NPR

inactionman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:51 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:46 am

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:28 am

Hospital visits was just one extreme example. Food shopping is another example provided, very soon it mounts up.

Public transport in some outer and more rural boroughs is very sporadic, it is not a simple replacement for the car that many think it can be.

I live in a borough where it is not too bad but every journey is more than doubled by using public transport.

Don’t underestimate how impactful ULEZ is outside of the N/S Circulars.

You can get supermarket delivery slots for around a fiver - the cots of a car sitting unused, before you put petrol in it is around (I'm using Gov data and low estimates) £500 for insurance, MOT and service £300, Annual Parking Permit (Tower Hamlets was the first google) £115, RAC (low ball figure) £100, Fuel costs are dependent on use obviously, to some extent depreciation is too, but I'll ignore those for the time being.

It's around £90 per month before fuel and depreciation to have the car just sit there outside your house, low estimate.

Probably worth bearing in minds those are sunk costs - ie.e. someone has weighed up their situation and circumstance and opted for a car, which means using the car instead of using other services.

I mention this as this whole balance is disrupted if they find they can no longer use the car as intended - at which point it's further worth considering they may have chosen where to live based upon the decision to drive (ie. many of the poor sods who can't afford to live anywhere on good transport links, which distort rents and house prices). It's not so easy to unpick.

Not sure I agree with that. The issue is that in our society there isn't any weighing up, people just assume a car is needed. Perhaps if there was more information and less focus on cars then more decisions would be the other way.

A lot of people need cars, no doubt, but a lot of people also don't and would be wealthier without them but our society makes it very difficult to see the wood from the trees on this.

Yeeb wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 11:52 am It’s almost as if English is not your first language - go and re read where I have the example about how raising tax on commercial stamp pushed it offshore and raised much less revenue , all in the name of fairness. When it was 0.5% it wasn’t worth offshoring everything because of the extra cost of having a nominal office in timbuktu, and the funds I worked on were indeed Uk domiciled and paid Uk taxes.

To be clear, I like the government buying and paying for stuff. I want to govt to have more money to pay for stuff. Sometimes that means raising taxes, and sometimes lowering or abolishing them.

As for caymen, as I said earlier it’s the tax dom of its investors that matters, because it’s tax neutral status. You seem to want to end that tax neutral status, and be ok with all the business that would simply flow to another tax neutral market? Go and look at how Greece (for example) tends to buy and sell hotels and pay tax, it’s far from a Uk control thing only like you make out.

Like jmk I’m a bit tired now of rehashing the same words over and over if you deliberately misinterpret them so I will now bid adios to this discussion with you as you are clearly right about everything apparently

Bricks and mortar property is a fixed asset, it's not hard to track with today's technology, it's not going anywhere and physically exists. it is a choice to allow ownership through offshore companies, a choice to allow ownership of those companies to be opaque when they're inside the UK. The UK decides what is legal and illegal in the UK.

Your example just shows when the UK tries to raise a property tax it cannot, because of the choices it has made. It's not anything natural that has to happen at all.

The logic of the choices the UK keeps making, is that those tax optimisation practices become more widespread over time, and not just the preserve of the ultra wealthy.

I don't think I'm always right, I just disagree with you on this. You're looking at the system as it is now and saying it has to be like this, I'm saying no it doesn't.

You're the one telling me to read about domicile etc (when one of your early posts referred to "over shoring" something that doesn't exist), and you're the one telling me to read about the UK property something presumably you think I know fuck all about. Unlike you, I haven't been condescending at all.

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 11:57 am

inactionman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:51 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:46 am



You can get supermarket delivery slots for around a fiver - the cots of a car sitting unused, before you put petrol in it is around (I'm using Gov data and low estimates) £500 for insurance, MOT and service £300, Annual Parking Permit (Tower Hamlets was the first google) £115, RAC (low ball figure) £100, Fuel costs are dependent on use obviously, to some extent depreciation is too, but I'll ignore those for the time being.

It's around £90 per month before fuel and depreciation to have the car just sit there outside your house, low estimate.

Probably worth bearing in minds those are sunk costs - ie.e. someone has weighed up their situation and circumstance and opted for a car, which means using the car instead of using other services.

