Rishi Sunak – who as Chancellor of the Exchequer not only pursued the same policy as Conservative predecessors in the post for the past 12 years in freezing fuel duty, but earlier this year actually cut it – has pledged to halt what he says is “the war on motorists” if elected leader of the party next month, which would see him succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.
The Tory politician also said he would review low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) which aim to stop rat-running drivers use residential streets as short cuts to avoid congestion, halt the rollout of smart motorways, and tighten regulation of private parking contractors, reports Wales Online.
Sunak, who trails Liz Truss in the polls in the leadership contest which will be decided by Conservative Party members, has been described by his supporters as the “most pro-driver Chancellor in history.”
He said: “The UK is a passionate driving nation because driving provides freedom.
“We need to stop making life difficult for the vast majority of people across the UK who rely on a car as their primary source of transport to healthcare, employment and other essential day-to-day things.
“As Chancellor, I introduced the largest cut to fuel duty in a generation, and as Prime Minister I will go further so that we stop the war on motorists once and for all.”
His plans to review LTNs are said to be based on his belief that they impede police, fire and ambulance vehicles, despite what Cycling UK has described as “clear evidence” to the contrary and the fact they are supported by the emergency services themselves.
> “Clear evidence” does not support “flat earther” LTN 999 delay headlines, says Cycling UK
His comments come at the end of a week in which former cabinet colleague, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, suggested that cyclists should be required to carry third-party insurance, be subject to the same speed limits as motorists, and have number plates on their bikes – although he subsequently rowed back on that latter point.
> “No plans to introduce registration plates” for cyclists, insists Grant Shapps
At the height of the pandemic, Shapps and Johnson strongly promoted cycling and walking as a key part of the country’s recovery and encouraged councils to set up LTNs – a policy opposed by many of their own MPs, as well as a number of Tory-run local authorities and whichever of Truss or Sunak gets the keys to Number 10 Downing Street next month, it is highly unlikely that support active travel will be high up their agenda.
128 thoughts on “Rishi Sunak pledges to “stop war on motorists” and review LTNs”
What a surprise! Remember
What a surprise! Remember this is a competition to elect their leader by members of the Conservative Party and he and Truss are saying what those people want to hear.
youngoldbloke wrote:
Yep, just dog whistle nonsense. A demonstration of bad judgement and irresponsibility in the climate crisis.
Of course there must be change. It’s not a war just that many motorists believe 100 years of Automotive and Big Oil propaganda so need strong encouragement.
youngoldbloke wrote:
Including his party’s teenagers, it seems: revealed recently that party members are allowed to vote for the leader from the age of fifteen onwards, ergo our next Prime Minister will, in part, be chosen by children ineligible to vote. If that’s democracy I’m a banana.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisStraight or bent?
eburtthebike wrote:
Depends on the weather and the time of day, mostly…
Straight for shopping, ‘bent
Straight for shopping, ‘bent for pleasure.
EDIT – make pic less massive!
The race to the bottom nears
The race to the bottom nears its final furlong.
So now there’s a choice
So now there’s a choice between Thick Lizzie and venal Rishi.
I thought that Rishi was the least worst option, but now they are both impossibly influenced by special interest groups. I suppose the best we can hope for is that Thick Lizzie wins and is so dreadful that the tories will be slung out at the next election and stay out for a generation.
eburtthebike wrote:
That’s my hope too. We’re stuck with whoever’s chosen until 2024, Sunak is clever enough and slick enough to convince people to vote for him, Truss is just going to be a car crash from the minute she walks into No.10. I’m sure if Starmer and his team were asked whom they’d sooner face over the despatch box and in an election they’d go for Truss hands down.
If only I had the slightest
If only I had the slightest faith in Starmer, but he’s just tory light. Under any other leader, labour would be at least twenty points ahead in the opinion polls, but he’s so uninspiring that they’re barely ahead of the worst lying, cheating, hypocritical government ever.
eburtthebike wrote:
If only we could go back in time to when we had upstanding, honest leaders who were not lying, cheating and hypocritical and worked hard to improve the lives of regular people and not just their cronies, like Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron.
Whoever our next PM is it will just be more of the same and if your life is improved by them at all it will be purley a coincidence.
NOtotheEU wrote:
We did have one, but he was the subject of the biggest character assassination the world has ever seen, and stabbed in the back by his own party; Corbyn. After all, an honest, empathetic politician working for the people couldn’t be tolerated by the establishment could it?
Apologies – started reading
Apologies – started reading that description and thought you were about to reveal a soft spot for Trump! Biggest witch hunt ever…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Glad I wasn’t the only one he fooled ?
eburtthebike wrote:
Agreed, if big business and their media minions can’t control you you’ll never become PM. Same with Bernie Sanders in the US.
