steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Aug 8, 2023 18:57:11 GMT
 Road safety advice. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Aug 8, 2023 19:02:28 GMT
leftieliberal I'm sorry you feel insulted. I wasn't referring to you, but to myself. I'm not an expert on cars and I wanted to make that clear before I commented on what you had said. Sorry, but what you wrote was ambiguous: I was hoping that someone who knows more about cars would have replied to this, but as no one has...implies that you haven't received any replies from someone who knows more about cars than you do. I accept that you didn't mean it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 8, 2023 19:11:58 GMT
leftieliberal I'm sorry you feel insulted. I wasn't referring to you, but to myself. I'm not an expert on cars and I wanted to make that clear before I commented on what you had said. Sorry, but what you wrote was ambiguous: I was hoping that someone who knows more about cars would have replied to this, but as no one has...implies that you haven't received any replies from someone who knows more about cars than you do. I accept that you didn't mean it that way. God people on this site are sensitive. It is quite obvious what athena meant. Not to talk about the endless pearl clutching about mercian' s comments, who is a perfectly reasonable poster, even if he doesn't fulfil some people's ideas about correct terminology. This isn't Twitter/X. Lighten up. Only Danny deserves the waterboarding. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 8, 2023 19:22:38 GMT
athena
I think you're affording Chalk an awful lot of undeserved leeway with your interpretation of what he said in defence of Anderson's crude advice to asylum seekers who didn't like the government's offer of accommodation.
The context is key here. Chalk wasn't being invited to opine about the public's general attitude to immigration, he was being asked, as I understand it anyway, to comment on Anderson's specific comments and the language he chose to use. He didn't condemn them but tried to suggest that they were in fact a legitimate expression of the righteous indignation of the British people. Anderson, in other words, was speaking for most of us.
Even if we think Kantar's poll findings are accurate, and a slim majority of the British people do indeed think that immigration levels are too high, to imply, as Chalk did, that most of us are quite happy that complaining asylum seekers are told to "fuck off back to France", is an utter disgrace.
Anderson was punching down, as he usually does, and Chalk defended him as if he was a tribune of the people.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 8, 2023 19:30:10 GMT
The same applies to cars. Don't wait until you can buy a second-hand EV with decent range at a reasonable price, but choose a hybrid like, say, a Vauxhall Ampera which you can charge at home and get at least 30 miles on electric from the battery before the petrol engine cuts in and starts re-charging it. Technically the petrol engine is called a range-extender, but its particular value is that it removes range anxiety in that on long journeys you simply treat it like a petrol car. I was hoping that someone who knows more about cars than I do would have replied to this, but as no one has... I'd be very wary of purchasing a hybrid as a stepping stone. There's evidence that real-world emissions are much higher than initially advertised (picked up by mainstream print and broadcast media - which is why I knew about it) and the EU is already planning to change their climate rating accordingly. It seems reasonable to assume that the UK rules will also change in the next few years.
I assume you mean a 'delay' and/or watering down of what constitutes "a significant distance with zero emissions"*. In which case, sadly, that does seem a reasonable assumption. The original date was 2040, moved to 2035 and then 2030 (although with some 'caveats' added to ease the transition). So until 2020, all the changes were in the 'right' direction (ie earlier dates). www.reuters.com/article/britain-autos/uk-to-ban-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-2030-ft-idUSKBN27U0DGAs mentioned previously then there are 'technical' factors that mean we'll unlikely to be ready by 2030 unless we ramp up the charging infrastructure, car manufactures speed up their transition, etc BUT it is important to note the "ban" is limited to new sales and has quite a few caveats (eg "significant distance") so I hope we're wrong and the 2030 date stays. Modest tangent but second hand EV prices have dropped significantly this year. Article covering that:
Why is the second-hand value of electric cars plummeting?www.standard.co.uk/tech/why-electric-car-prices-dropping-b1085646.htmlSome people will be put off buying a brand new EV if they are worried it will depreciate in value very quickly, but for those who just want to buy a 'new to them' EV for personal climate change reasons or cheaper running costs then the cheaper second prices will hopefully encourage more people to buy one. * Repost of current info (released in Nov'20): www.gov.uk/government/news/government-takes-historic-step-towards-net-zero-with-end-of-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-by-2030 |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Aug 8, 2023 19:32:25 GMT
… mercian' s comments, who is a perfectly reasonable poster …
Blimey, there’s a thing of wonder!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Aug 8, 2023 19:37:58 GMT
