I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
The 20 miles an hour is inconvenient but so were seatbelts. There has been less objection in Wales to the speed limit than there was in England to seatbelts.
He is in a loser with complaining about no road building. Roads are like prisons. Everyone agrees we need them, but no one wants one built near them. Particularly those who tend to vote Con.
ULEZ was a Con idea and the Johnson government put pressure on the mayor to push it out to the M25. The Cons are to blame for ULEZ. The majority of cars fall in the correct category to not pay. Some people, friends of mine for instance do. The money to scrap their car is not enough to buy a new one.
Blame the Cons
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
To be fair to the Nasty Party, 'I'm all right Jack' and 'There's a stranger, 'eave 'arf a brick at 'im' are indeed British values, with a long and dishonourable history. They're not the ones I would have chosen to promote, but we are where we are.
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
Killing people by hitting them with cars and killing people through pollution appear to be two of them.
Given the amount of money spent on motor-centric infrastructure, the number of people killed by drivers and the pollution in cities, if there's a war involving motorists it is waged by them, not against them. Any restriction for the benefit of anyone not in a metal box is greeted with outrage.
I await Sunak's alternative solutions to the problem of road deaths, pollution and congestion. I don't think he's interested in doing any of these things - he's throwing the victims of them under the bus so he can court the votes of petrol-heads who worship people like that prize twat Clarkson.
I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
I wish they'd introduce a 20mph limit in our village street.
Despite being narrow, with shops, parked cars, a bus stop, and a pedestrian crossing (with Belisha beacons), there are morons who still drive at over 30mph in order to save a few seconds on their oh-so-important journey.
Still, to some people this lunacy is a God-given right, and one which all True-Blue Englishmen™ should embrace, no matter what the wokerati, wimps, and wusses may say.
Yes, we live near many 20mph streets, but in the green bits, people go through at 40 mph, as the sight of grass seems to tell them they're in the open country. I am curious to see if the Tories get a poll boost over this.
Yes, we live near many 20mph streets, but in the green bits, people go through at 40 mph, as the sight of grass seems to tell them they're in the open country. I am curious to see if the Tories get a poll boost over this.
O they probably will. The Great God Motor will see to that...
This made Canadian news https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66906201 How is it playing out in UK? Are there many other countries where all police do not routinely carry weapons?
Looking at the caption on the victim's photo in that article - "Chris Kaba was hit by a gunshot fired by a Met officer into the vehicle he was driving" is quite a roundabout way to say "A police officer shot Chris Kaba"
The increasingly unhinged Sushi Rinak sees 20mph speed limits as *against British values*...although he and his lapdogs don't seem able to produce a definitive list of those *values*.
Bonkers - and yet he insists that he is delivering only good things to *hard-working British families*. What about all the families out of work, those in poverty, or the homeless, or the destitute, or those waiting never-to-be-had hospital appointments, or those without families...? What is he delivering them ?
Within yoiur link I can't find the details of the Conservatives war on motorists. Can you help me with this
The link seems to go to the politics live section of the Guardian website, not to a specific story in the paper.
But, the story (as I've just seen reported on C4 News, at least) is that Sunak has decided that nasty Labour, LibDem, Green people are engaged in a war on motorists, and that he's striking back on behalf of those besieged motorists.
So, taking actions to prevent local councils introducing 20mph limits, setting up low traffic zones to stop residential roads being used as short cuts, and using cameras to enforce traffic junction rules. He seems to be in favour of drivers driving faster than in safe, using streets people live on as motorways and denying residents the right to walk out their front door, and to generally break the law with impunity because there won't be any means to record who blocks junctions or crosses a light at red. I think he's trying to pick up a record of some form - most incompetent PM of history has gone to Truss and he's not going to break that one, Cameron has the record for running away when things don't go his way, Johnson for breaking the most rules he wrote ... so I think Sunak is going for actions that lead to the maximum number of deaths.