That’s why I don’t have any faith in any PM of any party. They are working for the people who got them there, and I don’t mean the voters.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Nobody who wants political power should be allowed to get it, rather they should be reluctant public servants however the list of applicants is going to be short…
Perhaps we should define what’s acceptable or not, and actually enforce that code of conduct, in the knowledge that some ambition is required to solve hard problems.
lonpfrb wrote:
Whoever our next PM is it will just be more of the same and if your life is improved by them at all it will be purley a coincidence.
— lonpfrb Nobody who wants political power should be allowed to get it, rather they should be reluctant public servants however the list of applicants is going to be short…
Perhaps we should define what’s acceptable or not, and actually enforce that code of conduct, in the knowledge that some ambition is required to solve hard problems.— NOtotheEU
That might be a start, We could also ban politicians from buying shares and having directorships or lobbying jobs and all lobbying of politicians or civil servents could be fully disclosed and the details made available to the pubic.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yeah my aspirations in no way indicate great hopes for Starmer – I’d sooner have a socialist – but anything’s better than another five years of Tory rule.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisIndeed, but “not quite as bad as the worst tory government ever” is hardly inspiring.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Seems like Starmer is getting pressure from the ‘Enough is Enough’ movement. I just learnt about this today after seeing a headline about it online. It took me to the Daily Mail which is surprising given the opposing political views.
The ‘Enough is Enough’ movement already has more than 400,000 supporters – nearly as many members as the Labour Party, despite only being launched barely two weeks ago.
Enough is Enough says it was launched on August 8 by backers ‘determined to push back against the misery forced on millions by rising bills, low wages, food poverty, shoddy housing and a society run only for a wealthy elite’.
An Enough is Enough spokesman said the group ‘is about pulling our country back from the brink of a humanitarian crisis, not engaging in petty squabbles between politicians’.
I read “a society run only for a wealthy elite” and “not engaging in petty squabbles between politicians” and thought I could get behind that.
Worst past the post.
Worst past the post.
The manifesto from the actual
The manifesto from the actual election is still legally binding, they have no mandate outside of that.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
“legally binding”? I must have missed it when they introduced that law.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
No manifesto promise is legally binding in any way whatsoever. There’s a credible school of thought that says they should be, but at the moment, no. A candidate/party could win an election on the promise that they were going to go back into Europe or leave Nato or whatever and turn around the day after and say we’ve changed our minds and there would be nothing to hold them to their previous promise.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
An election manifesto is no more legally binding than words written on the side of a big red bus. It’s a simple statement of intent at the moment it was printed, nothing more (and might not even be that…).
Is there a war ON the
Is there a war ON the motorist? Feels more like a way BY the motorist.
and as for freedom, what about freedom to breathe fresh air, freedom to travel safely, freedom of kids to use streets safely, etc wtc
Freedom to fantasise until
Freedom to fantasise until you get some responsibilities. Then freedom to sit in a traffic jam in your own space, not on public transport. Freedom from being a sucker for rail and bus companies to overcharge – you’re free to choose which vehicle, fuel seller and insurer to pay instead. Freedom to go door-to-door, at your own pace, anywhere, anytime – as long as you can find a parking spot *. Freedom from being threatened by speeding vehicles as a pedestrian, you only need to give up the convenience of a direct route and being able to go at your own pace. And accessibility to some places. Oh, and actually that’s not a guarantee of safety. Freedom from the fear that something will happen to your kids going to and from school / activities – in exchange for your kids being reliant on you to get anywhere.
I think that covers some of it. Don’t forget that we / our ancestors all chose this too. Albeit there weren’t so many strings attached back then. This was also pushed strongly by both businesses and our governments.
* parking spot is defined more flexibly by some!
“We need to stop making life
“We need to stop making life difficult for the vast majority of people across the UK who rely on a car as their primary source of transport to healthcare, employment and other essential day-to-day things.”
Surely, the people making it difficult for people making essential journeys is primarily those making non essential journeys including short trips to get a pint from the local store which they probably would have walked if they felt the streets were safer . Amazing that supposedly intelligent are prepared to say really stupid stuff to get power that they will use to make central government smaller, give more power to big business and generally maintain the status quo.
Until the future makes our
Until the future makes our current choices redundant I’d say we *do* need to make using a car for many journeys less convenient *. Or at least it must be less convenient than eg cycling short trips / public transport. Walking, cycling and public transport all have certain advantages for people. So we just need to correct things so these don’t get trumped / people don’t default to driving.