A few comments on those 'Find Out Now' MRP resuts. The headline VI figures were Lab 46%, Con 24%, so at the top end of recent Labour polling leads. This would be an overall swing of 17%, with Con down 21 and Lab up 13. Their seats projection leaves the Tories with only 90, whereas UNS would give them around 150-170, even on these dire figures. That pattern of the Tories faring considerable worse than UNS - and Lab + LDs a lot better - should be apparent from all detailed polling findings. However, FON's figures show large numbers of 'Don't Knows', and these are treated as non-voters rather than re-allocated per Opinium. Such as adjustment could reduce the Labour headline lead by 4-6 points. Previous 'Find Out Now' MRPs have shown even worse outcomes for the Tories: in January, they had one showing the Conservatives on only 45 seats, so they have doubled this in the past 6 months: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Seat_predictionsFor parties other than Con and Lab, I would trust FON's seat figures rather more than those of Focaldata, whose methodology recently gave the LDs, PC and Green Party a combined total of just 7 seats (9 May 2023). It will be useful to see the overall figures for Scotland, but I for one am not too surprised by the SNP retaining 38 seats - presumably with Labour taking 11-15 in Scotland. This would be consistent with the SNP being around 5% ahead of Labour in Scotland. This sounds credible enough to me in the light of other recent Scottish polling showing the SNP 0-3% ahead, but with a likely squeeze of the SGP, who have taken a sinificant share of the voters the SNP has lost since 2019. The other factor to bear in mind with Westminster seats in Scotland is that there will almost certainly be a lot of very close contests again - like in 2017, but probably even more so in the SNP/Lab contests. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 8, 2023 19:41:51 GMT
"Asked on LBC if Anderson was speaking on behalf of the party, Chalk defended what he said, arguing that his Tory colleague was expressing the “righteous indignation of the British people”. This seems like one of those examples I was referring to of ascribing particular views to too wide a group. It seems Chalk believes that the "British people" feel "righteous indignation" about migrants; so all 65m of them presumably. I rather doubt there is a unanimous view on that. Personally I feel righteous indignation that Lee Anderson is an MP and deputy leader of the Conservative Party rather than ranting in the corner of a pub somewhere and being avoided by the other customers, which seems like his natural home. I think you're being a bit harsh on Chalk. Given that the UK has a majoritarian culture I'm prepared to accept references to 'the British people' if they apply to a simple majority of people of voting age. I decided to see if I could find any data on public attitudes to immigration and settled on this recent (June 2023) report by Kantar and the Oxford Migration Laboratory. They report that 52% of respondents thought immigration should be reduced (interestingly this figure has fallen since 2011). Roughly 50% of respondents wanted reductions in asylum seekers and people coming here to work without a visa (they quote these figures separately for people who did or did not favour an overall reduction in immigration ), which I reckon are the two categories relevant to the small boats issue. So Chalk and Lee Anderson appear to be speaking for a slender majority of Brits - although it's pushing it a bit to say they're expressing the indignation (righteous or otherwise) of the British people, I don't think it's worth making a fuss about inaccuracy.
Not that I approve of the original comment, which strays towards inciting racial hatred. Language matters and it shouldn't be possible to mistake a representative of a political party advocating tighter controls on immigration for someone ranting to his mates after a few pints. I fully agree with your final paragraph and the sections in bold highlighting the 'convention' in a majoritarian culture. Anderson had no need to use such inflammatory language and those refusing accommodation on Bibby Stockholm* aren't going back to France but reducing the 'pull' factors is an important part of the need to reduce the number of people paying criminal gangs to illegally enter the country. * It has been used to accommodate workers and was potentially going to be used to accommodate students so what it is the problem people have with it being used to house immigrants awaiting a decision on their case. If these are people genuinely fleeing persecution and war then accommodation that was deemed acceptable to workers should be more than acceptable and if anyone considering paying a criminal gang to illegally enter the UK thinks otherwise then 'stay in France/other safe country' and have your asylum case considered there. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibby_Stockholm |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 8, 2023 19:43:24 GMT
