Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
One reason why I think that direct government housebuilding would help is that it would force the housebuilders to innovative to reduce costs, rather than just sit on their arses and wait for the government to restore their profits for them in some way.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
He would need to bribe them then but most US taxpayers polled, certainly Democrats and Independents, oppose using their tax dollars for that as well
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
I don't agree. What's the real risk?
We shouldn't be puritans. We shouldn't fetishize the absolute elimination of all risk. And we should always consider the opportunity cost.
This would have a cost, which is hundreds of rural pubs closing - few regularly cycle and walk to them - with a knock-on impact to dozens of breweries' going out of business, staff losing their jobs, and lots of people losing the pleasure of enjoying a single pint in a country pub in their leisure time.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
That data doesn't tell us anything about the pedestrians and cyclists drunk drivers killed though, oddly enough.
The big change I want to see is phone use - impairment is roughly the same as drink driving and should get the same punishment.
A driver killing while on the phone a cyclist or pedestrian can already be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving anyway
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that that statement in you last paragraph is accurate, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
See Bart's data, France and Italy and Germany have higher death rates on the roads than we do and they already have the lower 50mg limit while we have 80mg (like the US)
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
The Conservatives legislated, under the last government, to give the power to reduce the land value uplift for compulsory land purchase. Rests with the Home Sec. IIRC.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You can come across some of these images just by browsing Twitter, without specifically requesting them. This would mean you have broken the law.
Only if you search for those already created using search terms to get them.
If you come across any such images online though as long as you did not request them, notify police and delete them you will not be convicted
There was a Tweet the other day from a guy who was searching for news on Stranger Things and one of the search results was of the kids undressed.
If an AI version rather than footage from the series, which would be legal as long as not underage naked, then as I said if he told police and deleted it then he would not be prosecuted
Remind me never to ask you for legal advice. How do you think he'd know it was AI in the first place? By viewing it, very carefully.
Well he obviously watched the series so would have known what was in it.
Regardless as I said provided he told police and deleted it he would not be prosecuted
You're not thinking (or reading earlier posts). He'd have to view it to realise it was different in the first place.
In the law either way provided he deleted it and told the police he would not be prosecuted anyway
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that that statement in you last paragraph is accurate, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
Ireland has a lower blood alcohol limit, but it has seen deaths on the roads increase over the last few years. It's also not unusual to come across drink drivers later in the evening (they're pretty easy to identify, driving *very* slowly, but still struggling to keep the car on one side of the road, and making sudden corrections when they notice they're drifting.)
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
There will be either commercial pressure for a deal, which Trump may then forget about, or something much more diffucult for neighbours to deal with.
A quick search found me a paper on the what happened in Scotland when they went from 80 to 50 mg/ml. They found NO CHANGE in accident or fatality rates.
End of NATO or end of US membership of NATO? Putin seems to be the immediate beneficiary of Venezuelan oil being diverted from China to the US. He'd also be the beneficiary of the US undermining NATO.
NATO will survive without the US. But yes, everything Trump is doing currently seems to be supporting and encouraging Putin.
Maybe, but it asks hard questions. Like could newNATO defend Canada against USA. Could it defend Latvia against Russia. Could it defend Spain/Portugal against a USA who decided it was strategically essential to make them the 52nd and 53rd states of the union?
It has just occurred to me that this useless government, constrained in foreign affairs by Events, and domestic affairs by There Being No Money Left, are going to just keep imposing head-banging puritanism that the Centrist Dads of PB will fawn over, aren't they?
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
The market failure is that an oligopoly of firms have planning permission to build but competitors do not. Small firms can't get planning permission quickly and easily and can't compete.
So the oligopoly can act in their own interests, rather than face competition.
Make permission easy to attain and small developers could each build small numbers of houses, which cumulatively would be lots of new homes and unleash competition and break the stranglehold that our current planning laws give to an oligopoly.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
You've pointed to data showing casualties are higher in countries with a lower limit. It's a bit like that time you claimed being hit at 20mph is just the same as 30mph.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
do you have link to evidence that 50mg impairs you, find that hard to believe.
A quick search found me a paper on the what happened in Scotland when they went from 80 to 50 mg/ml. They found NO CHANGE in accident or fatality rates.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
You've pointed to data showing casualties are higher in countries with a lower limit. It's a bit like that time you claimed being hit at 20mph is just the same as 30mph.
Perhaps your use of data is a bit suspect?
I never made that claim.