I mention this as this whole balance is disrupted if they find they can no longer use the car as intended - at which point it's further worth considering they may have chosen where to live based upon the decision to drive (ie. many of the poor sods who can't afford to live anywhere on good transport links, which distort rents and house prices). It's not so easy to unpick.

Not sure I agree with that. The issue is that in our society there isn't any weighing up, people just assume a car is needed. Perhaps if there was more information and less focus on cars then more decisions would be the other way.

A lot of people need cars, no doubt, but a lot of people also don't and would be wealthier without them but our society makes it very difficult to see the wood from the trees on this.

I'm not entirely sure what information you're referring to - assume you mean about public transport, car clubs etc for people who have those facilities to hand? If so, I agree entirely.

The issue still exists that many places are not well served transport-wise, or infrastructure-wise, and I'm worried we're making the situation worse - with out-of-town shopping and large housing estates with little local infrastructure and with poor public transport connection. I've had a look around some of the new estates popping up in south Edinburgh, and there's no real infrastructure beyond a Co-Op local and the bus services are less than stellar (although, in their defence, you'd expect that to perhaps be in plans for extension once the estates are finished). I'd not really fancy living in some of these places without my own transport - to be fair, I'd not really fancy living there at all, but that's just me.



If

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:30 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:22 am Labour: 43.6% - a +5.9% swing
Greens: 2.9% - a +0.6% swing
Os: Greens prevented Labour winning!!

failure of the tactical vote,

they won by 495 votes,

~1400 votes went to LD (526) and Greenies (893) , way more than uber-cunts UKIP, Reclaim stole from the cunts.

Again, don't assume that Green votes are otherwise Labour voters. Even the BBC is carrying quotes from voters who went from Tory to Green in protest at how they've been treated by the Tory candidate.

Anyway

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:56 am

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:28 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:22 am Tories: weaponised ULEZ and hailed it as the reason for the narrow win
Labour: claimed ULEZ was weaponised
Voters/residents on call-ins: pointing the finger at ULEZ
Os: it's because Starmer had a chat with Blair the other day


Labour: 43.6% - a +5.9% swing
Greens: 2.9% - a +0.6% swing
Os: Greens prevented Labour winning!!

I caught my fishy.

Compare the Lib Dem voter movement to the Greens (non) voter movement. Same in all three. A chat and laugh with Blair is not a good move if Labour wants to shift those Greens. Which they don't need to now, but lets wait and see once Labour have been in charge of the dumpster fire for awhile.

The Greens are an irrelevance in Uxbridge. And don't make the mistake of assuming a Green vote would normally be a Labour vote - plenty of more moderate Tories see them as an acceptable single issue protest vote without having to vote for the enemy. Obviously the loons go for Reclaim, who were 2.3% compared to 2.6% for the greens, to show how irrelevant both of them were in this battle.

But honestly though, you're barking if you think Starmer talking to Blair has had any cut through at all. It's not news, only the terminally online and tragically political types are even aware it happened, and those who would be so enraged by it are already actively anti Labour on the left and the right.

Missed this post, was expecting a lot more fire looking for it after Yeeb's "like jmk" remark. Feel disappointed.

Nothing to disagree with there too much. I do think how sticky the Green vote is, is significant though and overlooked. There's not many reasons to vote for them, but their vote refuses to go down. In the past you could look at polling in any election and fold most of their vote into the Labour vote and be about right, it's not working like that now (similar in the locals too). I'm not as convinced by the Lib Dems long term positioning as some seem to be, campaigning on "get the Tories out" works until the Tories are out (I called that they would start eating the Tory vote back in 2019, on this thread I said the 2021 Chesham and Amersham by-election wasn't a HS2 issue and would be repeated to the disagreement of some living there ... but I still think the Lib Dems aren't doing enough). Can easily see a lot of people being disillusioned with the Tories and Labour through the 2020s, the Greens and Lib Dems are competing for anyone in that group who doesn't go far right.

By the way, over shoring was probably a typo for offshoring Mr consendy-pants - but I now couldn’t give a fuck reading back to check . Chalk that as another win for you for people no longer bothering to try and engage with you

Yeeb wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 2:08 pm By the way, over shoring was probably a typo for offshoring Mr consendy-pants - but I now couldn’t give a fuck reading back to check . Chalk that as another win for you for people no longer bothering to try and engage with you

I only mentioned when you started throwing the accusations my way, like your reading list demands I was happy to let it slide.