@Telford - apologies for the link, which wasn't the best one, but @Alan Cresswell has explained quite succinctly what I meant by the tories' War Against The Motorist.
I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
I find myself in broad agreement.
This "blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit". Is it in the room with you now?
I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
I find myself in broad agreement.
This "blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit". Is it in the room with you now?
We have a 20mph limit on our little estate and I am in favour of it. Even though it's not policed, most people seem to comply.
I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
I find myself in broad agreement.
This "blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit". Is it in the room with you now?
We have a 20mph limit on our little estate and I am in favour of it. Even though it's not policed, most people seem to comply.
Yes, and these limits are local and largely in built up residential areas. The exact opposite of being a 'blanket speed limit'
I think imposing a blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit on areas is absolutely not right. It doesn’t reflect people’s priorities. People are dependent on their cars for their day-to-day journeys and these kind of blanket bans aren’t the right proportionate approach. But also it comes on top of this other policy not to build any new roads as well. You take these things together, it seems like an attack on motorists and that’s rightly received the opposition that it deserves.
You’ve seen the opposition from people in Wales to this policy. Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work.
Those aren’t the right values of the British people who do rely on their cars to get around and we should be supportive of them.
I find myself in broad agreement.
This "blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit". Is it in the room with you now?
We have a 20mph limit on our little estate and I am in favour of it. Even though it's not policed, most people seem to comply.
Yes, and these limits are local and largely in built up residential areas. The exact opposite of being a 'blanket speed limit'
What has changed in Wales is that the default restricted limit is now 20mph instead of 30mph.
Some restricted roads were 40 or 50 and they have not changed. Some that were 30 have been exempted locally from going to 20.
It is not "blanket" by any stretch of the imagination. That's just Tory bullshit.
Of course, the "blanket 20mph limit" is a fictional policy, the announcement is another example of telling people the Conservatives won't introduce a policy that the Conservatives never proposed - and, even Labour aren't proposing. The policy passed by the Welsh Senedd, and similar policy that's likely to come through the Scottish Parliament in the next few years, is that the default speed limit in urban areas would be 20mph (cf the current 30mph) - though that still leaves the possibility of some roads in urban areas (especially non-residential areas) retaining the current 30mph (or higher) limits. The effect of national legislation is to make it easier for local governments to put in 20mph speed limits where it makes sense to improve safety and quality of life of residents - at present there's an extensive process that councils need to go through to introduce new 20mph limits which makes this more expensive and slower than it needs to be. Local councils generally like 20mph limits, because that's good for the people who live there - it's arguably something that impacts people driving through an area, but if people are driving through an area why are they cutting through residential area rather than sticking on the main roads?
And, the solution is to keep that situation - denying local residents the use of their own streets? Surely the solution is to make the safer main roads flow more steadily (which can often be as simple as reducing the number of cars pulling in and out of side roads - which can be those side roads being used as rat runs). Where 20mph limits have been introduced across large areas (ie: whole residential areas, not just outside schools) the evidence is clear that average speeds don't come down, and in many cases smoother traffic flow reduces the average time drivers take to get around (usually when also coupled by safer streets meaning fewer parents driving children to school, and more people walking/cycling to shops etc). It's one of those win-win scenario's - safer, healthier streets giving residents more choice about how to get around, and no significant impact on journey times for the majority of those who choose to drive (there will be a small minority of people who currently drive as fast as they think they can get away with who may find that their rat runs that cut 30s off their drive will find they'll need to live with starting out a few minutes earlier).