This *is* something we can learn from elsewhere e.g. I believe driving is actually quite pleasant and convenient in the NL.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
* That is – we need change *IF* if we accept all the other things even the government says are important eg. climate change / pollution / resilience / local economic sustainability / health / better provision for the poor, the young, the disabled, the old …
Well by all counts Truss will
Well by all counts Truss will win this; most Tory voters loved Boris and could not bring themselves to vote for the man who orchestrated his removal from office.
But it’s not the war on the motorist I’m worried about given the awful job she did on that last trip to Russia.
War on motorists == trying to
War on motorists == trying to make the majority follow the law and HWC.
I mean, how sneaky having speed cameras that catch motorists speeding – why paint them yellow and signpost them when the simple answer is to stick to the speed limit, but even that is too much of an imposition.
And don’t forget the legal
And don’t forget the legal mandate to advertise where the mobile ones are setup as well.
“A tax on law abiding motorists” – If law abiding they won’t get flashed or ticketed.
“They will cause accidents when a car suddnely has to brake when he sees one” – Why would a car need to suddenly brake if they are maintaining the legal speed. And the car behind should also be maintaining a distance to enable stopping if suddenly happens by the vehicle in front.
“There should be strict places they can be put” – Why? They are there to maintain the laws of the road, it shouldn’t really matter where they go, although places where speeding has caused lots of accidents should probably also have speeds reduced and traffic calming put in as well.
I for one am looking forward
I for one am looking forward to enforcement of 20mph limits on our streets.
I for one am looking forward
I for one am looking forward to enforcement of 20mph limits on our streets
I share your scepticism when, through idleness and/or corruption, they refuse to enforce absence of MOT and insurance, illegal plates made for deception, RLJs, DWL crossing etc. etc
What “war” on motorists?
What “war” on motorists? There seems to have been a complete truce. How else can motorists brazenly go about with no front number plate, or illegible (obscured) plates? Or blacked out front windows? Or no MOT/insurance. Or illegal deafening exhausts? These offences are trivial to detect, and simply impounding the car until remedial action was invoiced would soon put a stop to it, even without the need to prosecute.
Sriracha wrote:
More of a total surrender than a truce. As far as I can tell, most motor vehicle journeys contain multiple breaches of the law and there is close to zero enforcement.
It’s less “you don’t shoot at me and I won’t shoot at you” and more rolling over for a tummy tickle.
Sunak is quite right about
Sunak is quite right about The War on Motorists (TM).
The way that new roads are marked out with white paint along the edges of expansive cycleways, making motorists give way at every junction, making them get out and push their cars just for the convenience of cyclists, building huge direct long distance routes using their taxes but not letting them drive on them, writing off billions of pounds of tax revenue / providing billions of pounds of subsidy (your choice how to phrase it) to make life easier and more affordable for cyclists. I could go on…
Yep – it’s a war on motorists…
(edited)
Road.cc appear to be
Road.cc appear to be deliberately deleting any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn whilst allowing criticisms of Truss and Sunak.
Is the Community Editor available to explain this?
Rich_cb wrote:
Seems like the whole ‘Corbyn is/isn’t an anti semite’ discussion has been removed. Maybe one of the comments was a bit close to the bone so they removed the whole lot to be on the safe side?
There was a racist comment
There was a racist comment from gr0g which has gone along with my reply in another thread, so maybe they are having a general tidy up.
hirsute wrote:
I did send a complaint about that as it was well beyond what any site would regard as reasonable.
Given the level of abuse
Given the level of abuse against Conservative politicians that is allowed by the mods I doubt that very much.
Corbyn is apparently beyond reproach on this site.
Are you saying that Shapps
Are you saying that Shapps concepts, as a Secretary of state, are above any form of criticism?
I’m going to hazard a guess
I’m going to hazard a guess that criticism of Shapps would pass the road.cc /Goskomizdat test.
Rich_cb wrote:
Ok, I’ll spin this one up: my politics are left of centre and I think Jeremy Corbyn is a fool who failed to deal with some very unsavoury behaviour as leader of Labour. Let’s see if this comment stays.
They do normally jump on
They do normally jump on removing racist comments if Hirsute’s interpretation is correct, (although not seen any thrown at Right Politicians on here to determine if they would remove them).
“No Jeremy Corbyn”?
“No Jeremy Corbyn”?
I like a bit of political banter but this never has much to do with cycling and ranting seems inevitable. So I’d accept the plug getting pulled occasionally. (Managed to read some of linked articles this time). The lack of precision is maybe regrettable ( deer hunting with a bazooka.)
I’m only aware of this happening for racism/antisemitism. Not seen all these eg. I’m not sure of the reason why the trans sports threads got cropped. Possibly tedium – although “cars in houses” proves that the system can handle lengthy threads.
