A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.
Council rejects 100 homes.
Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.
Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.
End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.
we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.
That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.
No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.
If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.
In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…
So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.
Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!
Peter.
We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
We have had 25 years of large scale immigration. We have increased the working age population. We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population. We have had low productivity and low wage growth.
And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.
Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.
Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.
Peter.
The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.
Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.
Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.
I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.
Peter.
That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.
We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
It hasn't worked very well.
So, you don't like democracy then?
The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.
I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
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.
My wife likes to say that I always think I am right, which she appears to find irritating. My response is always, of course I think I am right. Everybody thinks they are right. If I thought I was wrong I would have changed my mind. This is a criticism I really can't understand.
I suspect the irritation is less that you think your opinion is correct and more the certainty with which you hold it. Sometimes the most honest answer is simply, “I don’t know.”
That applies to all of us. We hold views because we think they’re right, but the confidence we have in those views should depend on the strength of the evidence behind them.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Good luck to her (and you, of course!) Who is she fundraising for?
Thank you! She's doing a Camps International trip in 2027 to Cambodia - one of those where teenagers go and Do Practical and Useful Things for Impoverished Communities - so it's fundraising for that. We've been doing a fair bit of training, so - while it's considerably further than she's been before, and further than I've been before come to that - I'm feeling broadly confident. Well, broadly confident of her cycling ability. I'm still worried about weather, possible mechanical issues, making the train connections and packing two people's stuff in my saddlebags!
On Topic... This is almost certainly a fair assessment of the likely result. sadly
What would you say is the median majority implied by the second-placed party having a 1-in-7 chance of winning?
It seems to me that if the result ended up being a Labour victory by 1pp then I'd say the market had been too confident of a Labour victory. But I'm not too sure about the other direction.
During the troubles, several U.K. army patrols got lost and ended up walking into villages with green post boxes. On at least one occasion, a bemused Garda walked them back to where there should be.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
My betting position on Makerfield, drawing on advice in an earlier thread:
Reform to Win Labour 47.5% or greater vote share.
Staked for an equal return, I get about 160% back if either happens, which feels like a pretty strong position. And there is technically a tiny chance that both come in.
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
I do find the party colours in the USA confusing. I instinctively react negatively to Blue, then realise that in American context it's not as far Right as the Reds.
A case study in why resisting reasonable development entirely can come back to bite you (if the developer ploy here works)? Work in the system to resist where you can, don't just pretend the system doesn't exist because you don't like it.
Council rejects 100 homes.
Developer wins appeal for 75 homes.
Developer then submits another 65 homes on the remaining land.
End result? Residents could get 140 homes instead of the original 100. Now they claim they’re being “picked on”.
we have the same population as France but 7 million fewer homes..
We've arrived at this point almost entirely by virtually unrestricted immigration and given the birth rate we could very easily shrink our population back again by making further immigration almost impossible.
That is a much better deal for almost everyone than continually concreting over the country to build horrible Barratt new builds without any accompanying infrastructure.
No more immigration, almost no more new housing, and in 15 years time housing will be affordable again. As a bonus, we can fill in the various holes in our labour force by redeployment of the people who are building houses to cope with immigration.
No one is building homes to cope with immigration, we aren’t building enough homes because not enough people can afford new ones. Largely flatlining wages after inflation , higher prices and supply and demand mean there are too few buyers who can afford them.
If we stop immigration the average age will be 45 in 2040 with far too few young people and a rapidly ageing population. Are the pensioners going to build their own houses.
In this scenario under sixteens would drop from 18% to 14%, the working population from 62% to 55% and the over 67’s would grow from about 19% to 29%…
So dependency would go from roughly 2:1 to close to 1:1.
Hey Presto not only no need for new houses with a collapsed economy no money to build them either!
Peter.
We've spent 25 years trying the approach of allowing mass immigration to increase the working age population in the face of what would otherwise be a natural decline and it has led to poor productivity growth, stagnant wages, inflated asset values and political instability. It's about time the people who advocated it learned to have some humility.
We have had 25 years of large scale immigration. We have increased the working age population. We have so far managed to avoid the economic cliff edge of a naturally declining population. We have had low productivity and low wage growth.
And you have abjectly failed to establish a causal link between them.
Other Countries with high immigration have had productivity growth; the US for one.
Developed Countries like Japan have had slow wage growth and little immigration.
Peter.
The onus isn't on me to prove a causal link. I have democracy on my side.
No you have Populism and what’s popular isn’t always right and what’s right isn’t always popular.
Essential you are adopting the Trumpian logic, that for something to be true the majority just has to believe it.
Much like his Meet the Press walk out. His evidence consisted of only what he believed, nothing more.
I am old fashioned, I like evidence based argument and still believe in objective truth.
Peter.
That’s not Trumpoan logic. It’s politics.
We’ve had governance by opinion poll for many years.
It hasn't worked very well.
So, you don't like democracy then?
The problem is people having factually wrong opinions. On immigration for example you can legitimately want less of it, or be comfortable with a high level. But it's a problem if people think that immigration is currently very high when it isn't, or that most new housing goes to immigrants when it doesn't, and politicians devise policies based on those demonstrably wrong perceptions.
I think your biggest problem (and that of your liberal ilk) is that you think you're always right - and any contrary opinion is therefore "wrong" - and are totally blind to the fact you have an ideology of your own; you genuinely think the facts support it.
I'd anchor that ideology around the complete fungibility of all individuals, and championing things like choosing your own identity and free movement regardless of any evidence of the social problems this causes.
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.
My wife likes to say that I always think I am right, which she appears to find irritating. My response is always, of course I think I am right. Everybody thinks they are right. If I thought I was wrong I would have changed my mind. This is a criticism I really can't understand.