Yes, though, other countries have a higher casualty rate.
Which has a logical explanation, if the cultural opposition to drink-driving (which is the most important thing) breaks down as people think the law is an ass.
The key is to embed a culture of not drink-driving. We have that. Our roads are safer than the rest of Europe, barring a few Scandinavian nations, so adopting their policies might be sub-optimal.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
It's baffling that we can have a severe housing shortage and yet we can't make house building pay, so more can get built.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
No, they don’t.
Investment in the oil industry stopped, pretty much, under Chavez. They ate the seed corn.
Restarting investment would require billions and take years to see results
The existing wells are being pushed as hard as they can.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
It's baffling that we can have a severe housing shortage and yet we can't make house building pay, so more get built.
Building ‘standards’ have got a lot more onerous in recent years, especially with regard to energy efficiency, and the cost of a number of common building materials has also risen considerably. Add to general inflation in the labour market, and requirements for “affordable” housing and other facilities as part of a development, pressure on mortgage lending with higher interest rates, and all of a sudden the sums don’t add up.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
It's baffling that we can have a severe housing shortage and yet we can't make house building pay, so more can get built.
1) Deliberately rationing land for building pushes up prices. 2) labour costs are being pushed up 3) regulatory costs have gone up massively - tons of paperwork, but no enforcement is cheap for the government 4) a policy of local monopoly - the government, local and national prefers deals with Big Developers.
All the above have pushed up costs. And now the sales market has softened.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
With alcohol in your bloodstream you automatically become guilty of causing a crash, yet you may not have been the cause. If (say) 2 out of 3 accidents do not involve anyone with alcohol in their blood, then why would we assume that an accident in the 1 in 3 where at least one person has consumed alcohol, is due to that?
(I find this hard to explain - but assume Car A is driven by a complete tool, overtakes on a blind bend, and causes a crash with Car B that is driven by either someone with alcohol in the their blood or not, the cause is the tool, but in the former case the 'innocent' party would get done by the law)
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
given he is a man child he would love it , preening about how he did it with no causalties and a poke in the eye for europe being pussies
Newsflash: Britain’s construction sector continued to shrink in December, as housing, commercial and civil engineering activity suffered sharp falls again.
Data provider S&P Global has reported that activity across the UK construction sector, and new orders, both fell again last month.
Housebuilding and commercial construction work both decreased at the fastest rate since May 2020, when the Covid-19 lockdown forced building sites to close, S&P Global’s survey of purchasing managers at UK construction firms shows.
That highlights the government’s struggle to hit its housebuilding targets.
Civil engineering was the weakest-performing category of construction activity in December; it also shrank, but not by as much as in November.
This lifted the UK’s construction PMI index slightly to 40.1 in December, up from 39.4 in November, but still showing a contraction – for the 12th month running (50 = stagnation).
The drop extended the sector’s downturn to 12 months, its longest unbroken run of contractions since the global financial crisis of 2007-09, Reuters reports.
This really is remarkable. I know a lot is going on at the moment, but it ought to be receiving more attention in Britain. Far from having turned a corner or fixed the foundations, or whatever the latest vapid slogan is from Number Ten, they're actually going in the wrong direction.
"Struggle to hit its housebuilding targets" is masterful understatement.
How have they managed to make things worse, when they were awful to start with?
To be fair the Labour government haven't made things worse in the sense that housebuilding would also have declined if the Conservatives stayed in power. They haven't however taken the necessary steps to increase it. I think if they want housebuilding they need to invest directly in it, which is difficult ask in times of budget constraint. Otherwise they are just reliant on the market that is in no mood to build right now.
This is where a sustained and consistent level of state housebuilding can prop up an industry and retain those skills during a downturn. The problem is housebuilding is going the same way as nuclear energy - where are we going to get all the people required?
I'm not expert on this at all but was reading someone who was. The basic calculation is that the cost of land, building and finance for the development is bigger in total right now than house prices people are able to afford. Finance is the one lever the government has according to this expert, so it has to use it if it wants more houses built.
I was wondering if government could legislate to reduce compensation to land owners in some cases.
Maybe, but my understanding is that the developers gave plenty of land and extensive planning permission to build. We just have a market failure where in large chunks of the country it's not profitable to build due to underlying costs, and elsewhere the profit optimising behaviour is to restrict supply in order to maximise profits.
The market failure is that an oligopoly of firms have planning permission to build but competitors do not. Small firms can't get planning permission quickly and easily and can't compete.