More like ‘Oh (you’d better
More like ‘Oh (you’d better not criticise) Jeremy Corbyn!’
I’d say “leave him, he’s
I’d say “leave him, he’s already dead!” In this case I missed the proposed trigger. If you dug back into history you might be able to compare treatment of posts on Priti Patel / Sunak / Sajid Javid with Sadiq Khan for political balance? (I recall at least one poster was triggered by Khan).
Rich_cb wrote:
Only just back from riding so I don’t know what was said since 10am, when I left eburt had said something positive about Corbyn, you’d said he was an antisemite, I’d defended him…so my and eburt’s positive comments have gone along with your criticism, why do you assume it’s you being allegedly censored? Could just as well be us.
Because positive comments
Because positive comments about Corbyn remain elsewhere in the thread.
Ergo, the road.cc stasi have no issue with praise of Corbyn.
One comment from what i can
One comment from what i can see. The one from Burt which started several replies including the Semite/Anti-Semite sub-thread which seems to then spiralled into a supposed comment by Gr0g. I suspect they decided to remove all those comments to not spur similar responses further down rather then just remove the one that supposedly seriously crossed the line.
I’m sure your email to Simon might get a similar response back.
I think the grog comment was
I think the grog comment was on another thread from what I understand.
Can’t see any good reason for them to nix this thread other than it offended road.cc Corbynistas.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear
Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. The gr0g comment was a separate thread. I just then suggested it was part of a wider clean up by mods
Ahh, thought he posted on
Ahh, thought he posted on this one AND the other one.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m sure they would have no issue with you praising Sunak, Truss or anyone else you choose, you have frequently voiced your support for various figures and I haven’t noticed it being deleted. I suspect the problem with your comments in this instance would have been that you were making a very specific and potentially libellous allegation about Corbyn and that lays road.cc open to legal action if it allowed your comments to stand. You can say what you like about him, or anyone else, in terms of opinion, but you can’t blame the site for not wishing to host your very specific and disputed allegations when they could find themselves in the dock for them.
Alternatively you could just call them silly names and bitch about how incredibly biased they are, which yet again begs the question why do you keep coming back when it’s so terrible?
And Rendel is back to type
And Rendel is back to type trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site.
If road.cc cared about libel then I imagine half the posts from Burt about Boris would have been removed. I didn’t say anything that hasn’t been said 1000 times before in multiple newspapers and on multiple websites and, afaik, Corbyn hasn’t sued once.
The idea that he’d start his campaign of litigation several years late against a poster on a minor cycling website is pretty laughable.
The simple fact is that road.cc has censored fairly mundane criticism of Corbyn (which was supported by objective analysis) whilst allowing continued personal attacks against other politicians.
Laughably biased censorship of the comments makes the road.cc mods look petulant and pathetic.
You may want to live in an echo chamber Rendel but some of us don’t. I’d appreciate at least a veneer of impartiality from the mods to try and preserve some semblance of debate on this site.
Rich_cb wrote:
And how am I doing that? By criticising your opinions and attempting to answer your question as to why your comments were removed? I didn’t ask for them to be removed, and indeed I have never asked for anyone’s comments to be removed either publicly or by private communication with the editorial team except for in two instances, the recent one mentioned here where gr0g was trying to spread a particularly nasty racist trope and once when your erstwhile mate Nigel was making libellous comments about me, untrue and offensive claims about my wife, and attempting to share my personal information. That’s it, I’ve never tried to “force alternative viewpoints off the site”, unless you believe that disagreeing with someone is doing so.
I suggest that if you genuinely feel your comments have been unjustly removed that you email Simon MacMichael, community editor, and ask him about it, instead of whining like a spoiled child on here and calling the editorship silly and offensive names.
Rendel wrote:
The fact that you’ve suggested multiple times I should stop coming back to road.cc is not, of course, any evidence whatsoever of you trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site…
I’ve seen you say the same to many other posters who disagree with you.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ve certainly asked why you insist on spending so much time pontificating on a site where you apparently hate the editorial policy and disagree with the majority of posters, that’s a pretty reasonable question I think.
Rich_cb wrote:
You, your now-banned mate Nigel Garrage (and his many aliases), the now-banned SocraticCyclist, Flintshire Boy, Martin73, gr0g the racist. That’s many?
Me, Martin and Flintshire are
Me, Martin and Flintshire are reasonably prolific posters who disagree with you and you have tried to force all of us to leave.
Plus there are the many, many first time posters who you goad relentlessly when they dare to post something you disagree with.
Maybe you’re the problem?
