see
    It's a girl, my lord, in an autonomous electric transit unit, slowing down to ..."

    Just not going to be playing that. Nobody is.
    Grease Lightning just wouldn’t have been the same in an autonomous SUV
    Culture moves on with technology.

    ..My little horse must think it queer
    To stop without a farmhouse near
    Between the woods and frozen lake
    The darkest evening of the year.

    He gives his harness bells a shake
    To ask if there is some mistake.
    The only other sound’s the sweep
    Of easy wind and downy flake.

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep...


    Wouldn't have sounded so great featuring a '46 Ford Super DeLuxe.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 47,026
    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    They do have something specifically to explore that - though without the dating bit admittedly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/14/dining-across-the-divide-andy-louisa

    A Labour voter and a Labour voter who now leans Green. Quite the political chasm!
    Keep looking: e.g.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/30/dining-across-the-divide-peter-akshat
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/09/dining-across-the-divide-i-was-expecting-some-leftist-anti-capitalist-socialist-guardianista
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,439
    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    They do have something specifically to explore that - though without the dating bit admittedly:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/14/dining-across-the-divide-andy-louisa

    A Labour voter and a Labour voter who now leans Green. Quite the political chasm!
    Keep looking: e.g.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/30/dining-across-the-divide-peter-akshat
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/nov/09/dining-across-the-divide-i-was-expecting-some-leftist-anti-capitalist-socialist-guardianista
    Sounds like the start of a beautiful romance
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,412
    Nigelb said:

    Sounds a reasonable theory of the case.

    https://x.com/MikeLevin/status/1999625620549161290
    For those, who still had ANY doubts or hopes, let me explain the simple truth of our reality.

    1) The only interest the current US administration has is making sure everyone in Trumps circle gets their profit. People in that circle are extremely cynical, possess no moral compass or empathy, and they have employed aggressive business practices throughout their lives. Nothing personal, just business.

    2) Whenever some “humanitarian” deeds happen, they happen ONLY as a cover for getting a new source of profit. For example, the release of Belarusian political prisoners was done in exchange for desanctioning the BelarusKaliy* ; I can bet €100 that somebody from the Trump’s circle is already in touch with the company, and has arranged some very profitable scheme.

    3) Same goes with all negotiations with Russia. Putin, according to Trump, is a typical man of his circle. One you can do business with, disregarding all these boring ethical and national security concerns. Again, I am pretty sure, the main content of the private “negotiations” has nothing to do with ensuring peace; it is purely business talk.

    4) Russia is an immensely rich country in terms of resources. Many American (and quite some European) businessmen are waiting impatiently for any solution that gives them access to the Russian resources and money associated with.

    5) People tend to live in denial when something so earth-shuttering as the large scale, open corruption in the US happens. They start searching for a second layer, say there are deeper forces in play. No, it is what it looks like: the people who currently rule the most powerful country on Earth, try to make as much profit as possible. No matter how...


    *At the same time the Administation desanctions Belarus potash, it's imposing tariffs on the Canadian supply.

    True, but in fact worse because on top of that you have the pathological need for attention and flattery of the man at the top. Then there's the racism and misogyny. All of that stuff is decidedly 'in' now. No problem with it. Encouraged. And the performative cruelty. And the general crassness and stupefying ignorance and ... well let's just say that purely financial corruption on an epic scale would be a significant improvement on where we are with this administration.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,134
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,830
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    No idea on timeframe - I'd guess beyond my lifetime - but I think this is pretty grounded and realistic as 'visions of the future' go. Certainly when I take one of my little trips forward and I look down at our towns and cities I do not see stationary lumps of metal strewn around all over the place.

    I say this wistfully rather than in a spirit of celebration because I've always enjoyed the private motoring experience. Plus it's been a mainstay of our culture. It's a great and inevitable development, the end of all that, but as so often with such leaps of progress we'll be losing something.

    "Standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona, such a fine sight to see
    It's a girl, my lord, in an autonomous electric transit unit, slowing down to ..."

    Just not going to be playing that. Nobody is.
    Grease Lightning just wouldn’t have been the same in an autonomous SUV
    Culture moves on with technology.

    ..My little horse must think it queer
    To stop without a farmhouse near
    Between the woods and frozen lake
    The darkest evening of the year.

    He gives his harness bells a shake
    To ask if there is some mistake.
    The only other sound’s the sweep
    Of easy wind and downy flake.