Talking to people on the doorstep locally there are a list of issues that always come up - litter, dog poo, various lack of maintenance (pot holes, hedges overgrowing paths etc). One of the big ones is traffic (and, even more so in some areas) - too many cars, driving too fast, streets not being safe for children to go out. Some of those issues are rat runs through residential streets, especially at speed, including one street I know of locally where the 20mph limit there isn't adhered to, with regular times when bin trucks or delivery vans get stuck because there simply isn't space with cars parked on both sides for traffic to go both ways (of course, when that happens the rat-running driver can get angry that someone else with a legitimate reason to be on that road because they're delivering something to a resident or collecting the bins stops them shaving their 10s off their journey, a saving they can only make by ignoring the 20mph limit). Some issues are general disregard for speed limits - traffic regularly doing 40-50mph in 30mph zones (on one street even though there's a primary school, so they also ignore the "20mph when lights flash" zone), which raises issues about enforcement (which is something that's a cost to councils, whether installing physical infrastructure like speed humps or narrowing the road, or cameras - and, note that the Conservative proposals would restrict options for councils to install speed and other cameras with number plate recognition that can be used to issue tickets to people who are speeding or otherwise driving dangerously). And, issues with parking - especially when people park there who aren't residents or visiting residents, including parents dropping off or collecting children from school, commuters wanting to avoid car park charges.
The Conservatives seem to be taking sides in an already uneven contest between people in big metal boxes who are currently free to do almost what they want, and people who want to have streets they can use to walk or cycle, where children can play (or, just hang out with pals on the corner all looking at their phones), and air that they can breath. No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
And, the solution is to keep that situation - denying local residents the use of their own streets? Surely the solution is to make the safer main roads flow more steadily (which can often be as simple as reducing the number of cars pulling in and out of side roads - which can be those side roads being used as rat runs). Where 20mph limits have been introduced across large areas (ie: whole residential areas, not just outside schools) the evidence is clear that average speeds don't come down, and in many cases smoother traffic flow reduces the average time drivers take to get around (usually when also coupled by safer streets meaning fewer parents driving children to school, and more people walking/cycling to shops etc). It's one of those win-win scenario's - safer, healthier streets giving residents more choice about how to get around, and no significant impact on journey times for the majority of those who choose to drive (there will be a small minority of people who currently drive as fast as they think they can get away with who may find that their rat runs that cut 30s off their drive will find they'll need to live with starting out a few minutes earlier).
Talking to people on the doorstep locally there are a list of issues that always come up - litter, dog poo, various lack of maintenance (pot holes, hedges overgrowing paths etc). One of the big ones is traffic (and, even more so in some areas) - too many cars, driving too fast, streets not being safe for children to go out. Some of those issues are rat runs through residential streets, especially at speed, including one street I know of locally where the 20mph limit there isn't adhered to, with regular times when bin trucks or delivery vans get stuck because there simply isn't space with cars parked on both sides for traffic to go both ways (of course, when that happens the rat-running driver can get angry that someone else with a legitimate reason to be on that road because they're delivering something to a resident or collecting the bins stops them shaving their 10s off their journey, a saving they can only make by ignoring the 20mph limit). Some issues are general disregard for speed limits - traffic regularly doing 40-50mph in 30mph zones (on one street even though there's a primary school, so they also ignore the "20mph when lights flash" zone), which raises issues about enforcement (which is something that's a cost to councils, whether installing physical infrastructure like speed humps or narrowing the road, or cameras - and, note that the Conservative proposals would restrict options for councils to install speed and other cameras with number plate recognition that can be used to issue tickets to people who are speeding or otherwise driving dangerously). And, issues with parking - especially when people park there who aren't residents or visiting residents, including parents dropping off or collecting children from school, commuters wanting to avoid car park charges.
The Conservatives seem to be taking sides in an already uneven contest between people in big metal boxes who are currently free to do almost what they want, and people who want to have streets they can use to walk or cycle, where children can play (or, just hang out with pals on the corner all looking at their phones), and air that they can breath. No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
Thank you @Alan Cresswell for clearly demonstrating that if there's a war on the roads it is waged by a certain group of drivers, and not on them.
No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
Quite; and the same thing applies to the latter part of what Marvin quoted above:
"Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work."
Except 84% of cars in London meet the requirements set by the ULEZ .. so wait that's 16% of the poorest Londoners who drive cars that would be penalised? Well, no, because 54% of London households have cars, and that leaves 46% who don't - who will disproportionately be the poorest 'ordinary families' who need to 'take their kids to school' and 'get to work'. Londoners like pollution as much as anyone else, which is why the ULEZ is generally popular.