Some of the LoC confusion about what is and what is not 'racism' is perhaps due to the misuse of racism accusations by LAB HQ? It would be entirely justified for someone to criticise the Qatar govt* but not generalise about ALL Qatari or muslim people. However, when it comes to Israel then the 'hierarchy of racism' has been flipped and, under Starmer's 'new' management, then criticising the Israeli govt (not all Israeli or jewish people) is grounds for expulsion from LAB Although the 'real' reason is probably that she was 'Far-Left' and the false accusation of anti-semitism was merely a convenient excuse. www.thejc.com/news/politics/naomi-wimborne-idrissi-suspended-by-labour-again-for-speaking-at-event-of-proscribed-group-5i4O0Lzmr6eKLCYH2ajeKJSimilarly it is not racist to highlight and criticise some of the ongoing, illegal, practices of some groups in UK provided it is clearly not a criticism of an entire group of people. I appreciate some folks struggle with being able to spot the difference but the incorrect use of the term 'racist' is why the Police fear investigating some ongoing illegal practices (links already provided). Hence IMO the importance of ensuring the word 'racist' is used accurately and not just chucked around as an ignorant, unsubstantiated insult. Actual racism clearly is an ongoing issue but claims of racism need to be substantiated with actual evidence, not misrepresentations (eg as per the discrimination against white males conducted until recently by the RAF**). * As Starmer did, noting "In the Arabian country it is illegal to promote or engage in homosexuality and therefore has been scrutinised for its treatment of the LGBTQI+ community as well as women and migrant workers". Although saying he wouldn't watch England play was 'virtue signalling' IMO. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/call-keir/keir-starmer-human-rights-issues-labour-refuse-to-go-to-qatar/** Still rumbling on: news.sky.com/story/fury-at-lack-of-sanction-for-raf-over-botched-diversity-drive-as-soldiers-face-10-000-fine-for-getting-drunk-12934256I didn't want to get involved in the mercian post issue and indeed ignored it at the time. The issue I have with that kind of post is that he was outlining his concerns about what he called Muslim culture as opposed to what he called Western culture, and then proceded to identify 4 subject areas where the views/positions identified were either not Muslim at all, or otherwise did not originate with Islam but with either the Judeo-Christian tradition or earlier social norms. If mercian genuinely believes that these views are not massively prevalent in Western societies (semi-ironcally especially on the populist Right in those Western societies) then that's unfortunate, because they are. As for FGM, there is nothing about it at all in Islam and the practice predates Islam by at least 2000 years. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 8, 2023 19:49:19 GMT
Sorry, but what you wrote was ambiguous: I was hoping that someone who knows more about cars would have replied to this, but as no one has...implies that you haven't received any replies from someone who knows more about cars than you do. I accept that you didn't mean it that way. God people on this site are sensitive. It is quite obvious what athena meant. Not to talk about the endless pearl clutching about mercian ' s comments, who is a perfectly reasonable poster, even if he doesn't fulfil some people's ideas about correct terminology. This isn't Twitter/X. Lighten up. Only Danny deserves the waterboarding. people - not sure it is a majority of people though and hence 'pedantry alert' but you should have said 'some' people  NB We don't have any guidance on what is 'banter' v 'trolling' but IMO a specific reference to any poster would be trolling and is simply unnecessary (even if it is considered 'acceptable' as 'banter' rather than 'flaming/trolling') People can simply ignore specific posters if they want to. There is/was no need to mention Danny. He is entitled to his opinion and it is for each person to decide if they wish to ignore him or engage with him - same for every other person on this site. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 8, 2023 20:01:40 GMT
A few comments on those 'Find Out Now' MRP resuts. The headline VI figures were Lab 46%, Con 24%, so at the top end of recent Labour polling leads. This would be an overall swing of 17%, with Con down 21 and Lab up 13. It is interesting that their seats projection leaves the Tories with only 90, whereas UNS would give them around 150-170, even on these dire figures. That pattern of the Tories faring considerable worse than UNS - and Lab + LDs a lot better - should be apparent from all detailed polling findings. However, FON's figures end to show large numbers of 'Don't Knows', and these are treated as non-voters rather than re-allocated per Opinium. Such as adjustment could reduce the Labour headline lead by 4-6 points. Previous 'Find Out Now' MRPs have shown even worse outcomes for the Tories: in January, they had one showing the Conservatives on only 45 seats, so they have doubled this in the past 6 months: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Seat_predictionsFor parties other than Con and Lab, I would trust FON's seat figures rather more than those of Focaldata, whose methodology recently gave the LDs, PC and Green Party a combined total of just 7 seats (9 May 2023). It will be useful to see the overall figures for Scotland, but I for one am not too surprised by the SNP retaining 38 seats - presumably with Labour taking 11-15 in Scotland. This would be consistent with the SNP being around 5% ahead of Labour in Scotland. This sounds credible enough to me in the light of other current polling showing the SNP 0-3% ahead, but with a likely squeeze of the SGP, who have taken a sinificant share of the voters the SNP has lost since 2019. re- Scotland I disagree . The SNP would do well to retain 25 seats. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Aug 8, 2023 20:03:07 GMT