So the oligopoly can act in their own interests, rather than face competition.
Make permission easy to attain and small developers could each build small numbers of houses, which cumulatively would be lots of new homes and unleash competition and break the stranglehold that our current planning laws give to an oligopoly.
You say this but a) it's local authorities than need the houses, and not the government as such and b) LA's can go to the Public Works Loan Board for asset backed loans to build. I know of at least one example that hasn't yet gone bankrupt for a 200-300 home site.
The facility is there. The demand is there. The need is there.
It's basically similar to the private sector and their inability to take risk on new markets and new products. Taking and managing risk is not a British trait, it's the exception.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that that statement in you last paragraph is accurate, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
As an aside, because the report is not just about booze, Sir Humphrey has added the part about learners needing more practice before they can take a driving test. This addresses the shortage of exam slots by slowing demand, and encapsulates a trend forced by that very shortfall – learners are already having to pay for extra lessons at £40 an hour just to stay ready for when tests can be booked.
It is such beautiful cynicism disguised as virtue. It is like raising the school leaving age to hide unemployment.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
The problems with the drink drive rules are obvious but they are not ones anyone is prepared to talk about in public.
Clearly road deaths have fallen dramatically in my lifetime. That is a "Good Thing". So in the facile world of Social Marxism that is a clear self evident case of cause and effect. Unfortunately more rational people do not wish to expend reputation upon conducting any analysis.
But, we can see there are a number of reasons for reductions in deaths and many are very genuine. In deed the effects of those reasons are greatly underplayed by the pretence that the drink drive limit has any effect. The reasons for the reduction of deaths include in my view, better roads, much better drivers, much better ambulances, many more trained ambulencemen, better procedures in hospitals, better procedures at the scene, changes to stop blanket fog on motorways. The drink driving laws have made a change as well but the limit is so low that we might all break the law when we go out ot have a meal.
The local rag reports that even a policeperson turned up for work above the legal limit. I never thought I would feel sympathy for a police person.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
You can't draw a direct correlation from quantity of alcohol consumed to blood alcohol level, because it depends on how quickly the alcohol is absorbed and then metabolised. In particular, drinking with a meal should slow the rate at which the alcohol reaches your blood, and so reduce the peak blood alcohol level.
But a lot of this varies depending on the individual, so it's quite complicated.
My Dad always used to have a half with lunch at a country pub, which struck me as a bit weird as an autistic teenager. I'd definitely absorbed a black and white opinion on drink driving from the public information ads on TV. I'm content to apply a zero tolerance approach to myself.
But to what extent is it right that a government should legislate to remove all discretion and risk from the population? Is it necessary to make this a matter of law, rather than advice?
I'd note that even PB's foremost libertarian hasn't advocated removing the drink-driving limit altogether, but I do think that freedom has to include the freedom to make mistakes. We will not be free if we seek to legislate every risk out of existence. There has to be a balance.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
With Grok producing sexualised images of women and children on request, does this mean anyone with a twitter account could be prosrcuted for downloading indecent images of children?
You mean literally anyone with a Twitter/X account? That seems remarkably unlikely. I think the offence is “possession” rather than “downloading” but, either way, I can’t see how the offence would be made out just by holding an account.
I’m not a criminal lawyer but had a couple of clients seek advice on dismissal from work for related issues and AIUI the act of "making" an image is interpreted broadly and includes opening an email attachment or simply viewing an image that automatically downloads to a device. I believe a defendant has a defence in certain circumstances if they can prove that the photograph in question was unsolicited and that they did not keep it for an unreasonable time. So I’m pretty sure just having a Twitter/X account alone, with nothing else, would not cross that threshold.
Superintendent placed on sex offenders register despite ‘never viewing’ child abuse image
A senior Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer has been handed a community order and placed on the sex offenders register after receiving a child abuse video from her sister.
It requires the image not to be kept for an unreasonable time, but as your report says -
“ Judge Richard Marks said Supt Williams made a grave error of judgment in not reporting the video and said she was unlikely to retain her job.”
Sounds like she didn’t do anything with the image when she got it. If she’d reported it ASAP she may (I emphasise May) have had the defence.
Bit of a catch-22 there? You should delete such content asap, but you should also report it and deleting the content somewhat impedes any prosecution against the originator (if they've managed to delete the content too).
