We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal. We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't. We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't. We all do.
The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.
But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.
So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
A difficulty is that one person's indisputable fact is someone else's disputable opinion. Has immigration fallen, to give your example? Almost certainly yes, according to official statistics, but someone who dislikes it will often say that the statistics are simply wrong, ignore the small boats and overstays and so on. Get into a detailed discussion and you often end up with mutual irritation rather than either conceding the point. I've been involved in politics all my adult life, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that anyone in personal discussion has said "Hmm, yes, you're right and I was wrong". Obviously that could be because I'm always wrong, but more plausibly people don't like changing positions. More common is shifting from "Hmm, I can see there are two sides to it", which may be genuine or just politeness.
What tends to work is hearing the same counter-arguments in different contexts over a long period. So one can contribute to the process, but shouldn't expect instant conversion (not least as one may be at least partly wrong oneself).
I agree with you.
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp". In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey. But the Rider's control is an illusion. Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
So as I understand it there is a 12pm curfew during matches. Or is it when on England duty? Point is the game was won and the next match not until a week wednesday, so I have no issue with them being out celebrating.
There is a different issue around Stokes. He has been magnificent as a player. I will never forget 2019, nor the double in SA. He is a superb leader of the team. He hasn't always got it right. We drew the home ashes last time but ought to have won 3-1 or 4-0 but he wanted to gamble on a declaration in the first test, and one or two Aussies had fallen that night he would have lauded.
But at 35 I think he is coming to the end. He is very fit, but his batting is struggling (all time average still 35 mind). He is the 4th bowler. Is he worth it in the team for his influence? Maybe. He will hate not scoring runs and contributing.
I don’t know the ins and outs but he’s getting a lot of condemnation and blame for the end of James Anderson’s career as an England player. As a consequence there are quite a few knives out.
Hearing there’s been multiple stabbings at a school in Blackley.
The sooner the govt bans pointed knives the sooner this stops.
Not enough.
All metal tools must be banned. Styrofoam cutlery only. All those who oppose this are clearly in favour of mountains of corpses. All hail our glorious socialist paradise!
For fun - many kinds of plastic can be melted and fashioned into a shank.
Was a big problem in US prisons with plastic bags being made into weapons like that.
I saw that on a US prison show. When I contracted and worked away from home I used to watch lots of YouTube and that included US prison shows. They made a shank from a plastic bag and also made hooch in a large plastic bag.
One crim even fertilised another by getting his nut butter to her via a vent. Never met, never will, but he fertilised her. Insane.
If only these crim twits turned their obvious innovation skills to the productive economy.
A lot of crime and certainly organised crime is the same as straight business except that violence rather than a solicitor's letter is the primary dispute resolution mechanism. My own admittedly limited experience of minor rogues is they'd have done better going straight.
Same for @Mexicanpete, why are you allowed a private profile?
Everyone is allowed a private profile as far as I can tell, just go to edit profile and untick display my profile publicly?
At some point there was a pronouncement that everyone's profile should be public, so that people could more easily search their comment history, but I think this was only ever enforced on Leon, and if the mods wish to impose this rule that is up to them - I'm not sure that anyone should be appointing themselves as a site special constable and harassing other posters about it.
Never going to be a particularly effective ban if done based solely on posters being around to read a particular post and remembering it. I'd consider myself a regular but probably don't read anything a couple of days a week and miss well over half the posts even when I am around. Had no clue private profiles were banned.
Keir Starmer says that the horrific attack in Belfast last night - which is being described as an attempted beheading - is 'sickening'
Police have confirmed that a Somalian man in his 30s has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder 'following a serious assault involving a knife'
The victim, who was in his 40s, is in a serious condition and has 'significant injuries to his face, neck and back'
Police are urging people not to reshare images or footage of the stabbing in North Belfast
Starmer: 'I have absolutely no tolerance for abhorrent scenes of violence like this on our streets.
'My thoughts are first and foremost with the victim, and I thank the first responders, including members of the public who intervened'
Hearing there’s been multiple stabbings at a school in Blackley.
The sooner the govt bans pointed knives the sooner this stops.
Not enough.
All metal tools must be banned. Styrofoam cutlery only. All those who oppose this are clearly in favour of mountains of corpses. All hail our glorious socialist paradise!
For fun - many kinds of plastic can be melted and fashioned into a shank.
Was a big problem in US prisons with plastic bags being made into weapons like that.
I saw that on a US prison show. When I contracted and worked away from home I used to watch lots of YouTube and that included US prison shows. They made a shank from a plastic bag and also made hooch in a large plastic bag.
One crim even fertilised another by getting his nut butter to her via a vent. Never met, never will, but he fertilised her. Insane.
If only these crim twits turned their obvious innovation skills to the productive economy.
I think the US prison system is a more persistent problem for the USA than many even of the other persistent problems, but gets little mention.
1.9 million inmates, of whom most do work (complained about by normal businesses as unfair competition), many prisons run with light by commercial companies who have a profit motive for keeping people inside and giving them squalid conditions. Forced labour is legal.
Shocking story. The new proposed law against drug gang cuckooing has a maximum sentence of 5 years - that is way too low, should be more, at least 20, if not life. I don't see a substantial difference to kidnapping which comes with maximum life sentencing.
Have dealt with only one case in the past though there were likely more. They take advantage of low IQ people, befriend them, and then use grooming-like tactics. More akin to grooming than kidnap. It's emptying bank accounts, getting them to apply for loans, credit cards, benefit fraud etc while dealing out of (usually) social housing. The victims are usually known to Social Workers but if the victim is isolated then the issue is not picked up until its too late.
The potential solution is somewhere on the spectrum from significant prison time to more investment in social work.