Some of the LoC confusion about what is and what is not 'racism' is perhaps due to the misuse of racism accusations by LAB HQ? It would be entirely justified for someone to criticise the Qatar govt* but not generalise about ALL Qatari or muslim people. However, when it comes to Israel then the 'hierarchy of racism' has been flipped and, under Starmer's 'new' management, then criticising the Israeli govt (not all Israeli or jewish people) is grounds for expulsion from LAB Although the 'real' reason is probably that she was 'Far-Left' and the false accusation of anti-semitism was merely a convenient excuse. www.thejc.com/news/politics/naomi-wimborne-idrissi-suspended-by-labour-again-for-speaking-at-event-of-proscribed-group-5i4O0Lzmr6eKLCYH2ajeKJSimilarly it is not racist to highlight and criticise some of the ongoing, illegal, practices of some groups in UK provided it is clearly not a criticism of an entire group of people. I appreciate some folks struggle with being able to spot the difference but the incorrect use of the term 'racist' is why the Police fear investigating some ongoing illegal practices (links already provided). Hence IMO the importance of ensuring the word 'racist' is used accurately and not just chucked around as an ignorant, unsubstantiated insult. Actual racism clearly is an ongoing issue but claims of racism need to be substantiated with actual evidence, not misrepresentations (eg as per the discrimination against white males conducted until recently by the RAF**). * As Starmer did, noting "In the Arabian country it is illegal to promote or engage in homosexuality and therefore has been scrutinised for its treatment of the LGBTQI+ community as well as women and migrant workers". Although saying he wouldn't watch England play was 'virtue signalling' IMO. www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/call-keir/keir-starmer-human-rights-issues-labour-refuse-to-go-to-qatar/** Still rumbling on: news.sky.com/story/fury-at-lack-of-sanction-for-raf-over-botched-diversity-drive-as-soldiers-face-10-000-fine-for-getting-drunk-12934256I didn't want to get involved in the mercian post issue and indeed ignored it at the time. The issue I have with that kind of post is that he was outlining his concerns about what he called Muslim culture as opposed to what he called Western culture, and then proceded to identify 4 subject areas where the views/positions identified were either not Muslim at all, or otherwise did not originate with Islam but with either the Judeo-Christian tradition or earlier social norms. If mercian genuinely believes that these views are not massively prevalent in Western societies (semi-ironcally especially on the populist Right in those Western societies) then that's unfortunate, because they are. As for FGM, there is nothing about it at all in Islam and the practice predates Islam by at least 2000 years. Why have you replied to me?!? If you want to get involved in the mercian issue, which you clearly haven't ignored, then please at least have the decency to reply to him and quote the specific sections of one of his posts that you object to (as per the 'update' clarification of the implementation of the rules) mercian can then reply to you directly, based on the evidence you provide. I commented on 'Forced Marriages' and was clear to highlight actual research to show they were still occurring in UK and that it was not one specific religion that was continuing that illegal practice. In some cases they're very brave people within various communities coming forward to try to bring criminal charges against the perpetrators and then faced with a Police force that is too scared to get involved for fear of being accused of being racist. FWIW then 'Marital rape' is also illegal in UK but Police rarely seen to bring any charges for those crimes - and note I'm not saying any specific community is committing those crimes. www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-are-the-legal-penalties-for-marital-rape/ |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 8, 2023 20:11:03 GMT
I didn't want to get involved in the mercian post issue and indeed ignored it at the time. The issue I have with that kind of post is that he was outlining his concerns about what he called Muslim culture as opposed to what he called Western culture, and then proceded to identify 4 subject areas where the views/positions identified were either not Muslim at all, or otherwise did not originate with Islam but with either the Judeo-Christian tradition or earlier social norms. If mercian genuinely believes that these views are not massively prevalent in Western societies (semi-ironcally especially on the populist Right in those Western societies) then that's unfortunate, because they are. As for FGM, there is nothing about it at all in Islam and the practice predates Islam by at least 2000 years. Why have you replied to me?!? If you want to get involved in the mercian issue, which you clearly haven't ignored, then please at least have the decency to reply to him and quote the specific sections of one of his posts that you object to (as per the 'update' clarification of the implementation of the rules) mercian can then reply to you directly, based on the evidence you provide. I commented on 'Forced Marriages' and was clear to highlight actual research to show they were still occurring in UK and that it was not one specific religion that was continuing that illegal practice. In some cases they're very brave people within various communities coming forward to try to bring criminal charges against the perpetrators and then faced with a Police force that is too scared to get involved for fear of being accused of being racist. FWIW then 'Marital rape' is also illegal in UK but Police rarely seen to bring any charges for those crimes - and note I'm not saying any specific community is committing those crimes. www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-are-the-legal-penalties-for-marital-rape/You referred to his post (as many are doing)so I replied to you. I wasn't commenting about you. The reason I didn't reply directly to him is that I was unsure whether he was still on the site, and I was expressing an opinion about that type of comment. If you want me to clarify further my issue was inaccuracy. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 8, 2023 20:16:12 GMT