(I know 'deleted' is fairly easily recovered in most cases - most filesystems simply mark deleted rather than over-writing for example)
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Interesting Norway and Sweden, both similar to us in 2014, have managed much larger falls - Norway by about half, although there appears to be some note attached to that, so maybe reporting or similar. If those are real falls we should maybe look at what they've done.
(That they are at low levels is interesting. Many quieter roads, I guess, but worse winter driving conditions but also better equipped cars and see drivers for winter conditions)
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
do they have statistics re the 50 - 80 range that would have been ok previously versus over 80 and where the reductions are etc that shows it is any different etc
The other thing is that we have to encourage people to take responsibility for their own fitness to drive, rather than the government assuming that responsibility with legislation. Are you too tired? Too distracted? It's not only alcohol that can impair driving (but alcohol is a thing that can be measured).
You might drink a pint with lunch and then think, I don't quite feel fit to drive yet, I'll take a walk and drink some water first.
You want people to be able to make sensible judgements themselves.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
Trump being Trump
Which is a euphemistic way of saying that he should be removed from office forthwith...? The guy is demonstrably not fit to run a whelk stand.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
As far as I know Kuennsberg has not interviewed Badenoch though she is this Sunday
Why does it have to be Kuennsberg? Has no Shadow Minister been interviewed on the BBC since yesterday and their opinion sought?
I thought you were rude and dismissive of Roger earlier.
@Roger dishes it out and I really do not care what you think about my comment
No he doesn't. Roger doesn't make it personal. You and I do, and I get a deserved kicking for doing so. But Roger remains courteous. You consider him fair game because his centre-left politics are in the minority on here.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Do we know in what proportion of cases where the driver blew 50-79 it actually contributed to the accident?
It will probably stop me drinking and driving though. At the moment I will have a pint and drink AFBs (actually it's best if you have the AFBs first and finish on a real beer) but as there is up to 0.5% in an AFB I would probably not risk it. Having said that, I very rarely drive to the pub.
There’s now allegedly four more dodgy tankers that have suddenly started flying Russian flags, as well as the one that Russian and American navies are arguing over off the coast of Scotland.
I see that the Russians have sent a submarine and other naval vessels to escort the tanker previously known as Bella-1.
Why are they going to so much effort?
Maybe, Bond-style, the front opens to swallow other vessels?
The Spy Who Loved Me was stupid-fun.
It’s magnificently batshit. Same with Moonraker. I genuinely adore both.
(narrator: viewcode is currently resisting the urge to rhapsodise about the genuinely beautiful SFX in Moonraker, the last hurrah of British modelmaking)
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
That is a parallel to 20mph limits. One big gain in the Wales is reduction of extremes - from eg people who would be doing 36 or 38 in a 30 limit, now doing 26 or 28 in a 20 limit. The % breaking the rule of the road may not have fallen far or at all, but the objective situation still changes.
In my view there is a huge amount involved around culture, prejudice, assumptions and expectations - just as we see in that 1967 video. The same point could be made about compulsory seat belt wearing.
All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
That would turn on whether the data for the measurement was just "people caught over the current limit", or "all people".
I was not aware of that 50% fall; thank-you. Though it is a small sample.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
A quick search found me a paper on the what happened in Scotland when they went from 80 to 50 mg/ml. They found NO CHANGE in accident or fatality rates.
PM for a copy if interested.
Why don't you just link it?
Because its via the Uni library so I am aware of copywrite issues.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
We should, yes. At least 60%.
But identifying the bullshit from the insane things they will actually try to do is, well, difficult.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
Trump being Trump
Which is a euphemistic way of saying that he should be removed from office forthwith...? The guy is demonstrably not fit to run a whelk stand.
That is obvious to most everyone but how can he be removed from office ?
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that that statement in you last paragraph is accurate, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol. Plus there are taxis, buses and Shank's Pony.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; I think we can manage that too.
As an aside, because the report is not just about booze, Sir Humphrey has added the part about learners needing more practice before they can take a driving test. This addresses the shortage of exam slots by slowing demand, and encapsulates a trend forced by that very shortfall – learners are already having to pay for extra lessons at £40 an hour just to stay ready for when tests can be booked.
It is such beautiful cynicism disguised as virtue. It is like raising the school leaving age to hide unemployment.
I would be more concerned nowadays about drugged up halfwits driving about, sure there are many times those compared to drunk drivers, not excusing drunk drivers in any way though. I still think anyone having one drink would not be impaired much if at all.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
The problems with the drink drive rules are obvious but they are not ones anyone is prepared to talk about in public.