I suspect the irritation is less that you think your opinion is correct and more the certainty with which you hold it. Sometimes the most honest answer is simply, “I don’t know.”
That applies to all of us. We hold views because we think they’re right, but the confidence we have in those views should depend on the strength of the evidence behind them.
I agree with that stance and nothing said could change my mind on it.
Talking to one of the candidates in the pub yesterday his view was "Burnham won't win". However he is about 200 miles away and won't get to the constituency until Thursday, where he will do most of his campaigning in Wetherspoons.
On Topic... This is almost certainly a fair assessment of the likely result. sadly
What would you say is the median majority implied by the second-placed party having a 1-in-7 chance of winning?
It seems to me that if the result ended up being a Labour victory by 1pp then I'd say the market had been too confident of a Labour victory. But I'm not too sure about the other direction.
The odds tell us much more about the probability of Labour winning than the size of any Labour victory. A 14% Reform chance doesn’t imply a particular majority. It just implies that, across the range of plausible outcomes, Reform wins roughly one time in seven.
A 1-in-7 chance for the second-placed party means the market thinks there is still a meaningful possibility of a narrow upset, but that doesn’t translate neatly into an implied majority.
If Labour won by only 1pp, I’d agree that the market would probably have been somewhat overconfident about the scale of the Labour lead. But if Labour won by 10pp when the market was pricing a 1-in-7 chance of the opposition winning, that wouldn’t necessarily mean the market was wrong. It just means the most likely outcome occurred.
The real test is whether the eventual result falls comfortably within the range of outcomes implied by the odds. A 14% chance event isn’t expected to happen often, but it isn’t remotely rare either. If it happened, it wouldn’t by itself prove the market is mispriced
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?
No such thing as bad publicity. It's probably because there are still a lot of voters who haven't heard of him and/or the power of the prompt in polling.
My betting position on Makerfield, drawing on advice in an earlier thread:
Reform to Win Labour 47.5% or greater vote share.
Staked for an equal return, I get about 160% back if either happens, which feels like a pretty strong position. And there is technically a tiny chance that both come in.
Technically possible I could date (checks notes) Margot Robbie too. I'd settle for your 160% lad.
Talking to one of the candidates in the pub yesterday his view was "Burnham won't win". However he is about 200 miles away and won't get to the constituency until Thursday, where he will do most of his campaigning in Wetherspoons.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
PassPixi. Transforms the experience. Even better, a propane canister strapped to your pannier rack.
It’s sad because I really struggle to persuade my partner to cycle with me after her experiences with drivers, both deliberate and accidental. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than 50:50 gender balance and kids regularly cycling to school.
(It’s one thing Burnham has been really good on, rather disproving the idea it’s only the Dutch/ Londoners who can cycle).
It could get very close given the late counting votes are very blue and I haven’t seen it called for Hilton yet. Steyer will be really hacked off that so many Democrats with zero chance of advancing refused to withdraw otherwise he would have got into the top 2.
During the troubles, several U.K. army patrols got lost and ended up walking into villages with green post boxes. On at least one occasion, a bemused Garda walked them back to where there should be.
Talking to one of the candidates in the pub yesterday his view was "Burnham won't win". However he is about 200 miles away and won't get to the constituency until Thursday, where he will do most of his campaigning in Wetherspoons.
So I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
You were drinking with Count Binface?
Unlikely. But if you want to play Hunt the Candidate, here's a map of places 200 miles from Makerfield constituency;
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
On Topic... This is almost certainly a fair assessment of the likely result. sadly
What would you say is the median majority implied by the second-placed party having a 1-in-7 chance of winning?
It seems to me that if the result ended up being a Labour victory by 1pp then I'd say the market had been too confident of a Labour victory. But I'm not too sure about the other direction.
Not to me, you can't tell that from a single event. Even a narrow Reform win does not show that the market is wrong.
If you pick up a single fair die and roll it, what are the odds of getting at least a 2? I would say 5/6.
If in a single roll you get a 1, does that mean my forecast odds were wrong?
Talking to one of the candidates in the pub yesterday his view was "Burnham won't win". However he is about 200 miles away and won't get to the constituency until Thursday, where he will do most of his campaigning in Wetherspoons.
Today’s good news, there’s a lot of fires still burning in Russia, and they’re one general short who won’t be reporting for duty tomorrow. Killed by a roadside bomb in the middle of Moscow!
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
I do find the party colours in the USA confusing. I instinctively react negatively to Blue, then realise that in American context it's not as far Right as the Reds.
The Trump response in 2020 did a lot more damage to elections in America than people accepted. People no longer accept they have lost, spurious legal challenges are more and more common, and significant numbers will no longer accept opponents winning as legitimate.
Today’s good news, there’s a lot of fires still burning in Russia, and they’re one general short who won’t be reporting for duty tomorrow. Killed by a roadside bomb in the middle of Moscow!
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
That is probably true, but there is a difference between squeezing past when stationary, and overtaking at speed.
And it isn't encouragement I believe, drivers are supposed to leave more space now, something like a cars width. If there is not room to leave that space they either do it anyway, or they wait and often get furious that a cyclist is using the road at all.
OldKingCole - The red/blue coding used by almost all American journalists, is relatively recent. Before 2000, as I recall, almost all academics would have used the colors more common in most of the world. (I have long suspected that the journalists who made the switch chose to do so because "red" was not a good thing to be in the US, during the long Cold War.)
And the variants were as you would expect. One of my aunts was a "parlor pink", or if you prefer, "a parlour pink", which meant she was a socialist, but not a commie.
I have an example that demonstrates this neatly; I'll try to put a photo of it up for you some time this week.