A few comments on those 'Find Out Now' MRP resuts. The headline VI figures were Lab 46%, Con 24%, so at the top end of recent Labour polling leads. This would be an overall swing of 17%, with Con down 21 and Lab up 13. It is interesting that their seats projection leaves the Tories with only 90, whereas UNS would give them around 150-170, even on these dire figures. That pattern of the Tories faring considerable worse than UNS - and Lab + LDs a lot better - should be apparent from all detailed polling findings. However, FON's figures end to show large numbers of 'Don't Knows', and these are treated as non-voters rather than re-allocated per Opinium. Such as adjustment could reduce the Labour headline lead by 4-6 points. Previous 'Find Out Now' MRPs have shown even worse outcomes for the Tories: in January, they had one showing the Conservatives on only 45 seats, so they have doubled this in the past 6 months: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Seat_predictionsFor parties other than Con and Lab, I would trust FON's seat figures rather more than those of Focaldata, whose methodology recently gave the LDs, PC and Green Party a combined total of just 7 seats (9 May 2023). It will be useful to see the overall figures for Scotland, but I for one am not too surprised by the SNP retaining 38 seats - presumably with Labour taking 11-15 in Scotland. This would be consistent with the SNP being around 5% ahead of Labour in Scotland. This sounds credible enough to me in the light of other current polling showing the SNP 0-3% ahead, but with a likely squeeze of the SGP, who have taken a sinificant share of the voters the SNP has lost since 2019.
However, GB polls do suggest that the enthusiasm for Labour is limited, and VI strongly motivated by determination to remove Con from government. Which party is seen to be the most appropriate vehicle to defenestrate them, will depend on the constituency. In Scotland, Labour has to persuade voters to replace SNP with them - and it isn't wholly clear that they have been successful in that.
In a Scottish context, these kind of polls may (who knows?) do Labour more harm than good. For a number of Scots voters, if England seems set to obliterate the Tories anyway, then a SLab MP may not look like the best option. If the contest in England looks tight, then more might vote Lab to ensure that the Tories are gone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 20:16:15 GMT
A few comments on those 'Find Out Now' MRP resuts. The headline VI figures were Lab 46%, Con 24%, so at the top end of recent Labour polling leads. This would be an overall swing of 17%, with Con down 21 and Lab up 13. It is interesting that their seats projection leaves the Tories with only 90, whereas UNS would give them around 150-170, even on these dire figures. That pattern of the Tories faring considerable worse than UNS - and Lab + LDs a lot better - should be apparent from all detailed polling findings. However, FON's figures end to show large numbers of 'Don't Knows', and these are treated as non-voters rather than re-allocated per Opinium. Such as adjustment could reduce the Labour headline lead by 4-6 points. Previous 'Find Out Now' MRPs have shown even worse outcomes for the Tories: in January, they had one showing the Conservatives on only 45 seats, so they have doubled this in the past 6 months: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Seat_predictionsFor parties other than Con and Lab, I would trust FON's seat figures rather more than those of Focaldata, whose methodology recently gave the LDs, PC and Green Party a combined total of just 7 seats (9 May 2023). It will be useful to see the overall figures for Scotland, but I for one am not too surprised by the SNP retaining 38 seats - presumably with Labour taking 11-15 in Scotland. This would be consistent with the SNP being around 5% ahead of Labour in Scotland. This sounds credible enough to me in the light of other current polling showing the SNP 0-3% ahead, but with a likely squeeze of the SGP, who have taken a sinificant share of the voters the SNP has lost since 2019. Thanks for the additional analysis, James E. One thing that does occur to me is that, whilst the headline CON and LAB figures are broadly in line with yesterday's YouGov and R&W, the sample in the C4 poll is apparently c11,000. I couldn't readily see from the polls yesterday their sample size, but I suspect it will have been substantially lower (1-2000?). If that is indeed the case, it suggests a lower MOE to me in its findings, purely on the basis of a much larger sample than is typical? Grateful for your thoughts. NB Few people, I would suspect, expect a seats result anything like this at the GE. However, the mood music certainly suggests to me that LAB is on course to be the next UK Govt, and CON look like they're needing snookers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 20:17:45 GMT
That was a bit spooky, oldnat! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 8, 2023 20:22:35 GMT