Don't worry, I'm sure your offshore company owned renters are safe from my punitive legal and tax regime.

To dip into a couple of these:

It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

Re: cars. I live reasonably close to Uxbridge and very close to the border of the expanded ULEZ zone. I posted in another thread before, but when I sold my last car 18 months ago I just didn’t buy another one. Living where I do I’m fortunate to have good train, tube and bus links which makes this viable albeit it can be quite frustrating at times. For most people this isn’t a realistic option, and once you have a car you have a massive sunk cost that encourages you to use that car, as well as getting less patient with the trade offs on timing/personal space that public transport provides. Basically not having a car is viable because I’m able bodied and without dependents, and willing to be patient. It saves me a lot of money but limits my ability to be spontaneous, get to certain places and means I need deliveries. It isn’t going to catch on rapidly.

ULEZ anger is very very real and is pretty clearly why Uxbridge has stayed Tory against a massive national swing. Outer London life remains heavily car dominated and Khan will make himself very unpopular by pushing on. The question is whether it is worth the political blow back or not.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 3:02 pm It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

As you know the UK has no codified/written constitution, in the end power doesn't reside in the courts it is in Westminster.

In the international system they're all part of the UK, are there any international bodies that they're part of outside the UK? It's a conceit they're something separate which exists within the UK alone (as far as I know).

As you also know, part of a country cannot just declare independence. It would need the consent of Westminster to actually work, or be forced on Westminster (which amounts to the consent of Westminster) by a foreign power that supported it. If they did become independent, they would quickly find being a tiny jurisdiction would mean they were far less able to resist regulations in larger foreign jurisdictions (they wouldn't want to be black listed, which would make moving the cash from there much harder). This happened to Seychelles. Going for independence if UK laws changed, would also be risky for them.

UK laws will never change, because no one in power wants them to. It would need a total outsider getting in. But that wasn't my point, the point was the UK is making a choice not to tax them in various ways.

And finally...! Any bets on the outcome being that the "material" is too sensitive to hand to the inquiry?

Tech experts retrieve Boris Johnson's pandemic WhatsApps from old phone
A spokesman for the former prime minister says he will now hand over the unredacted messages to the COVID inquiry.

However, a "security check of this material" was now required by the government, so "the timing of any further progress on delivery to the inquiry is therefore under the Cabinet Office's control".

https://news.sky.com/story/tech-experts ... e-12925023

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 3:33 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 3:02 pm It is totally untrue to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as ‘part of the UK’, and the ability of the Westminster government to legislate for them against their consent is legally dubious at best.
Caymans etc are of course rebranded colonies so theoretically they can be legislated for. However, in the climate of the present day is the British government really going to be able to legislate in a way that impoverishes a Caribbean island? And even if they do why would they not just declare independence? Cracking down on offshore finance is a pipe dream IMHO.

As you know the UK has no codified/written constitution, in the end power doesn't reside in the courts it is in Westminster.

In the international system they're all part of the UK, are there any international bodies that they're part of outside the UK? It's a conceit they're something separate which exists within the UK alone (as far as I know).

As you also know, part of a country cannot just declare independence. It would need the consent of Westminster to actually work, or be forced on Westminster (which amounts to the consent of Westminster) by a foreign power that supported it. If they did become independent, they would quickly find being a tiny jurisdiction would mean they were far less able to resist regulations in larger foreign jurisdictions (they wouldn't want to be black listed, which would make moving the cash from there much harder). This happened to Seychelles. Going for independence if UK laws changed, would also be risky for them.

UK laws will never change, because no one in power wants them to. It would need a total outsider getting in. But that wasn't my point, the point was the UK is making a choice not to tax them in various ways.