Talking to one of the candidates in the pub yesterday his view was "Burnham won't win". However he is about 200 miles away and won't get to the constituency until Thursday, where he will do most of his campaigning in Wetherspoons.
OldKingCole - The red/blue coding used by almost all American journalists, is relatively recent. Before 2000, as I recall, almost all academics would have used the colors more common in most of the world. (I have long suspected that the journalists who made the switch chose to do so because "red" was not a good thing to be in the US, during the long Cold War.)
And the variants were as you would expect. One of my aunts was a "parlor pink", or if you prefer, "a parlour pink", which meant she was a socialist, but not a commie.
I have an example that demonstrates this neatly; I'll try to put a photo of it up for you some time this week.
I believe pre 2000 they often alternated in colour usage in media reports. In 2000 it was GOP turn to be red and then that flashed on news so often give Florida's hanging chads that the colour scheme stuck.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
PassPixi. Transforms the experience. Even better, a propane canister strapped to your pannier rack.
It’s sad because I really struggle to persuade my partner to cycle with me after her experiences with drivers, both deliberate and accidental. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than 50:50 gender balance and kids regularly cycling to school.
(It’s one thing Burnham has been really good on, rather disproving the idea it’s only the Dutch/ Londoners who can cycle).
Is that down to Burnham or really Chris Boardman? Similar to Andrew Gilligan being the real driving force for cycling provision in London.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
You want to debate the difference between being close passed by a driver in a 1- 2 tonnes vehicle doing 10-30mph more than you or closely passing stationary traffic at 10-20mph?
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
PassPixi. Transforms the experience. Even better, a propane canister strapped to your pannier rack.
It’s sad because I really struggle to persuade my partner to cycle with me after her experiences with drivers, both deliberate and accidental. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than 50:50 gender balance and kids regularly cycling to school.
(It’s one thing Burnham has been really good on, rather disproving the idea it’s only the Dutch/ Londoners who can cycle).
Is that down to Burnham or really Chris Boardman? Similar to Andrew Gilligan being the real driving force for cycling provision in London.
It’s down to who wields the budget and faces down the NIMBYs, ultimately.
Today’s good news, there’s a lot of fires still burning in Russia, and they’re one general short who won’t be reporting for duty tomorrow. Killed by a roadside bomb in the middle of Moscow!
OldKingCole - The red/blue coding used by almost all American journalists, is relatively recent. Before 2000, as I recall, almost all academics would have used the colors more common in most of the world. (I have long suspected that the journalists who made the switch chose to do so because "red" was not a good thing to be in the US, during the long Cold War.)
And the variants were as you would expect. One of my aunts was a "parlor pink", or if you prefer, "a parlour pink", which meant she was a socialist, but not a commie.
I have an example that demonstrates this neatly; I'll try to put a photo of it up for you some time this week.
Thank you. I seem to recall reading, long,long years ago that around the middle of the Roosevelt era there was a line in one of the 'patriotic' songs which went "Oh say, can you see, any red bugs on me?"
Re "'Rules requiring public bodies such as schools and hospitals to promote equality when making decisions should be scrapped, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will say in a speech on Tuesday.
In what the party says is the first step in a wider programme to "restore common sense", Badenoch will argue that the Public Sector Equality Duty has been used to promote "dangerous and divisive agendas".
She will say it has "become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge.
Badenoch's speech comes after the murder of Henry Nowak and the police's response fuelled questions about equality policies and laws.
The Conservatives are trying to forge a distinct response from both Labour, who have strengthened equality protections, and Reform UK, who want to go further than the Tories and scrap the Equality Act altogether.'
Would it be too cynical of me to assume that - (a) the significant public decisions "exposed to legal challenge" were not in fact because of this duty being applied lawfully and properly; (b) women will be one of the groups most adversely affected; (c) this will be the aim of at least some of those proposing this and will be welcomed by others eg Reform (which might well be one reason why the Tories are proposing this. This suggestion might be best viewed as less of the forging of a "distinct response" different to Reform and Labour and more as showing a bit of ankle to Reform should a coalition become necessary); and (d) any replacement will be postponed sine die?
I have a very real fear that a significant number of politicians in all our political parties are, out of a profound ignorance of how the Equality Act actually works and for various different reasons and from different perspectives, seeking to reverse the anti-discrimination legislation of the last 50 years and will push many groups (such as women and the disabled) back into the position they were in pre-1975. Whenever these politicians are asked to explain in detail precisely what changes they want made, how, what the consequences will be, including the adverse ones, and how they will deal with those adverse consequences, they can only ever give answers based on "vibes" and demonstrating their profound ignorance and/or stupidity and, often, both. Some of these politicians even call themselves "progressive" which only shows how useless that term has become since there is nothing progressive about ignorance.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Good luck to her (and you, of course!) Who is she fundraising for?
Thank you! She's doing a Camps International trip in 2027 to Cambodia - one of those where teenagers go and Do Practical and Useful Things for Impoverished Communities - so it's fundraising for that. We've been doing a fair bit of training, so - while it's considerably further than she's been before, and further than I've been before come to that - I'm feeling broadly confident. Well, broadly confident of her cycling ability. I'm still worried about weather, possible mechanical issues, making the train connections and packing two people's stuff in my saddlebags!
Chapeau for attempting it in a weekend, I hope the weather and motorists are kind. Proper shorts and chamois cream applied before anything gets sore is the best tip. There were some nice cafes on the route when I did it years ago.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
Consider the potential consequences of each.
Yes, wrecking a wing mirror that costs hundreds to replace and for which the driver could lose points on licence going to a garage to repair.
The wanker on the bike gets away scot free, is uncontactable and has no insurance.