"Asked on LBC if Anderson was speaking on behalf of the party, Chalk defended what he said, arguing that his Tory colleague was expressing the “righteous indignation of the British people”. This seems like one of those examples I was referring to of ascribing particular views to too wide a group. It seems Chalk believes that the "British people" feel "righteous indignation" about migrants; so all 65m of them presumably. I rather doubt there is a unanimous view on that. So Chalk and Lee Anderson appear to be speaking for a slender majority of Brits - although it's pushing it a bit to say they're expressing the indignation (righteous or otherwise) of the British people, I don't think it's worth making a fuss about inaccuracy. I very, very strongly disagree. A slender (or even a large) majority is not the same as "the British people" and the right of the minority to dissent should be recognised and respected or we are on the road to tyranny. The Mail has always been quick to say that those who fail to hold right wing views are not properly British. It is similar to the fallacy that because around two thirds of British Jews support Zionism, the third that don't are somehow not properly Jewish. This is very dangerous territory. Chalk and Anderson cannot be allowed to get away with claiming to speak for the British people. They certainly don't speak for me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 20:24:12 GMT
Yes I agree - that is what they should certainly do. But in the new economic circumstances which i believe we are in , your " gradual and managed" transition is absolutely key. The general public cannot cope with cliff face transitions into prohibitive vehicle costs. I think that is all this survey is communicating-money worries. I agree, Colin but that is the diametric opposite of the behaviour of the Tories (and some terrified Labour people including perhaps Keir) in W.London. The Tories for several years, lacking anything else of interest to say to people in London, are pressing along with the culture war which alleges over cycling, ULEZ, building homes on rail car parks, even promoting the idea of a 15 minute city, that it's all the evil socialist anti car prejudice. A bit like it seems, republicans in the US, some of them actually believe it. Nice to see you posting again, guymonde. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 8, 2023 20:29:37 GMT
oldnat Would be nice for the tories to be down to 90, but tend to agree it's unlikely Still you have to admit it is a good thing that Starmer is so bloody unpopular or the Tories would be in real trouble  |
|
|
|
Post by Old Southendian on Aug 8, 2023 20:33:03 GMT
Haven't been here for ages, but was prompted by the thought of Tories getting less than 100 MPs. Yes, I know it won't happen, but we can dream.
However, find myself slightly puzzled by this article and tweet. I'm not going to bother reading the article (it's the Telegraph), but it I imagine it's the Schengen travel equivalent of education for elderly people about the best way to consume eggs. The rule has never meant that you can't spend six months in Schengen. With suitably arranged stays, that's possible (maybe not easily possible, if you want to travel backwards and forwards regularly). Staying for more than six months would be rather difficult, without some sort of resident/work permit. I should know, I'm pretty much permanently on the edge of overstaying the 90/180 rule, almost got into trouble when I had to stay an extra two days due to a cancelled flight.
Anyway, if you don't want to read the article, here's a quick rundown. Go to France/Germany/Italy/(whereever takes your fancy) for 89 nights - which counts as a 90 day stay, perfectly fine. Then come back and spend another 90 days in UK. Repeat. Other alternatives are possible, but essentially you live half of the time in Schengen and half of the time in UK. If you want. To be honest I'm quite looking forward to spending most of the next year back in the UK now my current work role is coming to an end.
By the way thanks to c-a-r-f-r-e-w for remembering me when talking about Roger Waters. I try to ignore him when I can, as a person, but it doesn't spoil the enjoyment of the music. Also plenty of other things to listen to, currently, rather belatedly, getting into Porcupine Tree. |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Aug 8, 2023 20:44:32 GMT
A few comments on those 'Find Out Now' MRP resuts. etc .... Thanks for the additional analysis, James E . One thing that does occur to me is that, whilst the headline CON and LAB figures are broadly in line with yesterday's YouGov and R&W, the sample in the C4 poll is apparently c11,000. I couldn't readily see from the polls yesterday their sample size, but I suspect it will have been substantially lower (1-2000?). If that is indeed the case, it suggests a lower MOE to me in its findings, purely on the basis of a much larger sample than is typical? Grateful for your thoughts. NB Few people, I would suspect, expect a seats result anything like this at the GE. However, the mood music certainly suggests to me that LAB is on course to be the next UK Govt, and CON look like they're needing snookers. Those sample sizes for recent polls are 2,000 for R&W and 2,313 for YouGov, but then you really need a very large sample for worthwhile MRP results. A sample of 11,000 would only include 1,000 in Scotland, so this would make it difficult to get really reliable seat-by-seat projections. YouGov's pre-GE MRPs have used samples of around 50,000. MoE must be lower with a larger sample, but actually the FON headline figures with 11,000 are not far at all from the first 6 other polls we have in August, for which the combined samples are around 9,400. The Labour average in these is exactly 46% (if you take the unadjusted Opinium figure as Lab 44% for a like-for-like comparison) while the Tories have averaged 25.7%. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 8, 2023 20:44:59 GMT
That was a bit spooky, oldnat ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 21:02:39 GMT