Rich_cb wrote:
How exactly have I “tried to force all [of you] to leave”? I’ve certainly suggested that Martin and Flintshire should stop their childish and obvious trolling, and I’ve suggested to you that it seems foolish to keep banging on ad infinitum on a site where you apparently despise most posters and the editorial team (and on which, incidentally, you virtually never comment on anything to do with cycling). That’s forcing you? Bless.
.
.
Hey Rich. Trendy has tried to force us to leave?
.
What was that phrase about being savaged by a dead sheep?
.
No, it gets worse. Trendy will threaten to ‘keep his eye on you’.
.
How can a man go on after that level of intimidation?
.
You, your now-banned mate
You, your now-banned mate Nigel Garrage (and his many aliases), the now-banned SocraticCyclist, Flintshire Boy, Martin73, gr0g the racist
Well, Rendel has had a go at me because of my declaration that e-biking is not the same thing as cycling, and I have had a go at him because of his assertion that the Met says that you have 3 seconds after the lights change to red to cross the Stop line, before they will take any action. But I have to agree with him on this, except that I seem to remember that it was SocratiCyclist?
wtjs wrote:
Yes indeed that’s true, and we have both given as good as we got, haven’t we? But as far as I recall neither of us started wailing s’not fair, he’s trying to force me to leave the site miss!
No you just console yourself
No you just console yourself with shouting ‘racist’ at people with different opinions.
Maybe stop suggesting repeatedly that people leave the site and people won’t complain about it.
Maybe try a bit more live and let live?
It’ll be good for your blood pressure I’m sure and will make the site far more pleasant for other users to boot.
Rich_cb wrote:
“People” is a plural, I’m just seeing one person whining here, and about something that’s not true to boot.
I called you racist when you were being racist, that’s for sure. I remember calling Nigel Garage a racist when he was being one too. Any others? Bit rich (ha!) from someone who desperately accuses people of being antisemitic because their political opinions differ in such a ridiculous way that their comments have to be deleted by site moderators.
Off to bed now, suggest you very much need yours, you seem a bit hysterical and overwrought. Have a good sleep and when you come back in the morning see if you can comment on something to do with cycling, there are loads of topics to choose from on this site, give it a go.
What did I say that was
What did I say that was racist Rendel?
Please provide the quote or apologise.
Here’s the thread:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-london-quarter-2019-294507
You seem to have a very low bar to make accusations of racism but an incredibly high bar to accept that something is antisemitic.
Can you explain that apparent discrepancy?
Rich_cb wrote:
You introduced, out of the blue, a moan about the way stop and search figures regarding race are interpreted and went on to say that there is no racism indicated in the fact that a black person is nine times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. Defending racist policies* is racism.
Very bored with this discussion now as I’m sure everyone else is, so you do you (I can feel an accusation of antisemitism coming my way any moment) but I’m out.
*The use of stop and search is more disproportionate now than it was two decades ago, with no adequate explanation or justification for the nature and scale of racial disparities, including on drug possession searches where in 2019 Black people were 2.4 times more likely than White people to be searched but in the last year were less likely to use drugs. New scrutiny and transparency is needed including more use of police body worn cameras, community oversight, and new police training.
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2021
Rendel Harris wrote:
Did I? Or have you made that up?
Your accusation of racism was false Rendel and now you’re doubling down by blatantly lying about things that I said.
Here’s the thread:
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-london-quarter-2019-294507#comments
There aren’t many comments so anyone can easily check your claim and see that you are simply lying.
I would like an apology.
.
.
Hey Rich, time for you to realise that Rendy simply does not do ‘different points of view’.
If you don’t agree with his bombast and utter certainty, then he’ll threaten to ‘keep his eye on you’, or worse (Shock! Scared? You should be).
.
.
.
Accuracy is of ZERO importance if you are Trendy on a spout!
.
.
.
Phew! Back from the dead!
.
Thank goodness for that.
.
LOL! Ain’t Trendy brilliant for a larf?!
.
.
Yup. ‘s’what he does!
.
.
Yup. ‘s’what he does!
.
If calling out racist
If calling out racist comments is “trying to force alternate viewpoints off the site.” Then bring it on.
Other comments removed from the website and people banned were COVID disinformation and anti semitism – user btbs / cibm
Or are you ok with those 3 things ?
It’s not just the racists
It’s not just the racists/anti semites (ironic) Rendel goes after.
It’s literally anybody who he disagrees with.
I’m more than happy for genuine racists to be removed but given that Rendel accused me of racism for simply pointing out the flaw in some government statistics I’m not sure he should be the arbiter in that area.
COVID disinformation is another dubious area. I was also accused of that for pointing out the inefficacy of the original vaccines against the Omicron variant despite posting the government data that supported my point.