Shocking story. The new proposed law against drug gang cuckooing has a maximum sentence of 5 years - that is way too low, should be more, at least 20, if not life. I don't see a substantial difference to kidnapping which comes with maximum life sentencing.
Have dealt with only one case in the past though there were likely more. They take advantage of low IQ people, befriend them, and then use grooming-like tactics. More akin to grooming than kidnap. It's emptying bank accounts, getting them to apply for loans, credit cards, benefit fraud etc while dealing out of (usually) social housing. The victims are usually known to Social Workers but if the victim is isolated then the issue is not picked up until its too late.
The potential solution is somewhere on the spectrum from significant prison time to more investment in social work.
You could definitely make a case that this issue is (like many other UK problems) downstream of the gutting of local authority budgets to pay for old age social care & SEND provision. If you’re just about capable of looking after yourself then the local authority support is going to have absolutely no time to spend checking up on you because they’re too busy fire fighting far more immediately serious problems elsewhere.
Shocking story. The new proposed law against drug gang cuckooing has a maximum sentence of 5 years - that is way too low, should be more, at least 20, if not life. I don't see a substantial difference to kidnapping which comes with maximum life sentencing.
Have dealt with only one case in the past though there were likely more. They take advantage of low IQ people, befriend them, and then use grooming-like tactics. More akin to grooming than kidnap. It's emptying bank accounts, getting them to apply for loans, credit cards, benefit fraud etc while dealing out of (usually) social housing. The victims are usually known to Social Workers but if the victim is isolated then the issue is not picked up until its too late.
The potential solution is somewhere on the spectrum from significant prison time to more investment in social work.
So as I understand it there is a 12pm curfew during matches. Or is it when on England duty? Point is the game was won and the next match not until a week wednesday, so I have no issue with them being out celebrating.
There is a different issue around Stokes. He has been magnificent as a player. I will never forget 2019, nor the double in SA. He is a superb leader of the team. He hasn't always got it right. We drew the home ashes last time but ought to have won 3-1 or 4-0 but he wanted to gamble on a declaration in the first test, and one or two Aussies had fallen that night he would have lauded.
But at 35 I think he is coming to the end. He is very fit, but his batting is struggling (all time average still 35 mind). He is the 4th bowler. Is he worth it in the team for his influence? Maybe. He will hate not scoring runs and contributing.
I don’t know the ins and outs but he’s getting a lot of condemnation and blame for the end of James Anderson’s career as an England player. As a consequence there are quite a few knives out.
It wasn't just his choice though. The selectors etc wanted a set of tall, pacy, fast bowlers. Anderson was the worlds best bowler in English conditions, but no-one would claim he was most suited to Australian pitches with little swing. So the plans were laid to get a cohort of the 'right' bowlers ready for the Ashes down under, and that meant not picking Anderson for games when he might have felt he should have played. Sport is tough and when your time is over its over.
So as I understand it there is a 12pm curfew during matches. Or is it when on England duty? Point is the game was won and the next match not until a week wednesday, so I have no issue with them being out celebrating.
There is a different issue around Stokes. He has been magnificent as a player. I will never forget 2019, nor the double in SA. He is a superb leader of the team. He hasn't always got it right. We drew the home ashes last time but ought to have won 3-1 or 4-0 but he wanted to gamble on a declaration in the first test, and one or two Aussies had fallen that night he would have lauded.
But at 35 I think he is coming to the end. He is very fit, but his batting is struggling (all time average still 35 mind). He is the 4th bowler. Is he worth it in the team for his influence? Maybe. He will hate not scoring runs and contributing.
I don’t know the ins and outs but he’s getting a lot of condemnation and blame for the end of James Anderson’s career as an England player. As a consequence there are quite a few knives out.
It wasn't just his choice though. The selectors etc wanted a set of tall, pacy, fast bowlers. Anderson was the worlds best bowler in English conditions, but no-one would claim he was most suited to Australian pitches with little swing. So the plans were laid to get a cohort of the 'right' bowlers ready for the Ashes down under, and that meant not picking Anderson for games when he might have felt he should have played. Sport is tough and when your time is over its over.
Indeed.
I guess when you’ve been at the top so long it’s hard to accept it’s over.
So as I understand it there is a 12pm curfew during matches. Or is it when on England duty? Point is the game was won and the next match not until a week wednesday, so I have no issue with them being out celebrating.
There is a different issue around Stokes. He has been magnificent as a player. I will never forget 2019, nor the double in SA. He is a superb leader of the team. He hasn't always got it right. We drew the home ashes last time but ought to have won 3-1 or 4-0 but he wanted to gamble on a declaration in the first test, and one or two Aussies had fallen that night he would have lauded.
But at 35 I think he is coming to the end. He is very fit, but his batting is struggling (all time average still 35 mind). He is the 4th bowler. Is he worth it in the team for his influence? Maybe. He will hate not scoring runs and contributing.
I don’t know the ins and outs but he’s getting a lot of condemnation and blame for the end of James Anderson’s career as an England player. As a consequence there are quite a few knives out.
It wasn't just his choice though. The selectors etc wanted a set of tall, pacy, fast bowlers. Anderson was the worlds best bowler in English conditions, but no-one would claim he was most suited to Australian pitches with little swing. So the plans were laid to get a cohort of the 'right' bowlers ready for the Ashes down under, and that meant not picking Anderson for games when he might have felt he should have played. Sport is tough and when your time is over its over.
I think the 2010/11 tour is the only time England have won an Ashes series in Australia since 1986/87, and Anderson topped the bowling statistics with 24 wickets at 26.04. It's not like the Australian bowlers who took lots of wickets last winter were all tall pacy bowlers. England don't half make things difficult for themselves sometimes - just play your best team.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
So as I understand it there is a 12pm curfew during matches. Or is it when on England duty? Point is the game was won and the next match not until a week wednesday, so I have no issue with them being out celebrating.