I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

Blacklisting is an interesting one. If you legislate to end say the Caymans’ ability to have a functioning economy, what is the practical difference between that and being blacklisted? May as well roll the dice.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 4:04 pm I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

I'll look into it. I went to a talk by Nicholas Shaxson years ago, he's one of those guys that writes books all on the same subject. Vaguely remember something about a Jersey senator who tried to whistle blow (on a non-financial issue) and suddenly found himself under siege from the police, prosecuted and imprisoned (?). He just saw it all as a rort, made Jersey sound quite terrifying.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 4:32 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 4:04 pm I’m not going to suggest you spend your weekend looking into the complex constitutional status of the Channel Islands, but given you haven’t previously it’s not a point I’d double/triple down on. Jersey and Guernsey can and do sign international agreements on their own behalves, to address one particular point you made. A more tangible example would be the travel restrictions both islands introduced during Covid, a power that say the Scottish government lacks.

I'll look into it. I went to a talk by Nicholas Shaxson years ago, he's one of those guys that writes books all on the same subject. Vaguely remember something about a Jersey senator who tried to whistle blow (on a non-financial issue) and suddenly found himself under siege from the police, prosecuted and imprisoned (?). He just saw it all as a rort, made Jersey sound quite terrifying.

Yes I think if you rock the boat there it can be very scary. You’ve got an entire system of government and power on an island of 110,000 people, where most of the people with power went to the same school (which has a powerful old boys network), know each other personally, their parents knew each other, and often relations between these families are still influenced by how their forebears acted during the German occupation.
This is all before you consider their economy is almost totally reliant on offshore finance, so the whistleblowers found themselves in a very cold house and for the most part left the island I believe. Same is true in Guernsey, and with half the population I imagine it’s even more claustrophobic.

As a counter, most of what goes on there is pretty mundane stuff, managing pensions, corporate offices etc, and they’ve created a reputation for themselves (justifiably) as the most reliable offshore jurisdictions. They’d be better off being well shot of the dodgier stuff, but an Old Victorian is likely making tonnes of cash off of it, and there’s a culture of ‘no such thing as good publicity’ for the island as a whole.

I see Sir Tory Lite has taken the first opportunity to pur the boot into Khan and the ULEZ.

The environment is completely fucked even if Labour do get in, he's so terrified of offending the the Daily Mail that they'll stomp wholesale on anything "green" rather than taking some hard decisions that would pay off in the long term.

And what's stupid is there is an absolute ton of money to be made out of green industry and tech, it just needs some fucking balls and leadership.

But we're in for serious greenlash when the populist twats scream blue murder about anything sustainable, and because they appeal to our caveman brains it's easy to nod in agreement rather than face unpleasant facts.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 7:43 pm I see Sir Tory Lite has taken the first opportunity to pur the boot into Khan and the ULEZ.

The environment is completely fucked even if Labour do get in, he's so terrified of offending the the Daily Mail that they'll stomp wholesale on anything "green" rather than taking some hard decisions that would pay off in the long term.

And what's stupid is there is an absolute ton of money to be made out of green industry and tech, it just needs some fucking balls and leadership.

But we're in for serious greenlash when the populist twats scream blue murder about anything sustainable, and because they appeal to our caveman brains it's easy to nod in agreement rather than face unpleasant facts.

You can’t put up wind turbines in villages of mostly deaf and short-sighted Tory voters because they’re noisy and spoil the view.

Cameron was one of the worst PMs in terms of long term damage we've ever had. His legacy is Brexit and a complete squandering of any lead we might have had in onshore wind generation. Someone burn down his writing caravan.

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:03 am In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

Scared me too, until I found out my old car will be apparently compliant when it comes in in Edinburgh. It would be better to allow for a number of free journeys, say every six months, to allow for occasional journeys in my opinion. That way people wouldn't think they been completely barred. If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

So shit loads more of Tory MPs are not running at the next election and are touring for jobs.
The concentration on Uxbridge is utterly pathetic.
Labour even increased their share of the vote there.
I've seen 2 Tory Ministers on TV today. One saying that there was no panic as no Tories switched to other Parties they just stayed at home and one saying the Tories need to take notice of the swathes of people who voted for other Parties.
The right are suggesting to focus on immigration and trans rights.

Uxbridge Labour Party members are now resigning over Keir's tacit criticism of Khan's green policies.