    The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep...


    Wouldn't have sounded so great featuring a '46 Ford Super DeLuxe.
    Heavy Horses by Jethro Tull is a great song about that transition.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,413
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    Remarkably little has been said about how easy Russia’s advance was in early 2022. We’ve heard ad nauseum about the practical impossibility of Ukraine re-invading Crimea because of geography. But Russia managed an advance in the opposite direction with relative ease.

    Given everything that has happened since, we can conclude it says rather more about the early chinks in Ukraine’s chain of command than it does Russia’s capabilities at combined arms warfare.

    So we (and mainland Europe) need to learn the lesson. It is fifth columnists in our own military, political and security structures that pose the gravest threats.

    We should be doing whatever is needed to ensure the off duty safety of our qualified pilots and sub mariners, who are the scarcest human resource we have. Building a multi layered shield around our key military and economic assets, most notably our air bases, North Sea energy and data cables (but also cyber). And finally ramping up to the max our arms manufacture capability.

    If we do all this, then I’m personally not all that scared of the Russians. Ukraine does not have a navy, th most advanced long range missiles or 4th gen fighters and it still manages to keep the front roughly frozen.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,079
    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    Doctor Who?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,486
    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,412

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    Leon and you went on a date?!

    The mind boggles…
    It'd be a fizzer. They'd finish each other's sentences.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,860
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    It's not the Russians that the Europeans (and the UK) are terrified of. Recently, the Belgian defence attache in DC described the Trump administration as "chaotic" in an interview. Hegseth told the Belgian government to fire him and they did. When the EU+UK abandon Ukraine, as they surely will, it's because they're worried about the American reaction not the Russian.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    edited 5:34PM

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    You could substitute pretty much any consumer good into that last sentence.

    The reason is that late-stage capitalism has to use advertising to stimulate overconsumption in order to create demand for the oversupply of goods that capitalism creates.

    Ban advertising.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,860

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    Eabhal said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    I know exactly what you're saying, that taxis are going to displace private ownership.

    Taxis are not a new invention, and yet people want their own vehicles anyway. For a plethora of very good reasons.

    The idea that within 4 years that is magically going to change, let alone ever going to change, is just insanity and wishful thinking by you.
    Roadside charging would be easier if residents had a maximum of one car each. I know there are good reasons why one car per household is not always practical, but why does anyone need more than one personal car?
    Sometimes people have more than one because the vehicles serve different purposes, eg a personal car for driving and a van for work.

    Sometimes there's more than one person in the household and each of them might need their own vehicle.

    If there's 2 parents working in a household they might both need a vehicle. If there's adult children who have not yet been able to afford a home of their own yet, they might too on top of their parents vehicles.

    Either way though, roadside charging solutions have not been rolled out yet, and I don't see any concrete plans in place to do so by 2030, which makes a mockery of the 2030 deadline for ICE. Either tackle the issue, or be realistic.
    If there’s not a generalised autonomous EV in mass production for the UK market then you are right. But if there is, the issue of road side charging will become redundant. Even for privately owned robotaxis, it will be far cheaper and quicker to build charging hubs that your car drives itself to park and charge at overnight.

    It’s going to take a while to replace the whole fleet of course. But by 2040 (?) we will likely have see a transformative impact on our urban road architecture. Rows and rows of parked cars in narrow streets sitting there doing nothing is unlikely to be a thing any more.

    Is the 2030 deadline the right one? I dunno. But it might surprise you how quickly demand for brand new ICEs gets crushed when this product is widely launched.
    When you think about it, it's actually pretty strange that people are allowed to store their cars on the public highway, thus obstructing other users of said highway. If I had my way, I'd ban the storage of cars on the road completely. This would both free up our streets and eliminate the need for roadside charging. However, I appreciate this policy might be a little difficult to push though politically, and I will keep quiet about it during my paper candidacy for the upcoming council elections.
    I think people should be allowed to use said parking spots for whatever purpose they wish, and they should be auctioned off by the council. Efficient use of land etc etc
    They're not parking spots, though. They're the road. People parking on the road gets in the way.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 12,817
    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    It's not so much the availability but the price. Public charging points are easy more expensive than night-rate tariff on your domestic supply.

    Do you expect that to change?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,677
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    That only works for Poland if they're willing to fight Russia now - or in 3 or 4 years.