Thanks for the additional analysis, James E . One thing that does occur to me is that, whilst the headline CON and LAB figures are broadly in line with yesterday's YouGov and R&W, the sample in the C4 poll is apparently c11,000. I couldn't readily see from the polls yesterday their sample size, but I suspect it will have been substantially lower (1-2000?). If that is indeed the case, it suggests a lower MOE to me in its findings, purely on the basis of a much larger sample than is typical? Grateful for your thoughts. NB Few people, I would suspect, expect a seats result anything like this at the GE. However, the mood music certainly suggests to me that LAB is on course to be the next UK Govt, and CON look like they're needing snookers. Those sample sizes for recent polls are 2,000 for R&W and 2,313 for YouGov, but then you really need a very large sample for worthwhile MRP results. A sample of 11,000 would only include 1,000 in Scotland, so this would make it difficult to get really reliable seat-by-seat projections. YouGov's pre-GE MRPs have used samples of around 50,000. MoE must be lower with a larger sample, but actually the FON headline figures with 11,000 are not far at all from the first 6 other polls we have in August, for which the combined samples are around 9,400. The Labour average in these is exactly 46% (if you take the unadjusted Opinium figure as Lab 44% for a like-for-like comparison) while the Tories have averaged 25.7%. Thanks for your further thoughts, James E. Very interesting. Very consistent results for August thus far, with a c20% LAB lead seemingly currently the norm. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Aug 8, 2023 21:06:51 GMT
Sorry, but what you wrote was ambiguous: I was hoping that someone who knows more about cars would have replied to this, but as no one has...implies that you haven't received any replies from someone who knows more about cars than you do. I accept that you didn't mean it that way. God people on this site are sensitive. It is quite obvious what athena meant. Not to talk about the endless pearl clutching about mercian ' s comments, who is a perfectly reasonable poster, even if he doesn't fulfil some people's ideas about correct terminology. This isn't Twitter/X. Lighten up. Only Danny deserves the waterboarding. Without referencing mercian specifically, a good rule of life these days is that if you don't challenge racism (and sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) when you see or hear them, then you are effectively condoning those views. It is lack of challenge that allows bigotry to grow and prosper. So I will carry on doing so - but hopefully in a constructive manner to the best of my ability. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 21:11:11 GMT
That was a bit spooky, oldnat ! You can run, but you can't hide 😉. Notwithstanding that, the timing of our responses to James E's post was a bit 😳. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Aug 8, 2023 21:16:54 GMT
Given that a large majority of people always buy secondhand it's the state of the secondhand market that really matters. Delay the ban and you delay the availability of secondhand EVs. The ban is just one element of a ratchet on vehicle pollution, alongside things like expansion of ULEZ schemes and other levies on polluting vehicles. In the absence of a flourishing secondhand market in EVs it will be politically impossible to keep tightening that ratchet. Sadly, I think that those wanting to buy secondhand will struggle. The reason is simple - it's emerging technology. To partly ilustrate my point, I will make a comparison with computers. A bad one, I'll admit, but, nonetheless, a crude way of getting my point across. I type this on a Windows 7 desktop. It does pretty much all I want of it - browse with Firefox, watch videos with VLC Media Player, music the same or sometimes Foobar, pictres with Irfanview, I cn use Skype on here, use Notepad to write lyrics, make notes etc. Yes, it serves me well, although technically, no longer supported. Try selling one. You can get refurbished Windows 10 machines for £50. Even if someone put a Windows 7 machine up for £20 (sometimes happens, they get put up as 'first PC for kids'), they're a slow sell - even though, technically, such machines with do what most people want of it. On EVs, early models, while they go, will do less per charge than latest models. Fine if you just want a runaround, but, for anyone who does a lot of driving, not so good. In 20 years time, when there will likely be plenty of EVs on the secondhand market that will do mileage per charge that most will require, it won't be a problem, but, right now, that is not the case....and those that are will command a 'premium second hand price'. As well as greatly increasing the charging infrastructure, the next government will also need - that's NEED - to introduce a very generous scrappage scheme to help people switch. I know this is only an analogy off the top of your head, but I am writing this on an originally windows 7 machine now running windows 11. It might or might not be apt to interject that some older equipment can be brought up to the latest spec. There is a fundamental problem with electric vehicles that much of the weight is in the batteries, so that fundamentally if you want a long range vehicle, then it is unsuitable to be used for short daily trips, because the weight of those permanent batteries means it is significantly less efficient as a short distance runaround, and a lot more expensive too. Also of course less efficient for travelling those long distances than if you could use the stagecoach model of changing horses once the current ones were tired out, or the petrol vehicle model of refuelling in 5 minutes.