Pictures of Rishi grinning and smiling in Uxbridge are hilarious.
This London bubble is hilarious

So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

Re ULEZ and the climate change side of it - there has to be seen to be equity in this. If I were affected I’d think why I am being hit by this when other people can do tens of thousands of miles a year without being so affected?
I’d also wonder whether I was doing £12.50 worth of damage a day. I realise that’s a hard one to answer.

Jockaline wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:03 am In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:45 am So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

Raynor on TV last night was a shitshow too, completely incapable of stating what Labour would do differently.

The whole thing is ridiculous: Labour didn't win a seat they've not had since 1966 but still took a chunk out of the Tories. The Tories won it by successfully weaponising a policy that is ultimately theirs. It would be a piece of piss to defend Khan, defend the concept of ULEZ, while still hammering the Tories for enforcing changes without considering the financial cost on people who simply can't afford it.

So instead of swaying in the wind and mumbling some bullshit about "reflecting on ULEZ" and pointing fingers at Khan, Labour could crow about how much the Tories have lost and how disingenuous they are, etc, etc. But instead we get supine terrified-of-failure nonsense.

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:24 am

Jockaline wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:03 am In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the CO2/global warning aspect of the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's life for a a bit longer, but prevention steps to extend life ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

Jockaline wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 10:03 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:24 am

Jockaline wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 pm

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's live for a a bit longer, but prevention steps ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

Yes, I’m doing what I shouldn’t be doing, conflating the two. Which in fairness to me politicians may be doing as well.

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:24 am

Jockaline wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:03 am In my street there are a good dozen non-compliant diesel cars/vans, equating to about 15% of the total vehicles. Some I checked on AutoTrader and their resale price was 15k in several cases. To get an equivalent compliant replacement was going to cost them another 10k.

For some reason the pensioners have not even heard about it. A lot I see walking dogs had no idea they were impacted by it, they are scared by the cost.

A lot of those pensioners said they have to give up driving, Khan’s aim anyway, but hospital visits make this impossible for many with multiple buses needed and a journey time of well over an hour. Car journey takes 15mins.

There is massive potential for a Labour routing in the outer boroughs of London.

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

The answer to that is nearly always having a new one made but there are local air quality issues that are relevant in cities.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:54 am

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:45 am So Sunak has come out and said they'll be campaigning on a platform of persecuting a tiny minority whilst Starmer flips, flops and dances to the tune of whatever shitty policy the papers think is relevant today. Fucking hell, three weeks ago he was saying how ULEZ was a necessary action and he fully backed Khan.

Raynor on TV last night was a shitshow too, completely incapable of stating what Labour would do differently.

The whole thing is ridiculous: Labour didn't win a seat they've not had since 1966 but still took a chunk out of the Tories. The Tories won it by successfully weaponising a policy that is ultimately theirs. It would be a piece of piss to defend Khan, defend the concept of ULEZ, while still hammering the Tories for enforcing changes without considering the financial cost on people who simply can't afford it.

So instead of swaying in the wind and mumbling some bullshit about "reflecting on ULEZ" and pointing fingers at Khan, Labour could crow about how much the Tories have lost and how disingenuous they are, etc, etc. But instead we get supine terrified-of-failure nonsense.

This is what happens when you do policy by focus group instead of policy by principle /national mission. You end up with incoherent policy positions based on what the last focus group said.

It's also why his green policies are destined to fail. He won't accept the unpopularity required to reform planning in such a way as is needed to build renewable generation. And every other policy he has or will have.

Jockaline wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 10:03 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:24 am

Jockaline wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:33 pm

If using the car for commuting then get a newer model as the pollution causes real harm. I think if the harm was better communicated then there might be more understanding too.

There’s then the question of what’s environmentally worse - having a new car made for you or keeping your old one on the road.

It's aimed at improving air quality, the CO2/global warning aspect of the environment a secondary consideration. We spend millions on drugs to extend someone's life for a a bit longer, but prevention steps to extend life ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... span-study

Indeed. Like not being able to tell people to use their cars less and use active transport (walk/cycle) no we prefer to say use electric cars. The positive from exercise from a health side is huge (ignoring the environmental aspect). The massive amount spent on diabetes treatment when calorie counting and our labelling is massively misleading and increasingly obsolete but the alternative involves challenging food manufacturers and upsetting people who calorie count.