    Instead they'll have to fight Russia in ten or twenty years time when there are Putinist or neutralist governments in Germany, France and the UK and a President Vance (or worse) in Washington.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,045
    edited 5:50PM
    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    Surprised as I am that you and Leon had a ménage, I would have assumed he and you would have been politically simpatico.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,296
    Dura_Ace said:

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
    You're a much more astute Russia observer than most of us - will they run out of steam? (They must do so at some point, but is that tomorrow or ten years away?)

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    edited 5:53PM
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    If this rosy picture is the case, why not help Ukraine to regain its lost territory?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    First problem with that is that Russia will not accept it. They would have to be forced to accept it - and if you can do that why not force them out of Ukraine altogether?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,077

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    That only works for Poland if they're willing to fight Russia now - or in 3 or 4 years.

    Instead they'll have to fight Russia in ten or twenty years time when there are Putinist or neutralist governments in Germany, France and the UK and a President Vance (or worse) in Washington.
    Do we not just give Poland nukes?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,677
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    That only works for Poland if they're willing to fight Russia now - or in 3 or 4 years.

    Instead they'll have to fight Russia in ten or twenty years time when there are Putinist or neutralist governments in Germany, France and the UK and a President Vance (or worse) in Washington.
    Do we not just give Poland nukes?
    Not give.

    Sell.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,439
    edited 6:02PM
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?

    And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,677
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
    Your last point is a reason why we shouldn't want a bad peace.

    It will be used as an excuse to cut defence spending again to fund even more welfare.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906
    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    kinabalu said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Conservatives to scrap plans to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030"

    https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-14/conservatives-to-scrap-plans-to-ban-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030

    So the Tories who won't get a say before late 2028 at the earliest and probably 2029, will try to reverse something that will be 99% by then...

    It's the sort of stupid headline that looks like they are doing something when really it's a complete nothingburger.
    I don't think that is the point

    There is an increasing demand both here and in the EU to delay the ban and Badenoch's call is much in line with a changing mood on this policy
    The irony is I believe Euro 7 is going to increase petrol engine costs to the point that BEV's will be cheaper.
    Euro 7 has stricter rules on unburnt hydrocarbons. The only (cost effective) way to meet them will be to reduce cylinder count. Unburnt HC emissions vary with cylinder radius but engine output is proportional to displacement and hence the square of the cylinder radius. This raises a marketing problem, as Mercedes discovered, because people will not pay shitloads of money for 4 (and fewer) cylinder cars regardless of whether achieve or even exceed performance parity.

    ICE engines will hang around in hybrid form for a while but KB is just railing against the inevitable to catch the attention of GB News watching morons who hate BEVs on principle.
    Meanwhile BYD and similar are eating the legacy automakers market. The market for ICE cars is dying. Its like trying to sell C41 and E6 film in the digital age.

    For anyone with a driveway or other off-road parking where charging at home is an option, it absolutely is.

    For people who needs public charging on the other hand, which includes tens of millions of people, the market is not dying.

    Even before the foolhardy introduction of an EV per mile tax, it was already cheaper to drive an efficient petrol vehicle over a publicly-charged electric one, despite the fact that the petrol tax is almost entirely taxation and the EV charging cost is not. With the per mile EV tax, that disparity has grown even worse.

    Should private transportation only be the preserve of those with off-road parking?
    It's quite possible to have charging with on-road parking, I have seen it in the Netherlands
    just upgrade street lights surely and stick plugs in them
    Yes - it's a good idea, but that would be limited to a small fraction of streetlights (perhaps 10%), without replacement of the entire infrastructure.

    The current free for charging is the difference between the headroom created by the move to LED bulbs, and the max rating of the distribution cables.

    On the upside that also means that turning one or two spaces per street into charging points means that they can be set aside without too much distruption.
    The near future for road transport is fully autonomous and electric. People are going to look back on conversations about “bans” for new hydrocarbon road vehicles with a nostalgic chuckle. It’s not illegal to ride about in a horse and cart but the only people my way who do are the local scrap metal merchants.
    Only if we can sort out charging issues.

    When it is considerably cheaper to charge a petrol vehicle than an electric one, as it is currently for those without off-road parking, people will act rationally according to their incentives.

    If you want the transition to electric to proceed, and I do, then we need to tackle this problem, not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist.