There is a different issue around Stokes. He has been magnificent as a player. I will never forget 2019, nor the double in SA. He is a superb leader of the team. He hasn't always got it right. We drew the home ashes last time but ought to have won 3-1 or 4-0 but he wanted to gamble on a declaration in the first test, and one or two Aussies had fallen that night he would have lauded.
But at 35 I think he is coming to the end. He is very fit, but his batting is struggling (all time average still 35 mind). He is the 4th bowler. Is he worth it in the team for his influence? Maybe. He will hate not scoring runs and contributing.
I don’t know the ins and outs but he’s getting a lot of condemnation and blame for the end of James Anderson’s career as an England player. As a consequence there are quite a few knives out.
It wasn't just his choice though. The selectors etc wanted a set of tall, pacy, fast bowlers. Anderson was the worlds best bowler in English conditions, but no-one would claim he was most suited to Australian pitches with little swing. So the plans were laid to get a cohort of the 'right' bowlers ready for the Ashes down under, and that meant not picking Anderson for games when he might have felt he should have played. Sport is tough and when your time is over its over.
I think the 2010/11 tour is the only time England have won an Ashes series in Australia since 1986/87, and Anderson topped the bowling statistics with 24 wickets at 26.04. It's not like the Australian bowlers who took lots of wickets last winter were all tall pacy bowlers. England don't half make things difficult for themselves sometimes - just play your best team.
Yes and that was over a decade ago when Anderson was genuinely faster. He was also part of an attack that had Chris Tremlett, Stuart Broad, Steve Finn and Tim Bresnan, so he was a different type of bowler to the rest. Also thats not the only Ashes tour that Anderson has been on is it?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal. We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't. We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't. We all do.
The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.
But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.
So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
A difficulty is that one person's indisputable fact is someone else's disputable opinion. Has immigration fallen, to give your example? Almost certainly yes, according to official statistics, but someone who dislikes it will often say that the statistics are simply wrong, ignore the small boats and overstays and so on. Get into a detailed discussion and you often end up with mutual irritation rather than either conceding the point. I've been involved in politics all my adult life, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that anyone in personal discussion has said "Hmm, yes, you're right and I was wrong". Obviously that could be because I'm always wrong, but more plausibly people don't like changing positions. More common is shifting from "Hmm, I can see there are two sides to it", which may be genuine or just politeness.
What tends to work is hearing the same counter-arguments in different contexts over a long period. So one can contribute to the process, but shouldn't expect instant conversion (not least as one may be at least partly wrong oneself).
I agree with you.
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp". In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey. But the Rider's control is an illusion. Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
Credit to Jonathan Haidt for the metaphor.
I suppose one might argue that the acceleration of human civilisation over the last few centuries is down to some of the Riders managing to achieve some degree of control over their Elephants through the development of the scientific method. However, this control could be pretty tenuous and may easily be lost again. Those Elephants can be very stubborn.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal. We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't. We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't. We all do.
The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.
But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.
So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
A difficulty is that one person's indisputable fact is someone else's disputable opinion. Has immigration fallen, to give your example? Almost certainly yes, according to official statistics, but someone who dislikes it will often say that the statistics are simply wrong, ignore the small boats and overstays and so on. Get into a detailed discussion and you often end up with mutual irritation rather than either conceding the point. I've been involved in politics all my adult life, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that anyone in personal discussion has said "Hmm, yes, you're right and I was wrong". Obviously that could be because I'm always wrong, but more plausibly people don't like changing positions. More common is shifting from "Hmm, I can see there are two sides to it", which may be genuine or just politeness.
What tends to work is hearing the same counter-arguments in different contexts over a long period. So one can contribute to the process, but shouldn't expect instant conversion (not least as one may be at least partly wrong oneself).
I agree with you.
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp". In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey. But the Rider's control is an illusion. Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
Credit to Jonathan Haidt for the metaphor.
By what criteria are you judging that he's failed his supporters?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
Keir Starmer says that the horrific attack in Belfast last night - which is being described as an attempted beheading - is 'sickening'
Police have confirmed that a Somalian man in his 30s has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder 'following a serious assault involving a knife'
The victim, who was in his 40s, is in a serious condition and has 'significant injuries to his face, neck and back'
Police are urging people not to reshare images or footage of the stabbing in North Belfast
Starmer: 'I have absolutely no tolerance for abhorrent scenes of violence like this on our streets.
'My thoughts are first and foremost with the victim, and I thank the first responders, including members of the public who intervened'
Hmm. Starmer has learned from his near-silence over Henry Nowak (and also the Southport murders?).
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal. We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't. We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't. We all do.
The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.
But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.
So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
A difficulty is that one person's indisputable fact is someone else's disputable opinion. Has immigration fallen, to give your example? Almost certainly yes, according to official statistics, but someone who dislikes it will often say that the statistics are simply wrong, ignore the small boats and overstays and so on. Get into a detailed discussion and you often end up with mutual irritation rather than either conceding the point. I've been involved in politics all my adult life, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that anyone in personal discussion has said "Hmm, yes, you're right and I was wrong". Obviously that could be because I'm always wrong, but more plausibly people don't like changing positions. More common is shifting from "Hmm, I can see there are two sides to it", which may be genuine or just politeness.
What tends to work is hearing the same counter-arguments in different contexts over a long period. So one can contribute to the process, but shouldn't expect instant conversion (not least as one may be at least partly wrong oneself).
I agree with you.
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp". In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey. But the Rider's control is an illusion. Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
Credit to Jonathan Haidt for the metaphor.
I suppose one might argue that the acceleration of human civilisation over the last few centuries is down to some of the Riders managing to achieve some degree of control over their Elephants through the development of the scientific method. However, this control could be pretty tenuous and may easily be lost again. Those Elephants can be very stubborn.