Personally I’m happy to see a wide breadth of opinions on almost any topic. I think echo chambers are far more dangerous than ‘dangerous’ opinions.
Rich_cb wrote:
Says Rich, going after me because he disagrees with me. You want to start taking some water with it old son.
Have I suggested you leave
Have I suggested you leave the site?
Falsely accused you of racism?
Nope.
Keep digging Rendel.
I can’t remember the exact
I can’t remember the exact COVID thing except it was multiple times and very extreme, nothing like you describe in your short para.
Maybe wtjs can remember as he was pretty vociferous about it.
I find – over time – it helps
I find – over time – it helps to let go of old friends before you find yourself fantasising about eating their liver with fava beans and a nice chianti. After all they might just be road.cc minions fanning flames, or some other oddball on here for a breather too. Trolls are tempting but there are others who can also set the record straight for the Internet.
I try to go by: if I spent time here and didn’t learn something, help someone out (rare!) or come away amused it was probably not time well spent.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well, Rendel and I have disagreed (and agreed) many times, but I don’t think I’d ever use the rather silly term “goes after”. It’s perfectly possible to have a rational discussion with someone and disagree, unless you aren’t rational of course.
Rich_cb wrote:
Wow! Paranoid much?
Maybe road.cc can explain why
Maybe road.cc can explain why they censored the thread?
Until then, given past form, it’s entirely reasonable to believe it was politically motivated.
I’d certainly support getting
I’d certainly support getting rid of those dangerous and pointless give-way chicane things. They do nothing other than put road users in harms way and increase noise and pollution.
Huh? Do you mean this kind of
Huh? Do you mean this kind of thing? I’m not really clear what they’ve got to do with this article?
Maybe satire? Dunno but for
Maybe satire? Dunno but for anyone looking at the above and shaking their fist Ranty Highwayman has a good one one a slightly more involved intervention that a politician took a tilt at.
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2022/07/hare-brained.html
I think they’re quite good.
I think they’re quite good. People slow down and take more care, unless they’re a totally rubbish driver.
My thinking as a motorist is
My thinking as a motorist is that they make you stop for no reason, fitting into the ‘war on motorists’ narrative. So your car gives off additional brake particulates to stop, and generates additional emissions and noise to wait and accelerate away again. Even the most modest car can be doing 30mph+ again in seconds so they make no difference to speeds. Even better, some drivers go faster in order to get round them before an oncoming car arrives!
As a cyclist, either you have to stop behind vehicles that are waiting (usually which have overtaken you moments before) and filter past into the path of oncoming traffic, or in the oncoming direction, run the gauntlet as drivers barge through. There are a couple of roads I regularly ride which are tortuous and additionally hazardous in this respect.
A friend was told by the Police he could not leave his car on the clear-sighted road outside his house half a mile from one set of these give way things, on the basis it was causing an obstruction. Go figure.
Oh – OK – with you now. I’d
Oh – OK – with you now. I’d say they have their pros and cons, and much depends on design and context, but in any case I imagine these would be well down the list of targets in the “war on the motorist” narrative – it’s really more anything that carries a hint of being linked to cycling or the ‘green crap’ that’s being taken aim at.
Anyway here’s a link to
Anyway here’s a link to someone else’s opinion on Corbyn. AFAIK he hasn’t been sued for libel yet.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-who-sought-israels-demise-is-an-anti-semite-labour-must-kick-him-out/
Thanks for providing
Thanks for providing irrefutable proof of the fake anti-semitism Corbyn was accused of.
Just the IHRA definition of
Just the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Which I’m sure you reject for … reasons.
Mate, when you’re flailing
Mate, when you’re flailing around on (on a cycling website) going “waa waa my free speech” and “tell me the exact moment I was racist” then it’s time to stop.
So false accusations of
So false accusations of racism should go unchallenged?
So while Labour continues to
So while Labour continues to tear itself apart and had made bad choices for party leader, the conservatives will continue to make hay. “It’s us or the Tories”, the hard left seem to say. Labour have, for all our sakes, to recover from their failure to put David Miliband in as leader and the present leader needs to be be able to fend off the ruthless attentions and slurs of the right-wing press: “rats”, anyone?
And so it goes with the so-called War on Cars – a massive falsehood, believed by the bigoted, the mean and the lazy, promoted by chancers and sustained by the MSM.
No comments on this item below , so I’ll have to it do it here. The real crisis hasn’t even started yet, but here we are; two labradors, bit of a luxury dontchathink, perhaps a car or two, what is the 18 yo mentioned doing to contribute? If you voted Brexit, (and then ratified that choice in Dec ’19) then here is the spite on ordinary people that you voted for turned real.