Sames as the wankers on clips who pull up inside you, rattle their hands on your roof and then power off knowing you are turning left.
Today’s good news, there’s a lot of fires still burning in Russia, and they’re one general short who won’t be reporting for duty tomorrow. Killed by a roadside bomb in the middle of Moscow!
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
Consider the potential consequences of each.
Yes, wrecking a wing mirror that costs hundreds to replace and for which the driver could lose points on licence going to a garage to repair.
The wanker on the bike gets away scot free, is uncontactable and has no insurance.
Sames as the wankers on clips who pull up inside you, rattle their hands on your roof and then power off knowing you are turning left.
All cameraed up of course
You missed “road tax”, registration plates, red lights and Lycra. But not a bad effort.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
That is probably true, but there is a difference between squeezing past when stationary, and overtaking at speed.
And it isn't encouragement I believe, drivers are supposed to leave more space now, something like a cars width. If there is not room to leave that space they either do it anyway, or they wait and often get furious that a cyclist is using the road at all.
I don't mind if a car comes a bit closer than that if they're only going a little faster than me. It can actually be a little annoying when a motorist is cautiously creeping along behind me while we're travelling uphill and refusing to slowly overtake until they can give a full car's width of clearance, even though they're only going to be passing at 10-15 mph. On the other hand, it can be quite terrifying when some idiot shoots past closely but much faster than me. The speed differential is critical.
On Topic... This is almost certainly a fair assessment of the likely result. sadly
What would you say is the median majority implied by the second-placed party having a 1-in-7 chance of winning?
It seems to me that if the result ended up being a Labour victory by 1pp then I'd say the market had been too confident of a Labour victory. But I'm not too sure about the other direction.
I think this implies victory by about eight to ten percentage points, given the possibility of (a) materially inaccurate polling data and/or (b) events.
Bandwagon Badenoch in yet another utter Car Crash of complete hypocrisy.
When a junior Minister of Equalities in December 2023 she wrote TO EVERY UK COUNCIL telling them they must abide by the very legislation she now wants abolished.
She then lists a series of cases ALL BUT ONE OF WHICH occurred on her watch!
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?
Seemingly so, if the scandal is that he hates Jews. He has the tattoo of a Nazi concentration camp guard on his chest.
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it does look like the Dems haven't exactly chosen the best candidate.
Of course if he was Republican he could just shout "Fake News" over and over and it'll be fine.
It’s rather amusing to see the two-party politics of the US, with almost unlimited budgets for vetting candidates, still put up total scumbags for election.
Everything that’s come out so far about Platner has come from Dem sources ahead of his primary next week, the Republicans have already hinted that they have a lot more on him.
Labour and the Tories in the UK usually do a pretty good job of having their candidates vetted, at least in seats they might actually win. It’s mostly the fringe parties who have the more unsuitable people end up on the ballot paper.
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?
An investigative journalist wrote an expose of the book and film "The Salt Path", pointing out that the couple had made up a lot of the facts from whole cloth. The expose was published. Sales of the book went up.
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?
An investigative journalist wrote an expose of the book and film "The Salt Path", pointing out that the couple had made up a lot of the facts from whole cloth. The expose was published. Sales of the book went up.
People are weird.
This sounds like a retrospective analysis of why Labour's campaign against Robert Kenyon failed.
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?
Much though I hate to defend that poster, that's not altogether true. Next to the A449 from Wolverhampton to Penkridge (on both sides) is a cycleway that's beautifully laid out. It's wide, straight, surfaced properly, grade separated, no pedestrians and has pelican crossings so you can navigate safely. It must be the best cycleway in the whole Midlands.
Some utter twat persists, every day, in cycling rather slowly up the middle of the nearside lane of the dual carriageway, causing total chaos.
There is no excuse for that other than to be a total arsehole. Unless this person is such a total idiot he has not noticed the cycleway signs literally at his elbow, in which case he should probably not be allowed out without an escort.
If that total idiot was in a car he would not be causing traffic either.
This is what our can't misguided think-beyond-their-own-experiences city dwellers fail to comprehend. Roads that typically travel at or about the speed limit can be seriously damaged by one individual who is not doing the limit that then snarls everyone behind them until they can get into a different lane to overtake.
Whether that one individual be an agricultural vehicle, the bin lorry, a cyclist or an elderly driver afraid to drive properly.
Shared spaces mean they can all be on the road, but the idea its great that they are and should be celebrated is not necessarily correct and depends upon the circumstances.
It's not a matter of celebrating that one is stuck behind someone driving more slowly than you are comfortable doing. It's a matter of co-operating with other road users so everyone gets to their final destination in one piece.
There are too many drivers who seem to have either a death wish, or believe that they are invincible, or in their rage at being slightly inconvenienced and delayed lose all sense of proportion and put everyone else on the road in the vicinity at risk of death or serious injury.
My 14-year old daughter* is doing a sponsored coast to coast bike ride the weekend after next, so I have an unusually heightened sense of cycle safety at the moment (not least after the headmaster at her school was killed cycling home a couple of months back). I'm generally fairly relaxed about sharing a road with vehicle traffic, but you notice driver behaviour a lot more when your daughter is on the road. My perspective is that almost all drivers are pretty considerate, especially in towns or on small country lanes. Trying to force an overtake which isn't there is very rare; they will almost always wait to be waved on. The roads which worry me though are country A roads. With my daughter, I will go a long way out of my way to avoid these. It's not even that I blame the drivers: but if the expectation is that you can be travelling at 60mph, you can very quickly be on a slow moving vehicle you didn't expect to be there.
*actually the two of us - but she is the one fundraising; I'm just there to keep an eye.