The Elephants in humans are generally caring and cooperative. But not all are. The musth bulls are a problem and can dominate.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
That seems a bit steep. I'd go for scaling the charge to the 4th power of the weight in accordance with the damage caused to the road surface.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
Is this a new official Tory policy? What is the walking tax going to be? Or are you just pulling our leg?
We all suffer from cognitive bias, whether we are liberal or illiberal. We get comfort from people who think like us and get frustrated by people who don't. We all look for evidence that supports our views and ignore evidence that doesn't. We all do.
The remedy is to be aware of that behaviour and actively manage it when it comes to evidence.
But our opinions also depend on our values and these are not evidence based but deeply and emotionally ingrained. It takes a lot to shift them.
So we can amicably disagree when it comes to values, but we shouldn't accept "alternative facts" when the evidence contradicts them.
A difficulty is that one person's indisputable fact is someone else's disputable opinion. Has immigration fallen, to give your example? Almost certainly yes, according to official statistics, but someone who dislikes it will often say that the statistics are simply wrong, ignore the small boats and overstays and so on. Get into a detailed discussion and you often end up with mutual irritation rather than either conceding the point. I've been involved in politics all my adult life, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that anyone in personal discussion has said "Hmm, yes, you're right and I was wrong". Obviously that could be because I'm always wrong, but more plausibly people don't like changing positions. More common is shifting from "Hmm, I can see there are two sides to it", which may be genuine or just politeness.
What tends to work is hearing the same counter-arguments in different contexts over a long period. So one can contribute to the process, but shouldn't expect instant conversion (not least as one may be at least partly wrong oneself).
I agree with you.
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp". In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey. But the Rider's control is an illusion. Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
Credit to Jonathan Haidt for the metaphor.
By what criteria are you judging that he's failed his supporters?
The difference between his promise (a better life and draining the "corrupt swamp") and the reality (he hasn't delivered a better life to his followers, only the rich, and he hasn't drained the swamp. He's pissed all over it.
Surely you can see that he's failed his supporters? Can't you?
Lifelong football fan but never really been bothered by Internationals to be honest.
I think that might have a lot to do with flag waving little Englanders who hijack the flag and become football experts for a month and then get them back out to go on a Farage or Tommy March or support farmers.
The added issue this time is that unlike Capello or Sven we have a nonentity of a foreign manager with no personality who seems to want to pick a fight with the most complete footballer the Country has produced sine Duncan Edwards.
Unless he has an aversion to Dudley Metropolitan Borough..
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I presume it’s another attempt at a buzz word - see “incubator”.
The barriers to personal businesses becoming small businesses and small businesses making the lead to medium sized are huge.
The main ones are called Banks and Government Policies.
Some of the root causes are there, yes.
But gradually unpicking the issues (without making new problems or even making things worse) is the kind of boring politics that no-one has an interest in.
Then people wonder why billionaires try their own solutions, when the government abandons the concept of enabling change.
See SpaceX and space launch - the barriers were actually policy of “we don’t do that here”. See the ongoing Ariane/ESA insistence that… we don’t do that here.
I presume it’s another attempt at a buzz word - see “incubator”.
The barriers to personal businesses becoming small businesses and small businesses making the lead to medium sized are huge.
The main ones are called Banks and Government Policies.
Some of the root causes are there, yes.
But gradually unpicking the issues (without making new problems or even making things worse) is the kind of boring politics that no-one has an interest in.
Then people wonder why billionaires try their own solutions, when the government abandons the concept of enabling change.
See SpaceX and space launch - the barriers were actually policy of “we don’t do that here”. See the ongoing Ariane/ESA insistence that… we don’t do that here.
If only we had had a Government with a huge majority that could have spent five years planning for the long term.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There are three types of cycle path.
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths. 2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths. 3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.
Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)
Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.
The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.
I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.
The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
Classic correlation not causation.
Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Hence the SDP.
The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.
The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.
It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
Happily in the UK we tend to stick with Useless Idiots.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
If cyclists were in a car frequently around here traffic would be better not worse.
If I am driving on a 40 or 50 mph road through town I would rather be driving at 40 or 50mph behind a vehicle also doing 40 or 50mph. Barring junctions, the vehicle is gone by the time I need the road so we can all use the same space.
But then you get a whole queue of traffic slowing down to about 18mph and its because one cyclist is occupying the lane and everyone needs to slow down until it is safe to drive into the oncoming traffic's lane to overtake them.
Swap that cyclist for a vehicle doing the speed limit the traffic can all do the speed limit.
If overtaking the cyclist safely requires another lane then the cyclist is worse than a vehicle traffic wise.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
I’m a cyclist.
Did ten miles this morning. Round Pelton and back. I have been a regular cyclist round here for over a decade.
Unlike the resident cyclist hating loons I recognise we all need to share the roads.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I think the relevant point there is that if it is unsuitable for current use then it needs to be redesigned, at whatever level.
Quite often the current usage (which typically motor vehicles dominate) is itself a reprioritisation from what it was 25, 50 , 75 or 100 years ago.
Priorities have changed again, as we want to recover streets that are safe for children and pensioners, where it is safe to walk to school and cycle to work, and where levels of pollution are reduced so that we reduce chronic illnesses.
So we should look at designs, as they did in the 1880s, when the Roads Improvement Association was set up by cycling groups to get good surfaces on our roads, or when they did in the 1920s, 1950s, or failed to do in my town in the 1980s when they chose to put cycling on narrow shared pavements.
The current Oxfordshire "Quiet Lanes" pilot I mentioned recently is interesting, in that they are piloting the creation of safe rural routes for non-motorised traffic with an upside for motorised traffic in that there will be fewer people walking and cycling on the duplicate route they keep - as they will be using the other one that is not full of high speed motor vehicles and fumes.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There are three types of cycle path.