    4 years is not long to sort out this issue for the tens of millions of homes without off-road parking, that currently have and require a car.
    Don’t worry about it. There will be little economic incentive for those without off street parking to own their own fully autonomous EV.
    That's the point. 🤦‍♂️

    The alternative to owning their own EV, is owning their own ICE vehicle. As much as some people would wish away the private ownership of vehicles, it has not happened and is not going to happen within 4 years.

    Unless we can tackle the fact it is considerably cheaper to fuel an efficient vehicle by petrol (despite that being almost all tax already), than it is via public-charging, which tens of millions of homes require, the market alone is not going to magic away that problem.

    We need serious investment in a solution for charging, or the transition is not going to be completed. Saying I'm alright as I have at-home charging is not a serious solution for those who don't.

    The Government have just introduced a BEV per mile tax that makes it even more expensive to drive electrically, even if you don't charge at home, and is doing absolutely nothing I can see to sort out charging issues nationwide to have them be resolved within 4 years if the 2030 cessation of ICE sales is meant to take effect.
    I know you don’t understand what I’m saying. That’s ok. You will do once the crushing certainty of economic gravity is measured. Not long now.
    You're sounding like Doctor No.
    A pity I am allergic to cats. Or was that the other one, I get the mixed up.
    Could be worse, you could have been on Grauniad Blind Date this week.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/dec/13/blind-date-tom-rita
    I dunno. She seems well presented and a decent judge of character
    Well, she could have been the cat owner!
    Were I single, it would be an interesting experiment to go on that. See if there’s a guardian reader out there who would be willing to overlook my political outlook, which I assume they would find rather unsavoury. Leon managed it for a time so perhaps it’s not impossible. Is he coming back ever by the way?
    Something tells me that he's already here ...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,939
    Dura_Ace said:

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
    Russian territory = 17,000,000 sq. km

    Ukraine (official borders) = 600,000 sq. km.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,296
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
    The conflict is a little frozen already. Ukraine is winning the stalemate situation, but not by much. Russia is of course not at war, merely conducting the SMO, an inconsequential thing, barely worth mentioning. Putin is busy shooting political chickens.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,939

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    I’m tempted to simultaneously nuke Moscow and Washington. At least when we are all obliterated 2 minutes later, I’ll die with a smug smile on my face.
    "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?" :lol:
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,079
    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
    Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,289
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?

    And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
    I wouldn't rule out a rapid resumption of aggression from Russia. Transitioning back to a peacetime economy will be hard, as will reintegrating veteran soldiers into society.

    At the same time Russian leaders will be keen to rebuild the army in terms of its equipment and capabilities, so to some extent the wartime economy will continue. And then, you've spent all this money rebuilding the army, and the people are antsy about the cost, so you kinda have to use it to justify the expense.

    And, of course, the Russians will believe they learnt the right lessons from the war and will be better placed to win the next one.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,077
    edited 6:10PM
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?

    And Farage and whatever shitheads are leading the French and German far right in power ?
    And this is why it's so important for the centre left/right parties in power to get a handle on immigration. It is the single most corrosive debate across Europe. Public trust on the subject has been broken time and again which leaves voters feeling completely powerless resulting in 30-40% of them deciding enough is enough and voting for RN, Reform or AfD. Scenes like the one we just saw in Sydney were entirely avoidable, western nations didn't need to allow immigration from Islamic countries and voters feel conned because now we're being told we all need to live in a police state because radical Islam threatens to overrun our societies with terrorist attacks when the truth is that a majority of voters would not have let them come to our countries in the first place.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,994
    edited 6:14PM

    Dura_Ace said:

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
    Russian territory = 17,000,000 sq. km

    Ukraine (official borders) = 600,000 sq. km.
    Compare the land fertility of Ukraine and Russia.



    Breadbasket for a reason...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,439
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    It's not the Russians that the Europeans (and the UK) are terrified of. Recently, the Belgian defence attache in DC described the Trump administration as "chaotic" in an interview. Hegseth told the Belgian government to fire him and they did. When the EU+UK abandon Ukraine, as they surely will, it's because they're worried about the American reaction not the Russian.
    Just because Belgium have cold feet doesn't mean the rest of Europe has - indeed they are in direct conflict over seizing Russian assets.

    And just because they're worried about Trump's US (rightly so, given the new US policy breaking the old Soviet empire away from Western Europe) hardly means they can be insouciant about Putin's Russia.