Clearly road deaths have fallen dramatically in my lifetime. That is a "Good Thing". So in the facile world of Social Marxism that is a clear self evident case of cause and effect. Unfortunately more rational people do not wish to expend reputation upon conducting any analysis.
But, we can see there are a number of reasons for reductions in deaths and many are very genuine. In deed the effects of those reasons are greatly underplayed by the pretence that the drink drive limit has any effect. The reasons for the reduction of deaths include in my view, better roads, much better drivers, much better ambulances, many more trained ambulencemen, better procedures in hospitals, better procedures at the scene, changes to stop blanket fog on motorways. The drink driving laws have made a change as well but the limit is so low that we might all break the law when we go out ot have a meal.
The local rag reports that even a policeperson turned up for work above the legal limit. I never thought I would feel sympathy for a police person.
The drink-driving laws and associated advertising campaigns quickly made drunk driving socially unacceptable in Britain. In America drunk driving remained part of the culture until at least the millennium, although it has been claimed that Hollywood introducing the ‘designated driver’ meme has turned the corner there as well.
The other thing is that we have to encourage people to take responsibility for their own fitness to drive, rather than the government assuming that responsibility with legislation. Are you too tired? Too distracted? It's not only alcohol that can impair driving (but alcohol is a thing that can be measured).
You might drink a pint with lunch and then think, I don't quite feel fit to drive yet, I'll take a walk and drink some water first.
You want people to be able to make sensible judgements themselves.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
Poland is determined to replicate its mistake of 1938.
It should be told that it will get no more military support to defend it than what it gives to defend Ukraine.
The greater block on Trump going for Greenland is the threat of the early loss of control of Congress. The close margin has got 3 closer in the past couple of days (MTG resignation effective, one death, one in hospital after a car crash) - and that is before further resignations are being threatened over foreign policy.
Loss of control of Congress = impeachment.
He’s been impeached before but the senate has never convicted him and I cannot see them convicting.
Given over 50% of Republicans oppose a US military invasion of Greenland if Trump tried that the Senate would likely convict him.
Most Republicans back buying Greenland but not invading it though most Americans overall oppose both
Good morning
I have been to Greenland and frankly it is a large empty expanse and the US already has bases there
There will be no invasion but I do not rule out a large payment to the 56,000 population
There will be nothing Denmark, the EU or NATO can do if Trump takes over Greenland, which is a stark reminder of just how powerless the west is against him
As I said though most Americans oppose both an invasion and purchase of Greenland and even Republicans oppose the former, so Trump would face problems with Congress and internally regardless of what NATO or the EU does
There will be no invasion - it is simply not required for Trump to annex Greenland
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it? Shld we presume 60% of what Trump says is bullshit?
No - I have little doubt he wants Greenland by 'hook or by crook' but invading it, when he already has bases there and nobody would defend it, is just bluster as he can do almost what he wants unless of course his Presidency is timed out
So, why does he and his administration keep talking about it?
Trump being Trump
Which is a euphemistic way of saying that he should be removed from office forthwith...? The guy is demonstrably not fit to run a whelk stand.
That is obvious to most everyone but how can he be removed from office ?
Someone with a better aim than Thomas Crooks. Although the martyrdom would be suboptimal.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
I support your ambition of getting rid of this government but not your alternatives. Farage and Badenoch would be even less scrupulous than Starmer. They would be unashamedly Trump's lapdogs. At least Starmer blushes occasionally.....
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Never forget voting Sultana delivers a RefCon Government.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
As far as I know Kuennsberg has not interviewed Badenoch though she is this Sunday
Why does it have to be Kuennsberg? Has no Shadow Minister been interviewed on the BBC since yesterday and their opinion sought?
I thought you were rude and dismissive of Roger earlier.
@Roger dishes it out and I really do not care what you think about my comment
No he doesn't. Roger doesn't make it personal. You and I do, and I get a deserved kicking for doing so. But Roger remains courteous. You consider him fair game because his centre-left politics are in the minority on here.
In the minority? At a time Reform lead national polls it is literally a case of try and find a Reform voter Where's Wally style on here.
Yes there aren't many socialists on here but most on here are liberals or at most One Nation Tories, very few Faragites
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
The full writeup of that has some interesting - and unexpected - results. The lack of Polish support for peacekeepers for one.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
Well, the last time a German army operated in Ukraine is not a great precedent.