Yes. Most car drivers are fine. But even if it's only ~1% of car drivers who are reckless, they put other people at risk.
In a similar way, most cyclists don't want to be in anyone else's way. But there's a pervasive attitude - which is what started this conversation - that they are being deliberately difficult and in some way deserve what's coming to them. I've experienced a lot of hostility from car drivers which basically boils down to them being enraged that I dare to be on the road (which actually I generally don't anymore, eventually I just couldn't take the worry).
It's bizarre, otherwise kind and normal people are really aggressive about this.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
Consider the potential consequences of each.
Yes, wrecking a wing mirror that costs hundreds to replace and for which the driver could lose points on licence going to a garage to repair.
The wanker on the bike gets away scot free, is uncontactable and has no insurance.
Sames as the wankers on clips who pull up inside you, rattle their hands on your roof and then power off knowing you are turning left.
All cameraed up of course
You missed “road tax”, registration plates, red lights and Lycra. But not a bad effort.
He also missed the life-changing injuries to the vulnerable road user, years of pain, loss of income etc
Drivers close passing cyclists is attributed to 25% of serious motorist / cyclist accidents in some sources.
US Senate Maine 2026 🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent) 🟦Graham Platner 43.1% Undecided 13.2% — When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals 🟦Graham Platner 48.2% 🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent) Undecided 11.7% https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Huh. Is it even a scandal if it helps?
Seemingly so, if the scandal is that he hates Jews. He has the tattoo of a Nazi concentration camp guard on his chest.
Looking at his Wikipedia page, it does look like the Dems haven't exactly chosen the best candidate.
Of course if he was Republican he could just shout "Fake News" over and over and it'll be fine.
It’s rather amusing to see the two-party politics of the US, with almost unlimited budgets for vetting candidates, still put up total scumbags for election.
Everything that’s come out so far about Platner has come from Dem sources ahead of his primary next week, the Republicans have already hinted that they have a lot more on him.
Labour and the Tories in the UK usually do a pretty good job of having their candidates vetted, at least in seats they might actually win. It’s mostly the fringe parties who have the more unsuitable people end up on the ballot paper.
That’s to entirely miss the point of how candidates are chosen. It’s through primaries, over which the parties have very little control. Anyone can enter them, and frequently do. This allows the capture by complete outsiders in a way that’s much more difficult in this country. Trump was barely involved in politics and for many years was indeed at one stage a registered Democrat whom the party hierarchy hated as a result (apart from a criminal, traitor, dementia addled paedo etc). No way would he have been chosen if vetting had been important or the party’s leadership structures had been choosing.
Similarly, the Dems in Maine certainly didn’t want Platner, who is clearly totally unfit to be a Senator. But after he won the primaries they’re rather stuck with him.
The grim irony is that if Collins loses - as seems very likely - she will have lost because of Trump’s dreadful ratings in the state to a candidate who is extremely Trumpian.
So the first 2 people arrested in the protests outside Southampton police station have got 34 and 37 months each in prison
For what, exactly? Looks awfully “Two-tier” unless someone was seriously injured.
No one should be in any doubt by now that the courts take a f*cking dim view of violent disorder and rioting.
Been that way for a long long time.
Twitter seems to think this was the same judge who sentenced Lucy Connolly. Any truth to that?
It's on Twitter, so probably not.
EDIT: Looking into it... yeah, looks like bollocks. Connolly was sentenced in Birmingham by His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman, who I can't see listed as working at Southampton Crown Court, where today's rioters were sentenced.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
I doubt they'll bother.
I am very curious though whether Musk is just scrolling twitter and sees Lowe and assumes him to be a significant UK political figure, or if there is more actual thought going on with all this boosting. It convinces americans online, but not sure what the benefit of that is.
I am neither a motorist or a cyclist, so I have no axe to grind, but one thing I have noticed is this: Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
In addition to what others have said, a big factor here is wind. A vehicle closely passing a cyclist can create enough wake turbulence to knock the cyclist down. The reverse is of course not true, a cyclist squeezing through a gap does not create that problem.
Many drivers hate cyclists (and motorcyclists like me) going for those gaps because they have CarBrain. They think only in terms of cars. If a gap is not big enough for a car, then it must be empty. Nothing else could be in that gap, because only cars exist. When that turns out not to be the case they get angry and defensive. It's the fault of the (motor)cyclist for being there because they're not behaving like a car.
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
I doubt they'll bother.
I am very curious though whether Musk is just scrolling twitter and sees Lowe and assumes him to be a significant UK political figure, or if there is more actual thought going on with all this boosting. It convinces americans online, but not sure what the benefit of that is.
Lowe only has 800k followers, which isn’t a lot in the grand scheme of things. I suspect many are American, and probably some prominent people in Musk’s orbit.
There’s an interesting test case there somewhere, to do with persuading high-profile accounts to repost you, as opposed to explicitly paid-for advertising. Is there a benefit-in-kind there, that should be included in election spending limits?
So the first 2 people arrested in the protests outside Southampton police station have got 34 and 37 months each in prison
For what, exactly? Looks awfully “Two-tier” unless someone was seriously injured.
Throwing a bin, according to Twitter.
From the BBC...
Footage shown in Southampton Crown Court showed O'Leary "walking casually" in the crowd in front of the police cordon when he spots a smoke grenade on the ground, picks it up and throws it towards police.
O'Leary also admitted resisting a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon – a samurai sword in his bedroom - when officers came to arrest him in the early hours of 7 June.
The court heard he adopted a "fighting stance" at the top of the stairs and threatened officers who had to use pava spray to subdue him.
[...]
Meanwhile Connor Bishop, 24, from Southampton, was seen in footage [...] carrying a yellow traffic cone which he threw towards officers.