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths. 2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths. 3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There are three types of cycle path.
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths. 2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths. 3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There are three types of cycle path.
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths. 2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths. 3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
I ignore most cycle lanes because they are nearly always in category 2. The ones that get me are the official signposted cycle routes that run through a park or something and are a good way to avoid the traffic that then suddenly end with a sign saying 'Cyclists Dismount' on the pavement about 5 metres before rejoining the main road. I will heed those signs when car drivers have to get out and push to join the slip road for the M25.
There is also a pointless one near me that you can't keep within without falling off, another one that appears to allow me to join the ring road by cycling along it in the wrong direction, and a third that provides a useful gap into a side road that's otherwise blocked to traffic but is too narrow to navigate from traffic safely.
Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.
Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)
Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.
The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.
I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.
The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
Classic correlation not causation.
Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Hence the SDP.
The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.
The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.
It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
Happily in the UK we tend to stick with Useless Idiots.
Since there are a large number of people desperate to come here, it must be a winning formula...
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
That seems a bit steep. I'd go for scaling the charge to the 4th power of the weight in accordance with the damage caused to the road surface.
Abolish all mileage/fuel etc taxes and I would be fine with that.
Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.
Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)
Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.
The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.
I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.
The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
Classic correlation not causation.
Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Hence the SDP.
The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.
The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.
It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
Happily in the UK we tend to stick with Useless Idiots.
Since there are a large number of people desperate to come here, it must be a winning formula...
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
Like most of the population of Sutton Coldfield, I have at various times commuted to jobs in Birmingham city centre. I also go out in in the city centre and, back in the day, used to go clubbing there. I'm forever taxiing family members back and forth into town. The city centre of today with its pedestrianised streets and open plazas is a far more pleasant place to be than the network of dual carriageways and warren of concrete underpasses that it used to be.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I agree with that one ! My car is longer than the spaces at my local supermarket, which I assume are the minimum 2.4 x 4.8m.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
3 local by-elections this week -Con defences in Cheshire West and Chester and in Slough, and an Ind elected as LD defence in Dacorum.
Where the eff is Dacorum
Dulce et Dacorum est.
Hemel Hempstead and surrounds. One of those home counties non-places made of various small towns but too up itself to just be West Hertfordshire, which is what it is really.
So they dusted off a mediaeval name. Much like Havering.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I agree with that one ! My car is longer than the spaces at my local supermarket, which I assume are the minimum 2.4 x 4.8m.
Car spaces are from a different era. I discovered yesterday that Xpeng have a car coming to the UK that is 5.4m long - good luck parking that in your typical supermarket space
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
That seems a bit steep. I'd go for scaling the charge to the 4th power of the weight in accordance with the damage caused to the road surface.
Abolish all mileage/fuel etc taxes and I would be fine with that.
That wouldn't be fair. The amount of damage you to to the road is also proportional your mileage.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I agree with that one ! My car is longer than the spaces at my local supermarket, which I assume are the minimum 2.4 x 4.8m.
Car spaces are from a different era. I discovered yesterday that Xpeng have a car coming to the UK that is 5.4m long - good luck parking that in your typical supermarket space
The issue is that cars have got 15% wider over the past couple of decades. You can't actually get out of a space you've parked in between cars...
Your final comment: yes, that’s what I was thinking when I read those Labour MPs’ claims.
Much easier to blame a football match than admit the reality - they were not popular enough to win because they had overseen a total mess up of the economy. (Which was, in fairness, not entirely their fault.)
Just as the Labour left constantly blame the Falklands War for 1983, when actually it was mostly due to their own terrible mistakes.
The Longest Suicide Note In History was what created 1983.
I remember, as a child, a trade union activist on stage at the (televised) Labour conference arguing that the U.K. should leave NATO and the EEC and join COMECON and the Warsaw Pact.
The Falklands War made the Conservative majority a bit bigger.
Classic correlation not causation.
Is that the Falklands, Labour’s manifesto, or the size of the bribe paid to the official in question by Moscow?
The Labour Party, at that point was on a course to merry self destruction, based on a spiral of ideological purity to ever more socialism. Completely ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Hence the SDP.
The main opposition party self destructing was the reason the main opposition party got a rather low vote in the general election.
The official in question almost certainly wasn’t paid by Moscow. The KGB called such people Useful Idiots. They would do whatever Moscow wanted, without instruction or pay.
Thank goodness there's nobody like that now.
It would be terrible to have a Useful Idiot running a powerful country.
Happily in the UK we tend to stick with Useless Idiots.
Since there are a large number of people desperate to come here, it must be a winning formula...
[Stands back and waits for the response ....]
Office workers need their takeaways
A contribution to UK office productivity. Less time foraging for food. More time err.. on PB.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There are three types of cycle path.
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths. 2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths. 3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
Internet suggests that the cycle paths around Brixham are gutter lines narrower than the handlebars on a bicycle, so I suspect "Kate" is moaning about cyclists riding 60-70cm from the kerb where it's actually level tarmac outside the painted "cycle lane". "Kate" probably hasn't cycled much as an adult., but perhaps she could provide a photo of the cycle lane in question?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I agree with that one ! My car is longer than the spaces at my local supermarket, which I assume are the minimum 2.4 x 4.8m.
Car spaces are from a different era. I discovered yesterday that Xpeng have a car coming to the UK that is 5.4m long - good luck parking that in your typical supermarket space
Back in 2004 I ended up with a Mercedes S Class, it used to occupy parts of four parking spots and I am an excellent parker, I needed all four when I opened a door.
I miss having a carriage clock in the car.
Apparently the looming problem with some car parks is that they cannot cope with extra weight of EV vehicles.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
Westminster Bridge is quite unique !!!