Once you get to leafier suburbs like .. Uxbridge, the number of disqualified cars will be in hundreds, and the numbers driven into the ULEZ even lower.
[and a wooden spoon to Labour HQ who turned a massive swing in their favour in a seat they were unlikely to win into a factional attack on a mayor from their own party who they don't like]
What nobody ever seems to point out in these discussions is that having lots of cars on the road is bad for car drivers. One of the main things that slows cars down is other cars.
If one in ten car drivers swap their cars for other modes of transport the other nine in ten car drivers benefit. Possibly some of them benefit more from the other cars being off the road than they suffer from the restrictions that incentivised those other cars to leave the roads.
What nobody ever seems to point out in these discussions is that having lots of cars on the road is bad for car drivers. One of the main things that slows cars down is other cars.
If one in ten car drivers swap their cars for other modes of transport the other nine in ten car drivers benefit. Possibly some of them benefit more from the other cars being off the road than they suffer from the restrictions that incentivised those other cars to leave the roads.
Lack of imagination. There is a solid cohort who wouldn't dream of doing anything other than driving, looks down on anyone who does, and sees building more roads and designing everything around driving as the only solution.
No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
Quite; and the same thing applies to the latter part of what Marvin quoted above:
"Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work."
Except 84% of cars in London meet the requirements set by the ULEZ .. so wait that's 16% of the poorest Londoners who drive cars that would be penalised? Well, no, because 54% of London households have cars, and that leaves 46% who don't - who will disproportionately be the poorest 'ordinary families' who need to 'take their kids to school' and 'get to work'. Londoners like pollution as much as anyone else, which is why the ULEZ is generally popular.
Once you get to leafier suburbs like .. Uxbridge, the number of disqualified cars will be in hundreds, and the numbers driven into the ULEZ even lower.
[and a wooden spoon to Labour HQ who turned a massive swing in their favour in a seat they were unlikely to win into a factional attack on a mayor from their own party who they don't like]
I'm not even sure what their problem is with Centrist Khan. Does having a Muslim mayor hurt their image with flag shaggers? Or is it simply that he's more courageous than Starmer and make him look bad by comparison?
Our local Millionaires' Row has has a 20 mph limit for years, reinforced by speed humps, and the residents, Conservatives one and all, aren't complaining.
Changing the subject somewhat, it looks as though Cruella is successfully courting the far-right wingnuts who believe that Horrid Illegal Brown People are bringing the civilised West to perdition:
No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
Quite; and the same thing applies to the latter part of what Marvin quoted above:
"Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work."
Except 84% of cars in London meet the requirements set by the ULEZ .. so wait that's 16% of the poorest Londoners who drive cars that would be penalised? Well, no, because 54% of London households have cars, and that leaves 46% who don't - who will disproportionately be the poorest 'ordinary families' who need to 'take their kids to school' and 'get to work'. Londoners like pollution as much as anyone else, which is why the ULEZ is generally popular.
Once you get to leafier suburbs like .. Uxbridge, the number of disqualified cars will be in hundreds, and the numbers driven into the ULEZ even lower.
[and a wooden spoon to Labour HQ who turned a massive swing in their favour in a seat they were unlikely to win into a factional attack on a mayor from their own party who they don't like]
I'm not even sure what their problem is with Centrist Khan. Does having a Muslim mayor hurt their image with flag shaggers? Or is it simply that he's more courageous than Starmer and make him look bad by comparison?
I think some of it is Islamophobia but the larger factor is that he’s just not part of their group and they are very suspicious of alternate centres of power.