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/20680412.amesbury-mother-sets-gofundme-help-family/
David9694 wrote:
I’m becoming more convinced that Keith was planted by the Tories to destroy Labour.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think the Tories would have tried to keep Corbyn if that was their tactic, don’t you?
Steve K wrote:
Except that Corbyn would have ushered in socialist policies, had they won, whereas Keith won’t rock the boat any further left than the centre.
Also, Keith was part of the factionalism within Labour which certainly hurt their chances. Have a look at the Forde report: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/19/key-takeaways-forde-report-labour-factionalism
I don’t think Labour has been fit for purpose for quite a while now.
hawkinspeter wrote:
What Corbyn might or might not have done is rather irrelevant when he led Labour to their worst election defeat in a generation. I’m not particularly a Starmer fan (though I find the whole ‘Keith’ thing incredibly childish and tiresome) but if you asked the Conservatives who they would rather be up against out of Starmer or Corbyn, there’s no doubt what their answer would be. There’s a reason why Johnson consistently tried to link Starmer to Corbyn. And the centre would be a great improvement on where we are and where we are heading.
Steve K wrote:
That’s what makes it funny
hawkinspeter wrote:
Which party has (assuming that the purpose is to govern the UK well)?
Backladder wrote:
I’d settle for not killing off people in the search for more profits for the wealthy, so Green is my current choice. I’d quite like SNP to extend their reach and take over England/Wales, but they’d have to change their name.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m not sure that the unintended consequences of the green’s policies wouldn’t kill off nearly as many.
The SNP are a one issue party and any appearance of competence is purely as a lack of action leaving civil servants to do a decent job, where they have enacted policies they have usually made things worse.
Backladder wrote:
Better than the intended consequences of capitalism to destroy the planet as quickly as possible to generate big profits.
Bear in mind that many
Bear in mind that many Conservative supporters actually boasted of paying their £3 to support Corbyn’s leadership bid.
It was pretty clear from the start he was going to be an absolute disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/16/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-conservatives-twitter
He was a disaster for the
He was a disaster for the Labour Party in that he could not get them elected to power.
Those that did get into power are a problem for far more of us.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s surprising how unpopular he was at the time – polling much lower than Boris. I think the biggest mistake was trying to sit on the fence about Brexit to avoid losing Leave/Remain voters and thus losing both sets. Of course, the Labour party was/is deeply disfunctional with fighting factions that did not do anyone any favours (except for the Tories).
(For the record, I voted Green at that election, although Bristol is so firmly Labour that it made no real difference)
I think the reason he did
I think the reason he did relatively well against May was because he sat on that fence. He attracted some Brexit voting Labour supporters whilst Brexit supporting Conservatives were less enthused. Had he gone hard Remain he’d have lost the support of the former whilst galvanising the latter
Once the Conservatives had a leader who people believed was pro-Brexit it made no sense for Corbyn to continue his ambiguity.
Strangely I think Corbyn probably was pro-Brexit and could have trounced May had he put Labour behind Brexit and touted the opportunities it presented for socialist policies.
I’m pretty sure that Corbyn
I’m pretty sure that Corbyn was anti-EU for a long time, but I don’t get why EU membership would prevent socialist policies. There’s been some unsuccessful attempts at Universal Basic Income in member states and you can hardly get more socialist than that.
The EU has pretty stringent
The EU has pretty stringent regulations on state aid for industry.
Outside the EU Corbyn could have taken us back to the glory days of British Leyland should he have so desired.
Most EU countries have
Most EU countries have railways, water and electricity in state ownership.
In fact the European State owned businesses often own our providers so that the profits subsidise their service provision.
However with railways, the
However with railways, the direction of travel (sorry) is going the other way. Successive EU rail directives are moving towards forcing network and rolling stock owners to allow service provision on their tracks. It appears to be based on our own Railways Act 1993, and that’s going splendidly. The Fourth Railway Package implemented in 2019 is shifting the networks under a single pan-European body (European Railway Agency) so that any rail company can bid and win tenders for services. This wouldn’t sit well with Jeremy Corbyn’s plans for renationalisation, which frankly, doesn’t exactly sound like a bad idea right now.
I actually think the EU have
I actually think the EU have it about right on the railways.
Competition is what’s needed and where it has been implemented so far it has created extra demand.
The UK privatised the railways terribly, creating private monopolies instead of public ones, the end result was the same.
Alternatively, as at present,
Alternatively, as at present, the losses are being paid for by EU taxpayers.
Maybe sometimes.
Maybe sometimes.
Rail companies hand back the contract if the can’t make money to avoid losses.