The Poles just want an excuse to send the Winged Hussars into Russia
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Even in Scotland you can still just about have 1 glass of wine or 1 pint of beer, certainly if you are eating and not very thin
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Fine if you live in inner London or Manchester where there are plenty of cafes, bars etc about not just pubs.
In rural areas like mine there are none of those, at most there is 1 pub per village if that, no cafes, no bars, so lose the pub there is nowhere to drink even a soft drink or to eat either bar maybe a monthly farmers market.
Attitudes like that are further examples of why left liberals and this useless Labour government have nothing but contempt for the countryside, villages and small market towns
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
You know that website is funded by the Qatari state?
Where's Russia Today when you need it?
One shouldn't rely on AI but the initial response isn't promising
'Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is owned by Ardi Associates Ltd., led by Director Dr. Daud Abdullah and Senior Editor Ibrahim Hewitt, operating as an independent media research institution focused on fair coverage of the Middle East, particularly Palestine, often providing analysis for UK MPs, though it's described as having strong pro-Palestinian/Islamist stances and links to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.'
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Even in Scotland you can still just about have 1 glass of wine or 1 pint of beer, certainly if you are eating and not very thin
You have absolutely no way of knowing that and that is the whole point
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
I think this will be a massive problem - but the removal of the COVID discount has been in the pipeline for ages so not unexpected. There should be a broader discussion about business rates - I think they are actually a good tax (if any can be), but charged at far too high a rate.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
This research is now more than 5 years old. In recent times there has been a marked uptick in the number of deaths relating to drink driving again. It appears that behavioural changes during Covid lockdown have played a part. People drinking at home are much more likely to drink more than those drinking measured drinks in pubs and underestimate how much they have drunk.
Polling indicates that the lower level is popular in Scotland and there are even some pressure groups looking to reduce it further.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Even in Scotland you can still just about have 1 glass of wine or 1 pint of beer, certainly if you are eating and not very thin
You have absolutely no way of knowing that and that is the whole point
Do not drink and drive
If you have a glass of wine, a half pint or even a pint only and certainly with a meal you will almost certainly be within the limit even in Scotland.
An absolute ban on drink and drive must be opposed as it would destroy our pub and hospitality industry, especially in terms of rural pubs
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Do we know that statement in you last paragraph, and is there any officialdata on eg casualties where the alcohol level is between 50mg/ml and 80 mg/ml (ie new and old limits)?
That's a serious question. I am not aware of data that has been collected routinely at all collisions. Perhaps you are? However DUI is involved in about 20% of road deaths, and checking:
Drivers with a BAC between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml are three times more likely to die in a crash than those who have not consumed any alcohol. Those between 50mg and 80mg are up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
There are things such as designated drivers which has been a recommendation since I was in short trousers, who go to a pub with their family or group and do not drink alcohol.
Other places (eg Ireland, Scotland, rest of Europe) manage OK; so can we.
Do they?
Other places (rest of Europe) have a considerably worse road safety record than we do.
The statistics show that the UK's roads are amongst the safest in Europe and the safest in the planet.
So adopting policies used in other nations with considerably higher casualty rates might not be the smartest move.
Using that logic we should massively increase drunkenness on the roads in order to further reduce casualties.
Not at all.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
Yes, plus you damage an already struggling pub trade, especially in rural areas, with no evidence at all deaths on the road will be cut
The biggest worry for rural pubs are the new business rates. Tom Kerridge, who can no doubt suffer them more easily than most, reckons his smallest pub will see an increase from 50k to 124k pa. I spoke to my accountant this morning, and she says thousands of firms will wind up in April due to the rates
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
The full writeup of that has some interesting - and unexpected - results. The lack of Polish support for peacekeepers for one.
I'd expect Poland to not support Poland sending peacekeepers, because they have their own 650km border with Russia and Belarus, and in practice would have to be there for the Baltics.
But it's interesting that the strongest support is from the UK and Spain, who are the furthest away.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
An argument which would lead to war with the nation with more nuclear weapons than any other on earth, so an absolute no no
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
The beers have got massively better. I enjoy a Heineken zero with a curry every bit as much as a "normal" beer and there are an increasing number of decent ales.
I have yet to find a drinkable alcohol free wine. If anyone has any recommendations I would love to see them, not least because 1 week into dry January I am really missing a glass of wine with my meals.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
The same report points out that enforcement is very low in Scotland, and yet it's had a pretty big effect on drink driving collisions. A bit like the 20mph limit in Wales.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Even in Scotland you can still just about have 1 glass of wine or 1 pint of beer, certainly if you are eating and not very thin
You have absolutely no way of knowing that and that is the whole point
Do not drink and drive
If you have a glass of wine, a half pint or even a pint only and certainly with a meal you will almost certainly be within the limit even in Scotland.