He was seen running with the cone, "pursuing officers for some time with it", prosecutor, Siobhan Linsley told the court.
"Once it's thrown he then follows it again, picks it up again," she said.
[...]
He also admitted throwing a box of screws and punching a wall which was not captured on footage.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
I would have thought, given Musk's reputation in this country, that it would more be more valuable to everyone else than to Restore. Divide the benefit by the number of candidates and it probably works out OK.
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
I would have thought, given Musk's reputation in this country, that it would more be more valuable to everyone else than to Restore. Divide the benefit by the number of candidates and it probably works out OK.
The Whitehouse are very angry at Starmer's three months threat to the US social media organisations. They are suggesting it will disadvantage US social media Moguls.
Apparently threatening to stop children being groomed online is an infringement of freedom of speech. I can understand why Trump might conclude that. Kemi might have to U turn her online safety commitment if she doesn't want to upset the Donald.
So the first 2 people arrested in the protests outside Southampton police station have got 34 and 37 months each in prison
For what, exactly? Looks awfully “Two-tier” unless someone was seriously injured.
Throwing a bin, according to Twitter.
From the BBC...
Footage shown in Southampton Crown Court showed O'Leary "walking casually" in the crowd in front of the police cordon when he spots a smoke grenade on the ground, picks it up and throws it towards police.
O'Leary also admitted resisting a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon – a samurai sword in his bedroom - when officers came to arrest him in the early hours of 7 June.
The court heard he adopted a "fighting stance" at the top of the stairs and threatened officers who had to use pava spray to subdue him.
[...]
Meanwhile Connor Bishop, 24, from Southampton, was seen in footage [...] carrying a yellow traffic cone which he threw towards officers.
He was seen running with the cone, "pursuing officers for some time with it", prosecutor, Siobhan Linsley told the court.
"Once it's thrown he then follows it again, picks it up again," she said.
[...]
He also admitted throwing a box of screws and punching a wall which was not captured on footage.
Another grim irony given what the riot was ostensibly about.
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
Thanks for finding that. Now, please go give yourself a good talking to for ever paying any attention to such an obvious nutter on Twitter as "comm_passion8".
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
Looks like the claim is that it's the Southport Judge and that's also a fix and it's as bad as what They did to Connolly.
There may be something in that, or it could be a bad case of Twitter Brain.
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
Looks like the claim is that it's the Southport Judge and that's also a fix and it's as bad as what They did to Connolly.
There may be something in that, or it could be a bad case of Twitter Brain.
It seems there are a whole set of people who don't understand that we have the riot act (with serious punishments) as serious sentences rapidly stops people rioting when they discover throwing things results in 3 years in jail...
And it's not unique to the UK, it's just in large parts of the world guns are used instead...
Edit - the irony is that it actually doesn't matter who the judge is - sentencing guidelines are there to make sure judges follow the same calculations when sentencing people...
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
Thanks for finding that. Now, please go give yourself a good talking to for ever paying any attention to such an obvious nutter on Twitter as "comm_passion8".
Sorry, but do you seriously think that Twitter account looks reliable in any way, shape or form?
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
Looks like the claim is that it's the Southport Judge and that's also a fix and it's as bad as what They did to Connolly.
There may be something in that, or it could be a bad case of Twitter Brain.
It seems there are a whole set of people who don't understand that we have the riot act (with serious punishments) as serious sentences rapidly stops people rioting when they discover throwing things results in 3 years in jail...
And it's not unique to the UK, it's just in large parts of the world guns are used instead...
Edit - the irony is that it actually doesn't matter who the judge is - sentencing guidelines are there to make sure judges follow the same calculations when sentencing people...
And the sentencing guidelines have to be followed - if they weren’t, Connolly would have had a trivial time appealing the sentence.
If you read the sentencing guidelines for what she was charged with, it was right down the middle.
Global US Correspondent Simon Marks has been sitting in for the dreary Tom Swarbrick on LBC this week. He is very good. I am not sure of his UK political affiliation. Unusually for LBC it would be very difficult to determine.
I follow Marks as Washington correspondent on LBC and his analysis is excellent, particularly if one is a never Trumper.
I believe Marks is one of the finest political broadcasters we currently have in the UK. Why is he languishing on LBC.
Sarah Smith sane washing Trump is awful. I think she reports as she does because Trump accepts her calls. I suspect a truth sayer like Simon Marks would probably get the phone hung up on him by Trump.
Maybe.
But Trump is weird like that. Don't forget he has the memory of a goldfish, the attention span of a ten-year-old with ADHD and he's often too stupid to know when people are attacking him anyway (see the KCIII speech to Congress)..
If you listen to Michael Wolff, he'll call people who've attacked him for years and just rant at them over the phone. Just as long as they don't say anything or offer any kind of opinion, because it's all about him.
He has so many mental illnesses and pathologies that it needs quite a lot of imagination to think even vaguely how he thinks.
Which is why, of course, that sucking up to him doesn't work very well. Because he often doesn't remember your sycophancy.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
Eh?
So if Lord Sugar or Tony Robinson or other celebs who've endorsed Labour in the past make naked partisan comments, does that get counted against their budget?
Many ways to criticise Musk and Restore, but celebrities making comments is neither new nor actionable surely?
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
Eh?
So if Lord Sugar or Tony Robinson or other celebs who've endorsed Labour in the past make naked partisan comments, does that get counted against their budget?
Many ways to criticise Musk and Restore, but celebrities making comments is neither new nor actionable surely?
That’s a fair argument, that it’s the same as a newspaper endorsement coming from the proprietor or editorial team. But what if they’re foreigners widely read in the UK.