Price cap on gas electricity has been created primarily to stop providers going out of business.
EDF nuclear deal will cerrtainly make money for the French tax payer.
The state owned companies obviously belive they will make money out of investing in the UK or they won’t do it. It is not without risk, what is, but the state owned companies obviously believe they will earn a return.
The price cap has driven
The price cap has driven almost all the energy supply companies (eg bulb) out of business.
There are hardly any left, those that remain have swallowed enormous losses so far. EDF being one of them.
EDF may never even make a return on Hinckley. The cost they can charge for electricity is capped so there’s no scope for windfall profits when prices are high. The costs of building the thing are spiralling daily.
Our costs for building
Our costs for building Hinckley are rising.
EDF has a guaranteed price that keeps it whole.
I believe its construction is
I believe its construction is fully financed by EDF and a Chinese company whose name escapes me.
Rich, you are correct.
Rich, you are correct.
I didn’t express my point very well. The UK Government signed up to a very expensive 35 year price to buy Hinkley’s electricity. A high and index linked price that is much higher than say offshore wind or other renewables. This covers a fair amount of risk that the investors are exposed to.
Only time will tell whether it is a good deal, the change in the gas market and the future ‘price’ of carbon make these estimates difficult.
One thing we do know, the payments won’t come out of general taxation, but out of a levy on electricity users. Now that is likely to be the same people, but I would reckon a much less progressive way to fund.
It sounds like bad times for
It sounds like bad times for them, but some of the “privations” just sound like “my childhood” – and even as a surly teenager I appreciated we were far from being at the bottom of the heap.
I suspect – but could be very wrong – most people here are in a more comfortable or at least stable financial position than these folks. So a degree of understanding is in order. Looks like they’re on low wage jobs and renting. Never mind the dogs, four kids – that’s going to be a big expense. The article suggests it’s a composite family. However children – and adding to existing ones – is a choice. Again the men here in the comments should be aware the woman – even in the UK – might not have felt as free about choices here as the chap.
Isn’t the issue as always that “rich” is a relative term? Doesn’t matter where we are in absolute terms, it’s all about local comparisons. How we compare to previous years, or to our relatives, our role models, friends and competitors. For example:
…you think of the Micawber Principle:
In this case it’s only terrible because at some previous time presumably they had spare pennies, and that’s most people’s expectation. And maybe they see others who appear to have plenty.
Two labradors and four kids,
Two labradors and four kids, no money at end of month? Take them back to the shop for a refund. You can’t? Well, try your local orphanages.
We all make life choices that will be with us for years – mortgages, kids, pets – based on our expectation of the future. It’s arguable that comparison culture* has encouraged many people to sail closer to the financial wind than in times past, and the events of the past few years have exposed their lack of contingency.
The modern political thought that brings benefit caps, bedroom taxes etc is that everyone can cut their cloth. Which is fair enough for psychics or those making their decisions now, but difficult when you already have committments – the cloth is stretched as far as it will go.
What really grinds my gears is the idea that cutting income and corporation tax will help the poorest people and ward off the stagflation we are faced with. Part of the “economists are all wrong (except P. Minford) but Liz is right” offshoot of the “we don’t need experts” fallacy.
If you want growth, in my amateur opinion the best thing to do is boost the income of the poorest. They will spend it on the essentials of living rather than trophy assets that are seldom used (eg holiday homes and diamonds). And one of the ways to do this is to sort out the cost of housing, which is insane in this country because we are all terrified of a house price crash as we have invested so much into our homes.
Grr.
Interesting rant; was there a
Interesting rant; was there a point to it?
I’ve never feared for the
I’ve never feared for the future as much as I do for winter 2022/23. And beyond, for that matter as I don’t yet see any solutions, e.g. to energy prices having into view. A new doom prediction every week on the energy cap.
We’re at the “hate others sufficiently to wish and even enact hardship on them, even a cost to our own selves” stage. A year ago, the petrol pumps were wobbling – a few drivers were losing the plot over it – a guilty pleasure?
Labour need to decide if they want to be a serious political party aiming to win national office. If they just want to be a local/progressive fringe group, they should leave the national political field. I hope they choose the first one, and succeed at it.
David9694 wrote:
Can’t we just warm ourselves round a bonfire of regulations?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Or a bonfire of Conservative Party politicians… Mmm: bacon…
It’s 19 degrees sovereignty
It’s 19 degrees sovereignty in my house all year round.
Dog whistle nonsense that any
Dog whistle nonsense that any competent Chancellor would know is an unrealistic and unaffordable direction. Such craven support for commercial interests of big Oil and big Automotive show desperate political opportunism and bad judgement that should prevent any serious position of power in future. Fail..