It could perhaps benefit from a network-level reconsideration, and turning into a pedestrianised tourist venue. There are lots of options.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
God knows
It seems to happen quite alot.
As I keep saying it’s because of server issues. The website throws an error so you think it’s not posted but it has.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
Is this a new official Tory policy? What is the walking tax going to be? Or are you just pulling our leg?
We could use that Chinese face recognition technology to measure distances travelled by walkers - then invoice them when they get home.
You know it makes sense...
I could be pulling your leg - as long as you aren't walking on it.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Fine - when you pay as much as motorists for the privelege.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
That seems a bit steep. I'd go for scaling the charge to the 4th power of the weight in accordance with the damage caused to the road surface.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
I agree with that one ! My car is longer than the spaces at my local supermarket, which I assume are the minimum 2.4 x 4.8m.
Car spaces are from a different era. I discovered yesterday that Xpeng have a car coming to the UK that is 5.4m long - good luck parking that in your typical supermarket space
Back in 2004 I ended up with a Mercedes S Class, it used to occupy parts of four parking spots and I am an excellent parker, I needed all four when I opened a door.
I miss having a carriage clock in the car.
Apparently the looming problem with some car parks is that they cannot cope with extra weight of EV vehicles.
I think the bigger problem is the pick-up trucks, was in a small town centre car park last year and an idiot with a pick-up had managed to trap every other car in the car park. Though my EV is annoyingly over-sized, I'm not sure why VAG needed to make their EV floorpan so big.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
If cyclists were in a car frequently around here traffic would be better not worse.
If I am driving on a 40 or 50 mph road through town I would rather be driving at 40 or 50mph behind a vehicle also doing 40 or 50mph. Barring junctions, the vehicle is gone by the time I need the road so we can all use the same space.
But then you get a whole queue of traffic slowing down to about 18mph and its because one cyclist is occupying the lane and everyone needs to slow down until it is safe to drive into the oncoming traffic's lane to overtake them.
Swap that cyclist for a vehicle doing the speed limit the traffic can all do the speed limit.
If overtaking the cyclist safely requires another lane then the cyclist is worse than a vehicle traffic wise.
Far more cyclists cycle on roads where they are going at broadly the same speed as motorized traffic or faster than on roads with a 40 or 50mph speed limit. Personally, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've ridden on a road with a speed limit above 30mph this year. It's not really safe given the prevailing attitudes of impatient motorists, in my experience.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
Westminster Bridge is quite unique !!!
It could perhaps benefit from a network-level reconsideration, and turning into a pedestrianised tourist venue. There are lots of options.
Only a matter of time before it joins the list of structurally-rendered pedestrian Thames bridges I expect
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
Clearly no one who designs and measure car parking spaces has ever driven a Car other than a Smart Car
You’re not wrong there !!
Wife has a smart car. Its hilarious to park it in spaces right at the back so there appears to be a space to cars driving up. The annoyance on the faces as they see the smart car is great.
But on a serious note, car park spaces and garage design in new builds really ought to be larger to take account of modern cars.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
Westminster Bridge is quite unique !!!
It could perhaps benefit from a network-level reconsideration, and turning into a pedestrianised tourist venue. There are lots of options.
It could benefit from some kind of martial law on pedestrians, summary execution of ice cream van and rickshaw drivers, and vigilante justice against West London mamil wankers who ride through red lights, blocking cyclists who are attempting to go south and east.
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
God knows
It seems to happen quite alot.
As I keep saying it’s because of server issues. The website throws an error so you think it’s not posted but it has.
In my case there's no error message. The comment seems to post without issue, but when I refresh the page I see that it has posted twice.
3 local by-elections this week -Con defences in Cheshire West and Chester and in Slough, and an Ind elected as LD defence in Dacorum.
Where the eff is Dacorum
Dulce et Dacorum est.
Hemel Hempstead and surrounds. One of those home counties non-places made of various small towns but too up itself to just be West Hertfordshire, which is what it is really.
So they dusted off a mediaeval name. Much like Havering.
3 local by-elections this week -Con defences in Cheshire West and Chester and in Slough, and an Ind elected as LD defence in Dacorum.
Where the eff is Dacorum
Dulce et Dacorum est.
Hemel Hempstead and surrounds. One of those home counties non-places made of various small towns but too up itself to just be West Hertfordshire, which is what it is really.
So they dusted off a mediaeval name. Much like Havering.
Early modern psychometric test https://www.theodramatist.com/early-modern-europe Who would you have been in early modern Europe? The years between 1500 and 1789 broke the world open. The stability of church, of knowledge, of political order, even of our place in the cosmos—all of it was called into question and left unsettled, to be fought over. Out of that turmoil came a crowd of new movements: some drove the changes, some struggled to make sense of them, some fought to undo them, and not one came through untouched. A few you’ll recognize. Most you won’t. But every one of them still leaves its mark on the world you live in now. They are gathered here, and the questions that follow—most of them about you as you are today—will find where you would have stood in the chaos.
I am apparently:
The Virtuoso later 1600s · England · experimental philosopher Boyle, New Experiments Physico-Mechanical You trust the thing you can build, run, and watch over any grand system. You think the way to settle an argument is to rig the apparatus, gather honest witnesses, and report exactly what happened.
Representative figures Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Margaret Cavendish
Robert Boyle was a centrist dad of his day. Who knew?
Quite an interesting little thought provoker - look where people drive in slush to see which areas of the carriageway are "redundant". And therefore - in my head - which bits that we can consider recovering for pedestrians.
That's a very car-centric attitude. Why should everyone else have to accommodate the motorist? How about looking at where people want to walk and cycle, and then designing the roads so as to allow them to do do?
Ban all cars !!
Not at all. But designing our roads to make it easy to get around with or without a car makes good sense. Better that than regarding anything other than car transport as an afterthought.