Changing the subject somewhat, it looks as though Cruella is successfully courting the far-right wingnuts who believe that Horrid Illegal Brown People are bringing the civilised West to perdition:
Changing the subject somewhat, it looks as though Cruella is successfully courting the far-right wingnuts who believe that Horrid Illegal Brown People are bringing the civilised West to perdition:
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
Unfortunately, you missed it. It was included in his show yesterday.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
Unfortunately, you missed it. It was included in his show yesterday.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
My thoughts exactly. Pot and Kettle?
@Telford - presumably you watched the *show*. What did you think of it, and what was said by the two involved? Do share - you never know, we might be edified.
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
Unfortunately, you missed it. It was included in his show yesterday.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
My thoughts exactly. Pot and Kettle?
@Telford - presumably you watched the *show*. What did you think of it, and what was said by the two involved? Do share - you never know, we might be edified.
I always enjoy watching Lee Anderson's Real World. I don't recall the details. It was nothing new.
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
Unfortunately, you missed it. It was included in his show yesterday.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
My thoughts exactly. Pot and Kettle?
@Telford - presumably you watched the *show*. What did you think of it, and what was said by the two involved? Do share - you never know, we might be edified.
I always enjoy watching Lee Anderson's Real World. I don't recall the details. It was nothing new.
I wouldn't have him on my telly voluntarily on principle. The man is obnoxious. I live in the neighbouring constituency and I've seen how how he speaks on social media to people who raise issues with him he doesn't care for. He's missing his calling as the far right pub bore being humoured by everyone else and mistakenly thinking they secretly agree with him.
Toxic. Fortunately almost certainly out at the next GE.
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
Unfortunately, you missed it. It was included in his show yesterday.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
My thoughts exactly. Pot and Kettle?
@Telford - presumably you watched the *show*. What did you think of it, and what was said by the two involved? Do share - you never know, we might be edified.
I always enjoy watching Lee Anderson's Real World. I don't recall the details. It was nothing new.
I wouldn't have him on my telly voluntarily on principle. The man is obnoxious. I live in the neighbouring constituency and I've seen how how he speaks on social media to people who raise issues with him he doesn't care for. He's missing his calling as the far right pub bore being humoured by everyone else and mistakenly thinking they secretly agree with him.
Toxic. Fortunately almost certainly out at the next GE.
Given the venues she's been speaking at (the anti-immigrant one was delivered to the AEI), I suspect she might be feeling out working in the right wing think tank scene for a bit.
Given the venues she's been speaking at (the anti-immigrant one was delivered to the AEI), I suspect she might be feeling out working in the right wing think tank scene for a bit.
I'm trying to work out whether her level of intellect would increase or decrease the capability of a right wing think tank to actually think. The problem I'm having is lack of evidence that she can think, but equally a lack of evidence that right wing think tanks contain anyone capable of more than tapping out insanity in ALL CAPS on X-Twitter.
Yes, I look at right wing stuff on the Internet, and it is usually stupid. And their handling of statistics is bizarre. And then there's the government.
Comments
I find myself in broad agreement.
He is in a loser with complaining about no road building. Roads are like prisons. Everyone agrees we need them, but no one wants one built near them. Particularly those who tend to vote Con.
ULEZ was a Con idea and the Johnson government put pressure on the mayor to push it out to the M25. The Cons are to blame for ULEZ. The majority of cars fall in the correct category to not pay. Some people, friends of mine for instance do. The money to scrap their car is not enough to buy a new one.
Blame the Cons
To be fair to the Nasty Party, 'I'm all right Jack' and 'There's a stranger, 'eave 'arf a brick at 'im' are indeed British values, with a long and dishonourable history. They're not the ones I would have chosen to promote, but we are where we are.
Killing people by hitting them with cars and killing people through pollution appear to be two of them.
Given the amount of money spent on motor-centric infrastructure, the number of people killed by drivers and the pollution in cities, if there's a war involving motorists it is waged by them, not against them. Any restriction for the benefit of anyone not in a metal box is greeted with outrage.
I await Sunak's alternative solutions to the problem of road deaths, pollution and congestion. I don't think he's interested in doing any of these things - he's throwing the victims of them under the bus so he can court the votes of petrol-heads who worship people like that prize twat Clarkson.