An absolute ban on drink and drive must be opposed as it would destroy our pub and hospitality industry, especially in terms of rural pubs
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
It should be no surprise given that Labour in power has little time for this part of the hospitality industry.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
Comments
We shouldn't be puritans. We shouldn't fetishize the absolute elimination of all risk. And we should always consider the opportunity cost.
This would have a cost, which is hundreds of rural pubs closing - few regularly cycle and walk to them - with a knock-on impact to dozens of breweries' going out of business, staff losing their jobs, and lots of people losing the pleasure of enjoying a single pint in a country pub in their leisure time.
Using that logic, our current policies are working.
Why could that be? Well, in the UK we have a cultural opposition to drink-driving, which is well-embedded, that has worked. People are opposed to the idea of drink-driving and there is significant peer pressure not to do it, all good things, and all under our existing legal system.
The risk of going too far in the 'zero tolerance' route is that if you criminalise what is effectively safe behaviour then people might start to think the law is an ass and not follow it, which then risks people drinking much, much more rather than less.
Zero tolerance laws, in any area not just this one, can backfire.
PM for a copy if interested.
3 more years of this merde to come......
So the oligopoly can act in their own interests, rather than face competition.
Make permission easy to attain and small developers could each build small numbers of houses, which cumulatively would be lots of new homes and unleash competition and break the stranglehold that our current planning laws give to an oligopoly.
Perhaps your use of data is a bit suspect?
Watching the Foreign Secretary yesterday made me want to cry. I'm past caring what policies the government choose to introduce I'd settle for one with a modicum of integrity. The link I posted earlier was so dispiriting that if I was in a constituency where my choice was Sultana or Starmer I'd go for Sultana.
Yes, though, other countries have a higher casualty rate.
Which has a logical explanation, if the cultural opposition to drink-driving (which is the most important thing) breaks down as people think the law is an ass.
The key is to embed a culture of not drink-driving. We have that. Our roads are safer than the rest of Europe, barring a few Scandinavian nations, so adopting their policies might be sub-optimal.
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
I'm in favour of working to prevent person A's reckless behaviour in DUI, putting person B, who is innocent, at risk, as well as person A themselves.
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
Investment in the oil industry stopped, pretty much, under Chavez. They ate the seed corn.
Restarting investment would require billions and take years to see results
The existing wells are being pushed as hard as they can.
Bottas will have to serve a 5 place grid penalty for a collision with Magnussen back in 2024.
Starmer is useless, but compare and contrast this; Laura Kuennsberg calls out Starmer for his failure to condemn Trump's Venezuelan adventure but the BBC don't question Badenoch for her unequivocal support for the Maduro escapade.
Have you seen this?
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/trumps-former-russia-adviser-russia-offered-us-free-128961387
2) labour costs are being pushed up
3) regulatory costs have gone up massively - tons of paperwork, but no enforcement is cheap for the government
4) a policy of local monopoly - the government, local and national prefers deals with Big Developers.
All the above have pushed up costs. And now the sales market has softened.
(I find this hard to explain - but assume Car A is driven by a complete tool, overtakes on a blind bend, and causes a crash with Car B that is driven by either someone with alcohol in the their blood or not, the cause is the tool, but in the former case the 'innocent' party would get done by the law)
The facility is there. The demand is there. The need is there.
It's basically similar to the private sector and their inability to take risk on new markets and new products. Taking and managing risk is not a British trait, it's the exception.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
I thought you were rude and dismissive of Roger earlier.
It is such beautiful cynicism disguised as virtue. It is like raising the school leaving age to hide unemployment.
Clearly road deaths have fallen dramatically in my lifetime. That is a "Good Thing". So in the facile world of Social Marxism that is a clear self evident case of cause and effect. Unfortunately more rational people do not wish to expend reputation upon conducting any analysis.
But, we can see there are a number of reasons for reductions in deaths and many are very genuine. In deed the effects of those reasons are greatly underplayed by the pretence that the drink drive limit has any effect. The reasons for the reduction of deaths include in my view, better roads, much better drivers, much better ambulances, many more trained ambulencemen, better procedures in hospitals, better procedures at the scene, changes to stop blanket fog on motorways. The drink driving laws have made a change as well but the limit is so low that we might all break the law when we go out ot have a meal.