Yes but whining about roads designed many years ago when priorities were different achieves nothing.
I'm expressing an opinion, not "whining". Also, your point makes no sense. It is perfectly possible to change our priorities with regard to future road development. My home city of Birmingham is an example. The city centre is a much more pleasant place than it was in the 1980s since prioritisation shifted back towards pedestrians.
You live in Sutton Coldfield 😂
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
What's with the duplicate posts? This never used to happen to me.
God knows
It seems to happen quite alot.
As I keep saying it’s because of server issues. The website throws an error so you think it’s not posted but it has.
In my case there's no error message. The comment seems to post without issue, but when I refresh the page I see that it has posted twice.
There was an error you just didn’t see it. The button has in effect been clicked twice.
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
There's a cycle path on Westminster Bridge that I often spurn in favour of the bus lane. Because pedestrians frequently stroll down the cycle lane, or even worse step into it without warning or paying a blind bit of notice, or stand in it while they are queuing for an ice cream from the illegally parked van. Mind you if you go in the bus lane you have to navigate said van plus all those vile rickshaw things. So you're taking your life in your hands regardless. Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
If cyclists were in a car frequently around here traffic would be better not worse.
If I am driving on a 40 or 50 mph road through town I would rather be driving at 40 or 50mph behind a vehicle also doing 40 or 50mph. Barring junctions, the vehicle is gone by the time I need the road so we can all use the same space.
But then you get a whole queue of traffic slowing down to about 18mph and its because one cyclist is occupying the lane and everyone needs to slow down until it is safe to drive into the oncoming traffic's lane to overtake them.
Swap that cyclist for a vehicle doing the speed limit the traffic can all do the speed limit.
If overtaking the cyclist safely requires another lane then the cyclist is worse than a vehicle traffic wise.
Far more cyclists cycle on roads where they are going at broadly the same speed as motorized traffic or faster than on roads with a 40 or 50mph speed limit. Personally, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've ridden on a road with a speed limit above 30mph this year. It's not really safe given the prevailing attitudes of impatient motorists, in my experience.
Around here its not unusual.
But even on 30mph roads the same applies.
I would rather be behind a car doing 30mph than behind a cyclist. And other than junctions the primary reason in my experience for a queue of traffic doing sub 30 on the roads here is due to a cyclist that needs to be overtaken being the lowest common denominator that slows everyone else until they can drive into the oncoming traffic's lane in order to overtake them.
Unless you can overtake a cyclist without leaving your lane, the cyclist blocks the entire lane and slows down everyone. The fact they are not using 90% of the width of the lane is moot if it isn't safe to overtake within the same lane.
Comments
MAGA supporters in the US really believed Trump would make their lives better and "drain the swamp".
In spite of all the evidence that he has failed them, most still support Trump. Their emotions are totally in charge.
Our rational mind is the Rider sitting on top of the Elephant (our emotions) and thinks it is the master directing the journey.
But the Rider's control is an illusion.
Because the Elephant is so much bigger, whenever the two disagree on which way to go, the Elephant wins every time. The Rider's actual job isn't to master the Elephant; instead, the Rider acts like a public relations consultant or a lawyer. Once the Elephant stubbornly marches in a certain direction, the Rider quickly invents clever, rational-sounding justifications to explain why going that way was a "rational choice" all along.
Credit to Jonathan Haidt for the metaphor.
Keir Starmer says that the horrific attack in Belfast last night - which is being described as an attempted beheading - is 'sickening'
Police have confirmed that a Somalian man in his 30s has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder 'following a serious assault involving a knife'
The victim, who was in his 40s, is in a serious condition and has 'significant injuries to his face, neck and back'
Police are urging people not to reshare images or footage of the stabbing in North Belfast
Starmer: 'I have absolutely no tolerance for abhorrent scenes of violence like this on our streets.
'My thoughts are first and foremost with the victim, and I thank the first responders, including members of the public who intervened'
1.9 million inmates, of whom most do work (complained about by normal businesses as unfair competition), many prisons run with light by commercial companies who have a profit motive for keeping people inside and giving them squalid conditions. Forced labour is legal.
And it does not create a low crime society.
The potential solution is somewhere on the spectrum from significant prison time to more investment in social work.
Turned out that some recent ex pupils fleeing a drug gangs shootout were hiding in the grounds.
I guess when you’ve been at the top so long it’s hard to accept it’s over.
It is a piece from Robert Weetman, who is a designer of streets:
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2026/04/14/redundant-carriageway/
Good news for what’s left of the midlands motor industry though
Still, he’s aggressively ambitious so that’s something.
I want to find the UK’s first trillion-dollar firm.
That’s why this morning I've unveiled our bespoke concierge service to support businesses of the future to start, scale, and stay in the UK.
When I say I’m aggressively ambitious in pursuit of economic growth, I mean it.
https://x.com/peterkyle/status/2064249699947696334?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Dulce et Dacorum est.
Sounds like something some oligarchs living in Mayfair would have. White gloves, and charm.
The barriers to personal businesses becoming small businesses and small businesses making the lead to medium sized are huge.
At them moment, your walkers and cyclists are freeloading. Shall we say £250 a year for a cycling licence?
The musth bulls are a problem and can dominate.
Surely you can see that he's failed his supporters? Can't you?
YouGov
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 7-8 June 2026
Reform UK: 25% (-2 from 31 May-1 Jun)
Conservatives: 19% (+1)
Labour: 19% (+1)
Greens: 14% (-1)
Lib Dems: 12% (-1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Restore Britain: 3% (=)
Plaid Cymru: 2% (+1)
Your Party: 1% (+1)
https://x.com/yougov/status/2064263713348112877?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
I think that might have a lot to do with flag waving little Englanders who hijack the flag and become football experts for a month and then get them back out to go on a Farage or Tommy March or support farmers.