There’s plenty of both positives and negatives about Mr Lowe, but I was thinking it’s an issue that hasnn’t come up before, so might be worthy of somebody getting a ruling on what is or isn’t allowed.
Comments
I suspect the irritation is less that you think your opinion is correct and more the certainty with which you hold it. Sometimes the most honest answer is simply, “I don’t know.”
That applies to all of us. We hold views because we think they’re right, but the confidence we have in those views should depend on the strength of the evidence behind them.
This is almost certainly a fair assessment of the likely result.
sadly
It seems to me that if the result ended up being a Labour victory by 1pp then I'd say the market had been too confident of a Labour victory. But I'm not too sure about the other direction.
It was never enforced. Often barely marked.
During the troubles, several U.K. army patrols got lost and ended up walking into villages with green post boxes. On at least one occasion, a bemused Garda walked them back to where there should be.
Reform to Win
Labour 47.5% or greater vote share.
Staked for an equal return, I get about 160% back if either happens, which feels like a pretty strong position. And there is technically a tiny chance that both come in.
US Senate Maine 2026
🟥Susan Collins 43.7% (incumbent)
🟦Graham Platner 43.1%
Undecided 13.2%
—
When voters are informed of Graham Platner’s scandals
🟦Graham Platner 48.2%
🟥Susan Collins 40.1% (incumbent)
Undecided 11.7%
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2064338493321466318
Apparently a party name cannot be longer than six words either, good to know.
So I'd take that with a pinch of salt.
Certainly it’s the type of story that Farage and co will hammer .
A 1-in-7 chance for the second-placed party means the market thinks there is still a meaningful possibility of a narrow upset, but that doesn’t translate neatly into an implied majority.
If Labour won by only 1pp, I’d agree that the market would probably have been somewhat overconfident about the scale of the Labour lead. But if Labour won by 10pp when the market was pricing a 1-in-7 chance of the opposition winning, that wouldn’t necessarily mean the market was wrong. It just means the most likely outcome occurred.
The real test is whether the eventual result falls comfortably within the range of outcomes implied by the odds. A 14% chance event isn’t expected to happen often, but it isn’t remotely rare either. If it happened, it wouldn’t by itself prove the market is mispriced
It's probably because there are still a lot of voters who haven't heard of him and/or the power of the prompt in polling.
Reuters doing some good detailed journalism on yet more massive corruption by the Trump family, this time around crypto: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/under-trump-crypto-playbook-family-always-wins-investors-dont-2026-06-09/
(Thank heavens no major UK politicians are mixed up with dodgy crypto people.)
It’s sad because I really struggle to persuade my partner to cycle with me after her experiences with drivers, both deliberate and accidental. We shouldn’t settle for anything less than 50:50 gender balance and kids regularly cycling to school.
(It’s one thing Burnham has been really good on, rather disproving the idea it’s only the Dutch/ Londoners who can cycle).
The GOP are still arguing the CA was fixed, even though their candidate goes through to the runoff.
They have taken the gratification of Trump's pitifully fragile ego as their overriding principle, above all else, sanity included.
RAJU: The president keep saying the California election was rigged. What evidence have you seen to show there has been widespread fraud?
SCALISE: You had wide changes after election night in the results
RAJU: They're just counting the ballots
SCALISE: Look, whether you can prove fraud or not, it does undermine voter integrity in the vote
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2064353400376922302
Motorists are encouraged to leave a certain space when passing cyclists, but cyclists will often deliberately try to squeeze through gaps much smaller than that.
If you pick up a single fair die and roll it, what are the odds of getting at least a 2? I would say 5/6.
If in a single roll you get a 1, does that mean my forecast odds were wrong?
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/2064365546183750063
Even sillier in this case, as you note.
And it isn't encouragement I believe, drivers are supposed to leave more space now, something like a cars width. If there is not room to leave that space they either do it anyway, or they wait and often get furious that a cyclist is using the road at all.
And the variants were as you would expect. One of my aunts was a "parlor pink", or if you prefer, "a parlour pink", which meant she was a socialist, but not a commie.
I have an example that demonstrates this neatly; I'll try to put a photo of it up for you some time this week.
Similar to Andrew Gilligan being the real driving force for cycling provision in London.
In what the party says is the first step in a wider programme to "restore common sense", Badenoch will argue that the Public Sector Equality Duty has been used to promote "dangerous and divisive agendas".
She will say it has "become a minefield that exposes almost every significant public decision to legal challenge.
Badenoch's speech comes after the murder of Henry Nowak and the police's response fuelled questions about equality policies and laws.
The Conservatives are trying to forge a distinct response from both Labour, who have strengthened equality protections, and Reform UK, who want to go further than the Tories and scrap the Equality Act altogether.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5vyqykpx5o"
FPT
Would it be too cynical of me to assume that -
(a) the significant public decisions "exposed to legal challenge" were not in fact because of this duty being applied lawfully and properly;
(b) women will be one of the groups most adversely affected;
(c) this will be the aim of at least some of those proposing this and will be welcomed by others eg Reform (which might well be one reason why the Tories are proposing this. This suggestion might be best viewed as less of the forging of a "distinct response" different to Reform and Labour and more as showing a bit of ankle to Reform should a coalition become necessary); and
(d) any replacement will be postponed sine die?
I have a very real fear that a significant number of politicians in all our political parties are, out of a profound ignorance of how the Equality Act actually works and for various different reasons and from different perspectives, seeking to reverse the anti-discrimination legislation of the last 50 years and will push many groups (such as women and the disabled) back into the position they were in pre-1975. Whenever these politicians are asked to explain in detail precisely what changes they want made, how, what the consequences will be, including the adverse ones, and how they will deal with those adverse consequences, they can only ever give answers based on "vibes" and demonstrating their profound ignorance and/or stupidity and, often, both. Some of these politicians even call themselves "progressive" which only shows how useless that term has become since there is nothing progressive about ignorance.