    You seem to be keen on that outcome; I'm not.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,456
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sounds a reasonable theory of the case.

    https://x.com/MikeLevin/status/1999625620549161290
    For those, who still had ANY doubts or hopes, let me explain the simple truth of our reality.

    1) The only interest the current US administration has is making sure everyone in Trumps circle gets their profit. People in that circle are extremely cynical, possess no moral compass or empathy, and they have employed aggressive business practices throughout their lives. Nothing personal, just business.

    2) Whenever some “humanitarian” deeds happen, they happen ONLY as a cover for getting a new source of profit. For example, the release of Belarusian political prisoners was done in exchange for desanctioning the BelarusKaliy* ; I can bet €100 that somebody from the Trump’s circle is already in touch with the company, and has arranged some very profitable scheme.

    3) Same goes with all negotiations with Russia. Putin, according to Trump, is a typical man of his circle. One you can do business with, disregarding all these boring ethical and national security concerns. Again, I am pretty sure, the main content of the private “negotiations” has nothing to do with ensuring peace; it is purely business talk.

    4) Russia is an immensely rich country in terms of resources. Many American (and quite some European) businessmen are waiting impatiently for any solution that gives them access to the Russian resources and money associated with.

    5) People tend to live in denial when something so earth-shuttering as the large scale, open corruption in the US happens. They start searching for a second layer, say there are deeper forces in play. No, it is what it looks like: the people who currently rule the most powerful country on Earth, try to make as much profit as possible. No matter how...


    *At the same time the Administation desanctions Belarus potash, it's imposing tariffs on the Canadian supply.

    True, but in fact worse because on top of that you have the pathological need for attention and flattery of the man at the top. Then there's the racism and misogyny. All of that stuff is decidedly 'in' now. No problem with it. Encouraged. And the performative cruelty. And the general crassness and stupefying ignorance and ... well let's just say that purely financial corruption on an epic scale would be a significant improvement on where we are with this administration.
    Just heard him boasting on TV that he has got 18 Trillion in tariffs so far in under a year and companies are building lots and lots of factories in US to avoid them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 54,395

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
    Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
    It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.

    Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,045
    edited 6:17PM

    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    That only works for Poland if they're willing to fight Russia now - or in 3 or 4 years.

    Instead they'll have to fight Russia in ten or twenty years time when there are Putinist or neutralist governments in Germany, France and the UK and a President Vance (or worse) in Washington.
    Do we not just give Poland nukes?
    Not give.

    Sell.
    ‘We’ do not have nukes to give or sell.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
    Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
    It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?

    For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.

    If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,906
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
    Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
    It is better for the battery to run it down below 20% before recharging. I have done this for 5 years in my Kia and it has the same range as new.

    Modern systems deliver an 80% charge in 20 minutes or so.
    20 minutes at home is nothing.

    20 minutes at a forecourt is rather a while.

    Especially if the forecourt is more expensive per mile than the petrol equivalent is. And there's BEV per-mile taxation on top.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,695
    Evening all :)

    As I've said on here many times since late 2022, the current situation in the Ukraine suits a lot of the key players - not the Russians and the Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying obviously but they don't matter.

    There's actually something vaguely Orwellian about it all - the war legitimises Putin and Zelensky and allows the military-defence complex in both the West and China free rein to argue for more of the national cake. Increased defence spending everywhere, more weapons required, more weapons purchased and the arms manufacturers, whether Stare owned or active supporters of ruling administrations, are happy.

    Stopping either side from winning (or losing if you prefer) works well economically for too many vested interests to allow it to stop for any meaningful time. It allows defence strategists and researchers to analyse and study modern warfare and work out what works and what doesn't - yes, there are other wars but Congo or the Thai/Cambodian border aren't the same as the Ukraine and a lot less easy to get to.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 45,456
    edited 6:21PM

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    Ukrainian air strikes are certainly escalating. But so are Russian ones. Given Trump cut off all US aid to Ukraine it could certainly be worse but I'm not optimistic about things right now.

    Trump is trying to force Zelensky into an awful deal because he wants to make money from business with Russia. Russia is happy to keep fighting, because Putin believes his army is winning, so is sticking to its maximalist war aims. The Europeans are running around like headless chickens with no direction or cohesion.

    It's a bad situation.