Disappointing to see how little backbone Starmer has.

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:46 pm

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 6:57 pm Disappointing to see how little backbone Starmer has.

I think the opposite to be fair. He is desperate to not spook the horses and this by-election proves him right. Any little thing will have middle England and the Red Wall Debbie's and Dwayne's running into the bosom of the party of Edwina Currie

So spooked that the Tories came closer to losing than for the last 60 years or whatever

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 10:24 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:58 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2023 8:46 pm

I think the opposite to be fair. He is desperate to not spook the horses and this by-election proves him right. Any little thing will have middle England and the Red Wall Debbie's and Dwayne's running into the bosom of the party of Edwina Currie

So spooked that the Tories came closer to losing than for the last 60 years or whatever

I'm agreeing with you

No. This by election doesn't prove him right.

I think it shows Starmer still has little feel as a politician. He understands now one cannot simply list some facts/truths, and actually that flummoxed him for quite a while, but he's not exactly Blair like in responding to a situation, understanding the feel of a moment and understanding how to present one's case.

Whether one thinks that a good, bad or inconsequential thing might vary according to both person and circumstance.

No fan of Starmer’s, but if these by elections and polls are anything to go by he’s on course to deliver a potentially terminal blow to the Tory party and govern with an unprecedented majority, so maybe he’s doing something right

What really augurs well for Keir Starmer is the SNP have entirely turned their attacks onto Labour. Their private polling must show that the Labour national swing will apply just as much in Scotland as the rest of the UK which is a very solid indication that a big Labour majority is coming next year.

Starmer is trying to walk a tightrope towards winning a General Election and is desperate more to avoid giving the Tories and the right wing media any ammunition than anything else. So far it is working when they are having to resort to the old 'union barons', 'socialists', 'North London ELite' and 'labour cant manage an economy' nonsense. The Tories are also having to harp back to 13 years ago to try and find something to chuck at Starmer/Labour. The Jimmy Saville comments by the Blonde Bumblecunt shows just how low they are prepared to go and how desperate they are to make something stick. The other problem for the Tories is that the areas they can try and exploit are narrowing as they know that they have performed even worse so cant go there - they even have more sex pest MPs than Labour at the moment!

Starmer has to hold the line and hold his nerve to win the next GE and get this bunch of cunts out of power, hopefully before they have completely wrecked our economy and social services. Once he is in power then we can judge him and his policies. The bottom line is I think and hope he is a pretty honest and genuine guy who has done a difficult and serious job as DPP well in the past and showed what he is capable of. Getting into power is a completely different kettle of fish to being the PM and I suspect he is holding his nose and doing whatever he can to get this bunch of money grifting, right wing bastards out of power.

And she tried to weasel out of it by claiming they had received "payment in kind" from the places where they stayed

Given the full barrels that Farage’s claims re: his bank account received and the reliance on the bank’s initial statements on here, it may be worth revisiting the story in light of today’s revelations…

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2023 5:03 pm Anyway give it a rest about Starmer. You live in a country where Charlotte Owen's has just openly rode her way to the top in record time. In 2023. That's special

Isn't her thing she's a daughter of rather than a provider of services? Unless Boris is even more like Trump than some suppose

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:13 pm Given the full barrels that Farage’s claims re: his bank account received and the reliance on the bank’s initial statements on here, it may be worth revisiting the story in light of today’s revelations…

I think Nat West’s statement that being associated with him risks reputations damage is fairly accurate.

England isn't a socialist country, the only way socialists can ever get their priorities on the agenda in England is through the Labour Party.
About time English socialists and the left remembered that factoid.


So frankly, for socialists (In England, Welsh Labour together with Plaid run pretty progressive policies in Wales) it is a toss up between Starmer vs whatever Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothermere, Jonathan Harmsworth, the surviving Barclay brother, cock sucker.

Again England is not a socialist country.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 8:13 pm Given the full barrels that Farage’s claims re: his bank account received and the reliance on the bank’s initial statements on here, it may be worth revisiting the story in light of today’s revelations…

And Alison Rose is goooooonnnnneee. Only one outcome was possible, though amusing to see the Board giving ‘full confidence’ then sacking the person moments later isn’t confined to struggling football clubs