The added issue this time is that unlike Capello or Sven we have a nonentity of a foreign manager with no personality who seems to want to pick a fight with the most complete footballer the Country has produced sine Duncan Edwards.
Unless he has an aversion to Dudley Metropolitan Borough..
Specially designed cycle paths on the hill out of Brixham and towards Paignton. Specifically introduced to help cyclist safety from large articulated fish lorries, and seasonal traffic.
Cyclists generally ignore it, block traffic cause gridlock.
Many with more fecking cameras on them than GCHQ... Ready to report you for yelling "get on the fucking cycle path" as you drive past.
But gradually unpicking the issues (without making new problems or even making things worse) is the kind of boring politics that no-one has an interest in.
Then people wonder why billionaires try their own solutions, when the government abandons the concept of enabling change.
See SpaceX and space launch - the barriers were actually policy of “we don’t do that here”. See the ongoing Ariane/ESA insistence that… we don’t do that here.
Anyone complaining about cyclists "blocking traffic" should ponder how much more the traffic would be blocked if each of them were driving an SUV. Remember, you are not "in traffic", you "are traffic".
1. Well-designed cycle paths that make cycling better - cyclists will use these paths.
2. Badly-designed cycle paths that make cycling more dangerous, or less convenient - cyclists will not use these paths.
3. Paint on the road surface - car drivers will ignore these.
Which category are the ones you are talking about?
I probably know far more about commuting in brum in the early eighties than you.
If I am driving on a 40 or 50 mph road through town I would rather be driving at 40 or 50mph behind a vehicle also doing 40 or 50mph. Barring junctions, the vehicle is gone by the time I need the road so we can all use the same space.
But then you get a whole queue of traffic slowing down to about 18mph and its because one cyclist is occupying the lane and everyone needs to slow down until it is safe to drive into the oncoming traffic's lane to overtake them.
Swap that cyclist for a vehicle doing the speed limit the traffic can all do the speed limit.
If overtaking the cyclist safely requires another lane then the cyclist is worse than a vehicle traffic wise.
Did ten miles this morning. Round Pelton and back. I have been a regular cyclist round here for over a decade.
Unlike the resident cyclist hating loons I recognise we all need to share the roads.
Quite often the current usage (which typically motor vehicles dominate) is itself a reprioritisation from what it was 25, 50 , 75 or 100 years ago.
Priorities have changed again, as we want to recover streets that are safe for children and pensioners, where it is safe to walk to school and cycle to work, and where levels of pollution are reduced so that we reduce chronic illnesses.
So we should look at designs, as they did in the 1880s, when the Roads Improvement Association was set up by cycling groups to get good surfaces on our roads, or when they did in the 1920s, 1950s, or failed to do in my town in the 1980s when they chose to put cycling on narrow shared pavements.
The current Oxfordshire "Quiet Lanes" pilot I mentioned recently is interesting, in that they are piloting the creation of safe rural routes for non-motorised traffic with an upside for motorised traffic in that there will be fewer people walking and cycling on the duplicate route they keep - as they will be using the other one that is not full of high speed motor vehicles and fumes.
There is also a pointless one near me that you can't keep within without falling off, another one that appears to allow me to join the ring road by cycling along it in the wrong direction, and a third that provides a useful gap into a side road that's otherwise blocked to traffic but is too narrow to navigate from traffic safely.
[Stands back and waits for the response ....]
So they dusted off a mediaeval name. Much like Havering.
"Kate" probably hasn't cycled much as an adult., but perhaps she could provide a photo of the cycle lane in question?
I miss having a carriage clock in the car.
Apparently the looming problem with some car parks is that they cannot cope with extra weight of EV vehicles.
It seems to happen quite alot.
It could perhaps benefit from a network-level reconsideration, and turning into a pedestrianised tourist venue. There are lots of options.
Never happens to me
You know it makes sense...
I could be pulling your leg - as long as you aren't walking on it.
Hmm....
Though my EV is annoyingly over-sized, I'm not sure why VAG needed to make their EV floorpan so big.
But on a serious note, car park spaces and garage design in new builds really ought to be larger to take account of modern cars.
https://www.theodramatist.com/early-modern-europe
Who would you have been in early modern Europe?
The years between 1500 and 1789 broke the world open. The stability of church, of knowledge, of political order, even of our place in the cosmos—all of it was called into question and left unsettled, to be fought over. Out of that turmoil came a crowd of new movements: some drove the changes, some struggled to make sense of them, some fought to undo them, and not one came through untouched. A few you’ll recognize. Most you won’t. But every one of them still leaves its mark on the world you live in now. They are gathered here, and the questions that follow—most of them about you as you are today—will find where you would have stood in the chaos.
I am apparently:
The Virtuoso
later 1600s · England · experimental philosopher
Boyle, New Experiments Physico-Mechanical
You trust the thing you can build, run, and watch over any grand system. You think the way to settle an argument is to rig the apparatus, gather honest witnesses, and report exactly what happened.
Representative figures Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Margaret Cavendish
Robert Boyle was a centrist dad of his day. Who knew?
But even on 30mph roads the same applies.
I would rather be behind a car doing 30mph than behind a cyclist. And other than junctions the primary reason in my experience for a queue of traffic doing sub 30 on the roads here is due to a cyclist that needs to be overtaken being the lowest common denominator that slows everyone else until they can drive into the oncoming traffic's lane in order to overtake them.
Unless you can overtake a cyclist without leaving your lane, the cyclist blocks the entire lane and slows down everyone. The fact they are not using 90% of the width of the lane is moot if it isn't safe to overtake within the same lane.
It is entirely possible the next general election to be won on 22ish % of the vote (and a landslide too!)