Proper shorts and chamois cream applied before anything gets sore is the best tip. There were some nice cafes on the route when I did it years ago.
The wanker on the bike gets away scot free, is uncontactable and has no insurance.
Sames as the wankers on clips who pull up inside you, rattle their hands on your roof and then power off knowing you are turning left.
All cameraed up of course
Of course if he was Republican he could just shout "Fake News" over and over and it'll be fine.
When a junior Minister of Equalities in December 2023 she wrote TO EVERY UK COUNCIL telling them they must abide by the very legislation she now wants abolished.
She then lists a series of cases ALL BUT ONE OF WHICH occurred on her watch!
Utter drivel
Utterly opportunist
Utter bandwagon
Everything that’s come out so far about Platner has come from Dem sources ahead of his primary next week, the Republicans have already hinted that they have a lot more on him.
Labour and the Tories in the UK usually do a pretty good job of having their candidates vetted, at least in seats they might actually win. It’s mostly the fringe parties who have the more unsuitable people end up on the ballot paper.
The Mad King is not happy
The expose was published.
Sales of the book went up.
People are weird.
Been that way for a long long time.
Setting fire to a skip threatening police
Painting a plane orange threatening police
Nothing at all to see here
Drivers close passing cyclists is attributed to 25% of serious motorist / cyclist accidents in some sources.
Similarly, the Dems in Maine certainly didn’t want Platner, who is clearly totally unfit to be a Senator. But after he won the primaries they’re rather stuck with him.
The grim irony is that if Collins loses - as seems very likely - she will have lost because of Trump’s dreadful ratings in the state to a candidate who is extremely Trumpian.
EDIT: Looking into it... yeah, looks like bollocks. Connolly was sentenced in Birmingham by His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman, who I can't see listed as working at Southampton Crown Court, where today's rioters were sentenced.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2064396727344320767
Musk’s comment:
Only Restore Britain can save Britain.
It is the only way.
That’s a nakedly partisan political comment to someone with likely several million UK followers, during a restricted election period.
Will one of the other parties ask for a ruling from the Electoral Commission on what might be the value of such posts, if they need to be included in by-election spending, and ask Lowe to produce any communications he may have had with Mr Musk?
I am very curious though whether Musk is just scrolling twitter and sees Lowe and assumes him to be a significant UK political figure, or if there is more actual thought going on with all this boosting. It convinces americans online, but not sure what the benefit of that is.
https://x.com/comm_passion8/status/2063188370600218928
Many drivers hate cyclists (and motorcyclists like me) going for those gaps because they have CarBrain. They think only in terms of cars. If a gap is not big enough for a car, then it must be empty. Nothing else could be in that gap, because only cars exist. When that turns out not to be the case they get angry and defensive. It's the fault of the (motor)cyclist for being there because they're not behaving like a car.
As per the edit on my earlier post, I can't see the Connolly judge, who was in Birmingham, listed for Southampton Crown Court. Let me know if you have anything that looks more plausible than the tweets of a nutter.
There’s an interesting test case there somewhere, to do with persuading high-profile accounts to repost you, as opposed to explicitly paid-for advertising. Is there a benefit-in-kind there, that should be included in election spending limits?
Footage shown in Southampton Crown Court showed O'Leary "walking casually" in the crowd in front of the police cordon when he spots a smoke grenade on the ground, picks it up and throws it towards police.
O'Leary also admitted resisting a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon – a samurai sword in his bedroom - when officers came to arrest him in the early hours of 7 June.
The court heard he adopted a "fighting stance" at the top of the stairs and threatened officers who had to use pava spray to subdue him.
[...]
Meanwhile Connor Bishop, 24, from Southampton, was seen in footage [...] carrying a yellow traffic cone which he threw towards officers.
He was seen running with the cone, "pursuing officers for some time with it", prosecutor, Siobhan Linsley told the court.
"Once it's thrown he then follows it again, picks it up again," she said.
[...]
He also admitted throwing a box of screws and punching a wall which was not captured on footage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c982y5n0nlno
Judge William Mousley KC
Apparently threatening to stop children being groomed online is an infringement of freedom of speech. I can understand why Trump might conclude that. Kemi might have to U turn her online safety commitment if she doesn't want to upset the Donald.
There may be something in that, or it could be a bad case of Twitter Brain.
And it's not unique to the UK, it's just in large parts of the world guns are used instead...
Edit - the irony is that it actually doesn't matter who the judge is - sentencing guidelines are there to make sure judges follow the same calculations when sentencing people...
63) Don’t attack police officers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czdpnn88n2pt
If you read the sentencing guidelines for what she was charged with, it was right down the middle.
Global US Correspondent Simon Marks has been sitting in for the dreary Tom Swarbrick on LBC this week. He is very good. I am not sure of his UK political affiliation. Unusually for LBC it would be very difficult to determine.
I follow Marks as Washington correspondent on LBC and his analysis is excellent, particularly if one is a never Trumper.
I believe Marks is one of the finest political broadcasters we currently have in the UK. Why is he languishing on LBC.
(The World Cup is turning into a shit show)
So if Lord Sugar or Tony Robinson or other celebs who've endorsed Labour in the past make naked partisan comments, does that get counted against their budget?
Many ways to criticise Musk and Restore, but celebrities making comments is neither new nor actionable surely?
There’s plenty of both positives and negatives about Mr Lowe, but I was thinking it’s an issue that hasnn’t come up before, so might be worthy of somebody getting a ruling on what is or isn’t allowed.