Well, well. Colour me unsurprised...
Particularly facile in this case is referring to a lower speed limit as a "blanket ban".
Despite being narrow, with shops, parked cars, a bus stop, and a pedestrian crossing (with Belisha beacons), there are morons who still drive at over 30mph in order to save a few seconds on their oh-so-important journey.
Still, to some people this lunacy is a God-given right, and one which all True-Blue Englishmen™ should embrace, no matter what the wokerati, wimps, and wusses may say.
O they probably will. The Great God Motor will see to that...
Looking at the caption on the victim's photo in that article - "Chris Kaba was hit by a gunshot fired by a Met officer into the vehicle he was driving" is quite a roundabout way to say "A police officer shot Chris Kaba"
Within yoiur link I can't find the details of the Conservatives war on motorists. Can you help me with this
But, the story (as I've just seen reported on C4 News, at least) is that Sunak has decided that nasty Labour, LibDem, Green people are engaged in a war on motorists, and that he's striking back on behalf of those besieged motorists.
So, taking actions to prevent local councils introducing 20mph limits, setting up low traffic zones to stop residential roads being used as short cuts, and using cameras to enforce traffic junction rules. He seems to be in favour of drivers driving faster than in safe, using streets people live on as motorways and denying residents the right to walk out their front door, and to generally break the law with impunity because there won't be any means to record who blocks junctions or crosses a light at red. I think he's trying to pick up a record of some form - most incompetent PM of history has gone to Truss and he's not going to break that one, Cameron has the record for running away when things don't go his way, Johnson for breaking the most rules he wrote ... so I think Sunak is going for actions that lead to the maximum number of deaths.
This "blanket 20 mile-an-hour speed limit". Is it in the room with you now?
We have a 20mph limit on our little estate and I am in favour of it. Even though it's not policed, most people seem to comply.
Yes, and these limits are local and largely in built up residential areas. The exact opposite of being a 'blanket speed limit'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-66939150
What has changed in Wales is that the default restricted limit is now 20mph instead of 30mph.
Some restricted roads were 40 or 50 and they have not changed. Some that were 30 have been exempted locally from going to 20.
It is not "blanket" by any stretch of the imagination. That's just Tory bullshit.
Because it’s faster, obviously.
Talking to people on the doorstep locally there are a list of issues that always come up - litter, dog poo, various lack of maintenance (pot holes, hedges overgrowing paths etc). One of the big ones is traffic (and, even more so in some areas) - too many cars, driving too fast, streets not being safe for children to go out. Some of those issues are rat runs through residential streets, especially at speed, including one street I know of locally where the 20mph limit there isn't adhered to, with regular times when bin trucks or delivery vans get stuck because there simply isn't space with cars parked on both sides for traffic to go both ways (of course, when that happens the rat-running driver can get angry that someone else with a legitimate reason to be on that road because they're delivering something to a resident or collecting the bins stops them shaving their 10s off their journey, a saving they can only make by ignoring the 20mph limit). Some issues are general disregard for speed limits - traffic regularly doing 40-50mph in 30mph zones (on one street even though there's a primary school, so they also ignore the "20mph when lights flash" zone), which raises issues about enforcement (which is something that's a cost to councils, whether installing physical infrastructure like speed humps or narrowing the road, or cameras - and, note that the Conservative proposals would restrict options for councils to install speed and other cameras with number plate recognition that can be used to issue tickets to people who are speeding or otherwise driving dangerously). And, issues with parking - especially when people park there who aren't residents or visiting residents, including parents dropping off or collecting children from school, commuters wanting to avoid car park charges.
The Conservatives seem to be taking sides in an already uneven contest between people in big metal boxes who are currently free to do almost what they want, and people who want to have streets they can use to walk or cycle, where children can play (or, just hang out with pals on the corner all looking at their phones), and air that they can breath. No regard in their proposals for the third of households who don't even own a car, and the many more who would prefer to have the option to drive less but feel they don't have the choice because streets are too dangerous and polluted.