The local rag reports that even a policeperson turned up for work above the legal limit. I never thought I would feel sympathy for a police person.
But a lot of this varies depending on the individual, so it's quite complicated.
My Dad always used to have a half with lunch at a country pub, which struck me as a bit weird as an autistic teenager. I'd definitely absorbed a black and white opinion on drink driving from the public information ads on TV. I'm content to apply a zero tolerance approach to myself.
But to what extent is it right that a government should legislate to remove all discretion and risk from the population? Is it necessary to make this a matter of law, rather than advice?
I'd note that even PB's foremost libertarian hasn't advocated removing the drink-driving limit altogether, but I do think that freedom has to include the freedom to make mistakes. We will not be free if we seek to legislate every risk out of existence. There has to be a balance.
(I know 'deleted' is fairly easily recovered in most cases - most filesystems simply mark deleted rather than over-writing for example) Interesting Norway and Sweden, both similar to us in 2014, have managed much larger falls - Norway by about half, although there appears to be some note attached to that, so maybe reporting or similar. If those are real falls we should maybe look at what they've done.
(That they are at low levels is interesting. Many quieter roads, I guess, but worse winter driving conditions but also better equipped cars and see drivers for winter conditions)
You might drink a pint with lunch and then think, I don't quite feel fit to drive yet, I'll take a walk and drink some water first.
You want people to be able to make sensible judgements themselves.
It will probably stop me drinking and driving though. At the moment I will have a pint and drink AFBs (actually it's best if you have the AFBs first and finish on a real beer) but as there is up to 0.5% in an AFB I would probably not risk it. Having said that, I very rarely drive to the pub.
In my view there is a huge amount involved around culture, prejudice, assumptions and expectations - just as we see in that 1967 video. The same point could be made about compulsory seat belt wearing.
All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
That would turn on whether the data for the measurement was just "people caught over the current limit", or "all people".
I was not aware of that 50% fall; thank-you. Though it is a small sample.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
🇬🇧 support 56% / oppose 23%
🇫🇷 support 40% / oppose 36%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/2008837377054437707
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role.
The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
Heres the DOI if you can access.
https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fhec.4016
But identifying the bullshit from the insane things they will actually try to do is, well, difficult.
This article is interesting on the subject
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-long-takes-alcohol-leave-32315611
It should be told that it will get no more military support to defend it than what it gives to defend Ukraine.
It's just encouraged a new social norm rather than a police state. I drive at 20mph in England, and never drink and drive, because it's simply normal where I'm from.
Yes there aren't many socialists on here but most on here are liberals or at most One Nation Tories, very few Faragites
The Poles just want an excuse to send the Winged Hussars into Russia
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
In rural areas like mine there are none of those, at most there is 1 pub per village if that, no cafes, no bars, so lose the pub there is nowhere to drink even a soft drink or to eat either bar maybe a monthly farmers market.
Attitudes like that are further examples of why left liberals and this useless Labour government have nothing but contempt for the countryside, villages and small market towns
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Where's Russia Today when you need it?
One shouldn't rely on AI but the initial response isn't promising
'Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is owned by Ardi Associates Ltd., led by Director Dr. Daud Abdullah and Senior Editor Ibrahim Hewitt, operating as an independent media research institution focused on fair coverage of the Middle East, particularly Palestine, often providing analysis for UK MPs, though it's described as having strong pro-Palestinian/Islamist stances and links to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.'
She may crash and burn a few times. It's only about 2-3 weeks since she was echoing Farage's former statements about Andrew Tate and masculinity.
https://www.tiktok.com/@gbnews/video/7592570283643522326
Do not drink and drive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_connection_affair
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
This research is now more than 5 years old. In recent times there has been a marked uptick in the number of deaths relating to drink driving again. It appears that behavioural changes during Covid lockdown have played a part. People drinking at home are much more likely to drink more than those drinking measured drinks in pubs and underestimate how much they have drunk.
Polling indicates that the lower level is popular in Scotland and there are even some pressure groups looking to reduce it further.
An absolute ban on drink and drive must be opposed as it would destroy our pub and hospitality industry, especially in terms of rural pubs
But it's interesting that the strongest support is from the UK and Spain, who are the furthest away.
I have yet to find a drinkable alcohol free wine. If anyone has any recommendations I would love to see them, not least because 1 week into dry January I am really missing a glass of wine with my meals.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.