    Ukrainian successes with long-range strikes, or the counterattack around Kupiansk, are welcome, but they're not enough to turn the tide. And they're kinda bittersweet because they show what would be possible if Europe found the resolve and sense of purpose to fully back Ukraine.

    Instead we're choosing to do enough to keep Ukraine fighting, but not enough to help them win. It's such a big mistake.
    It clearly demonstrates why the EU can’t be the core of European defence structures. NATO and JEF have to be the way forward (with or without the US)
    It’s been blindingly obvious since 2023 (but the signs were there in autumn 2022) that almost no one in the Western alliance wants Ukraine to “win”. Or rather they are too frightened of what might follow a decisive Russian loss - likely some
    combo of wounded animal behaviour by Putin, disruption to global commodities markets and stray nukes ending up with regional Russian war lords.

    This grates with me, but all of us have to accept that we have not seen the intelligence the decision makers have. It is lazy in the extreme to think the current US government’s main goal is to build a hotel in Moscow. There has been a remarkably consistent common position among the core counties even after domestic political transitions. Is what it is.

    Given this seemingly immovable reality, the best thing for the Ukrainians really does now feel like getting done whatever deal will get the fighting to finish as soon as possible, followed by an influx of weapons and funding.
    Is it ?
    If Europe is so terrified that they can't defeat a Russian invasion, how do they deter a repeat in a few years' time ?
    The sad and deeply cynical answer is what the west required was the exhaustion of the incredible quantities of kit that Russia had inherited from the Soviet Union which made them a threat. The brave resistance of Ukraine and the imbecility of the psychopath in the Kremlin mean that has been achieved. In addition the loss of over 1m men of fighting age (even on a broad definition) together with at least another million who fled has turned the already poor demographics of Russia into a catastrophe. Combine that with the profound economic damage and you are left with a country that would very probably struggle to take on Poland in a conventional war today and would have no chance whatsoever in 3 or 4 years time.

    We owe Ukraine an incredible debt of gratitude for massively degrading a serious threat to our way of life. But countries, and certainly governments, are not sentimental. I hope we honour our debt and their sacrifice but I am not holding my breath.

    As for the idea that an exhausted Russia is some threat to western Europe in any conventional sense? Please, don't be ridiculous.
    It's far from ridiculous.

    Obviously, if there's a freezing of the conflict, Russia is not going to be relaunching an inversion within a couple of years.
    But five years down the road, after rebuilding trade with Trump's US, and resuming in sanctioned oil and gas exports ?

    And if Europe gets tired of spending 3% plus of GDP on rearming (the UK already seems to have) ?
    Your last point is a reason why we shouldn't want a bad peace.

    It will be used as an excuse to cut defence spending again to fund even more welfare.
    If on benefits for more than 6 months any able bodied person should be made to enlist or not get another penny. having anxiety , or many other minor ailments don't count as NOT able bodied
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 5,079

    Eabhal said:

    MattW said:

    I think that within a very few years, availability of charging points will cease to be a constraint, except for unusual situations.

    When will forecourt EV chargers deliver the equivalent of 40 litres per minute at the same cost as petrol?

    2029?
    Stupid question. Obviously never, but then why do you have to lug 50kg of fuel around with you all the time? Owning an ev is a different mindset. You top up when you need it, usually less than half the battery every now and again. It costs me about £18. This and not polluting the atmosphere every time I drive is quite satisfying.
    It costs you £18 from a public charger, or it costs you £18 at home?

    For people who don't have a home-option, there needs to be a realistic solution. That means public chargers that are as quick, cheap and reliable as petrol.

    If they're not, then expect demand for petrol to continue.
    18 pounds from a public charger ( Tesla).

    I don't have a driveway.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,830
    Dura_Ace said:

    I still think the best option is the Eastern Ukraine option. It is the only one tolerable to both parties. It is absolutely unnacceptable to expect Ukraine to give up territory it has fought for and lost blood for and have it added to Mother Russia. It is just about tolerable for them to do so to a new Eastern Ukraine. And we know it is intolerable to Russia to be bordered by a well-armed Ukraine with NATO membership. So let them be bordered by a new state with all the conditions applied that it wishes to impose on Ukraine.

    Partition and then fuck off is the traditional denouement of a failed imperialist venture, so there are precedents.
    It's certainly an idea but what would Ukraine do with their half of Russia?
Sign In or Register to comment.