Yep, neither blanket nor a ban. Par for the course for "seven bins" Sunak.
Thank you @Alan Cresswell for clearly demonstrating that if there's a war on the roads it is waged by a certain group of drivers, and not on them.
Quite; and the same thing applies to the latter part of what Marvin quoted above:
"Look, it’s not alone – a Labour mayor in London imposing the Ulez charge, £12.50 on ordinary families when they’re just trying to get their kids to school, take them to football practice, go weekly shopping or, you know, get to work."
Except 84% of cars in London meet the requirements set by the ULEZ .. so wait that's 16% of the poorest Londoners who drive cars that would be penalised? Well, no, because 54% of London households have cars, and that leaves 46% who don't - who will disproportionately be the poorest 'ordinary families' who need to 'take their kids to school' and 'get to work'. Londoners like pollution as much as anyone else, which is why the ULEZ is generally popular.
Once you get to leafier suburbs like .. Uxbridge, the number of disqualified cars will be in hundreds, and the numbers driven into the ULEZ even lower.
[and a wooden spoon to Labour HQ who turned a massive swing in their favour in a seat they were unlikely to win into a factional attack on a mayor from their own party who they don't like]
If one in ten car drivers swap their cars for other modes of transport the other nine in ten car drivers benefit. Possibly some of them benefit more from the other cars being off the road than they suffer from the restrictions that incentivised those other cars to leave the roads.
Lack of imagination. There is a solid cohort who wouldn't dream of doing anything other than driving, looks down on anyone who does, and sees building more roads and designing everything around driving as the only solution.
I'm not even sure what their problem is with Centrist Khan. Does having a Muslim mayor hurt their image with flag shaggers? Or is it simply that he's more courageous than Starmer and make him look bad by comparison?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/30/far-right-figures-praise-bravermans-migration-comments-and-vow-to-capitalise-on-her-intervention
Nasty, and very scary. The fascists are lying in wait...
It's a pity Wishy-Washy Sushi can't find the balls to deal with her as she deserves, instead of pandering to the petrolheads.
I think some of it is Islamophobia but the larger factor is that he’s just not part of their group and they are very suspicious of alternate centres of power.
Bloody hell. When you're got Britain First cheering you on you really need to take stock...
Bloody hell, indeed. Good ol'Enoch* would be pleased...
(*NOT the Shipmate of that name, I hasten to add...)
And he's hardly a Christian Socialist firebrand. Except by comparison with her of course. But that would also qualify Ian Paisley...
I think I saw somewhere that she may be interviewed on GBNews (The Source Of All Truth™) by none other than Thirty-Pee Lee Anderson.
"Unfortunately" is doing some heavy lifting there.
I hardly think Lee "Bully Beef" Anderson has either the inclination or the wit to actually question Cruella's manifold sins, iniquities or cruelties as he's no better himself.
My thoughts exactly. Pot and Kettle?
@Telford - presumably you watched the *show*. What did you think of it, and what was said by the two involved? Do share - you never know, we might be edified.
I always enjoy watching Lee Anderson's Real World. I don't recall the details. It was nothing new.
I wouldn't have him on my telly voluntarily on principle. The man is obnoxious. I live in the neighbouring constituency and I've seen how how he speaks on social media to people who raise issues with him he doesn't care for. He's missing his calling as the far right pub bore being humoured by everyone else and mistakenly thinking they secretly agree with him.
Toxic. Fortunately almost certainly out at the next GE.
Perhaps that's why he is exploring other jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/30/rwanda-ambassador-suella-braverman-absolutely-wrong-on-immigration
Come on, Sushi. Give her the boot...and yes, I know - she'll probably go off and join Britain First, and make their lives a misery.
Given the venues she's been speaking at (the anti-immigrant one was delivered to the AEI), I suspect she might be feeling out working in the right wing think tank scene for a bit.