A number of people keep arguing battery technology will improve to overcome these problems, and you have to be correct that if they do, then the old vehicles will obviously be obsolete. But it seems to me there has been little change in the performance of these vehicles since they first appeared, this isnt a factor yet. Hybrid vehicles seem to be a total dead end, and will just be fit for scrap very quickly. So far the only people who have bought electric vehicles are those for whom they have some sort of advantage. The problem comes when you require people for whom they have a clear disadvantage to buy them.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 8, 2023 21:38:59 GMT
My knowledge of cars is exceptionally basic! So can someone explain why batteries seem to be the preferred system for electric cars rather than hydrogen fuel cells?
Is this just a Betamax v VHS controversy?
Since hydrogen production requires little more than off peak renewable electricity (instead of turning the turbines off, and paying compensation!) and water, it would seem relatively easy to convert fossil fuel filling stations to hydrogen ones.
I seek enlightenment.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Aug 8, 2023 21:44:17 GMT
"In an interview with the Daily Express, Lee Anderson, the Conservative deputy chairman, delivered a characteristically blunt response. He told the paper: If they don’t like barges, then they should fuck off back to France … I think people have just had enough. These people come across the Channel in small boats. If they don’t like the conditions they are housed in here then they should go back to France or better not come at all in the first place. Asked on LBC if Anderson was speaking on behalf of the party, Chalk defended what he said, arguing that his Tory colleague was expressing the “righteous indignation of the British people”. Chalk said: Lee Anderson expresses the righteous indignation of the British people. Yeah, he does it in salty terms and that’s his style. But his indignation is well placed. People are coming from a safe country. France is a signatory to the European convention on human rights, and people should claim asylum in the first country. It shouldn’t be like a sort of open shopping list of where you want to go. " Anderson is of course a racist moron however Chalk is actually quite a credible barrister, as such he obviously knows that there is no legal obligation for an asylum seeker to seek asylum in the first country they come to under the terms of the ECHR. Which makes him in some respects worse than pig ignorance embodied Anderson it makes him a lying scrote a disgrace to his profession and a disgrace to his office. As such he has a bright future ahead in the Tory party or failing that after the next general election as a presenter on GBeebies. Anderson is making an argument that morally refugees were safe in France and so could have stayed there. Tough luck for the French who have to look after them instead of the Brits, but thats their problem. The issue he is seeking to address is whether there is a moral duty on Brits to shelter assylum seekers who arrive here, or whether it is acceptable to palm them off on someone else, doesnt matter who really. The issue being stepped around is that the UK has agreed to take these people under international agreements. The attempts to prevent them claiming by placing all sorts of obstacles in their way are because the government accepts they have a right to be granted assylum, if the government cannot somehow prevent them claiming it. The solution is not this rather pathetic obfuscation, but to accept the Uk has signed up to take unlimited numbers of such people. To halt this, it has to end the international agreements, which however would cause unpleasant consequences for the UK further alienating it from other countries.
The stated motivations for brexit were various, but at the end much of it concentrated on immigration. This despite the fact the UK economy has run on immigrants labour throughout its history, and particularly in in the last 100 years. But now we see that leaving the EU was never the problem, and it is higher international treaty commitments which force the UK to take refugees. To admit this is tantamount to admitting Brexit was a total fraud.
It does make you wonder what were the real motives for causing brexit amongst those who seem truly commited to the cause, because obviously it wasnt to stem immigration. If you judge by outcomes, the aim was to reduce the power and capability of the UK to the benefit of foreign powers with malign intent against the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Aug 8, 2023 21:45:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 8, 2023 21:48:25 GMT
Sadiq Khan speaking out again in the absence of anything damning coming from Starmer et al. Regarding the reprehensible foul mouthed troll Anderson. Starmer is right not to go down this rabbit hole. He's not obliged to be a rent-a-quote on every bit of Tory silliness and boneheadedness, especially when it may well be a wedge issue trap being laid for him. Voters don't need Starmer to tell them what to think about Anderson's comments. I suspect they are capable of making their own judgements. Let the clowns play amongst themselves and don't intrude on private grief would be my advice. Starmer is right to remain aloof. As the great Joe Bugner used to say about various would be challengers offered up by hopeful promoters. He didn't want to take any backwards steps. He'd moved on from the dross and was looking upwards. Starmer doesn't need to engage with clowns like Anderson. He's bigger and better than that. Just like Big Joe was. |
|
