LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

kingstongraham

Funniest of all possible results is the Tories only retaining the seat where Johnson stormed off in a huff because he assumed it couldn't be won.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Why are they not turbo charging the QT?

I would like to know.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Funniest of all possible results is the Tories only retaining the seat where Johnson stormed off in a huff because he assumed it couldn't be won.

And by campaigning against one of his mayoral achievements.

Obviously this is the acceptable kind of hypocrisy 😆

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

Weird how the only place they scraped a win last night is where they were campaigning against their own policies.

Labour campaigning against their own mayor was a weird one.

Only needed a few more of the green votes.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Anyone not interested in the fact that for years QE did nothing but as soon as the government got spenny and stopped austerity, inflation flew up?

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

As I said above, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of the candidate himself or the national performance of the Tories if, by his own admission, he scraped in on a recount as a result of a local issue that isn't anything to do with Parliament.

rjsterry

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

As I said above, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of the candidate himself or the national performance of the Tories if, by his own admission, he scraped in on a recount as a result of a local issue that isn't anything to do with Parliament.

It's actually a policy enforced by the Transport Secretary as part of the funding agreement for TfL.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Anyone not interested in the fact that for years QE did nothing but as soon as the government got spenny and stopped austerity, inflation flew up?

Not really keen to redo an old argument.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Anyone not interested in the fact that for years QE did nothing but as soon as the government got spenny and stopped austerity, inflation flew up?

My understanding is that the post-GFC QE was used to ease blocks on bank balance sheets to enable them to lend. This "free money" essentially stayed within the financial system and promoted asset inflation.

The more recent stuff was effectively used to pay furloughs etc. and this "free money" was let loose in the general economy, fuelling core inflation.

veronese68

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

super_davo

I think it was this thread where we were discussing pensions LTA and how the Tories plans would save Stevo loads of money.

Well now they have published more details, and TISA are up in arms. To quote:

"The LTA "has gone only in name and is being replaced with a ‘permitted maximum’ limit.

Lump sums which exceed this limit will now be subject to marginal rate tax rather than a lifetime allowance charge, however this is not going to impact the majority of savers whose pensions fall well below that limit.

However, what is really disappointing in this draft legislation is that the abolition of the LTA will now impact smaller pension pots – pots and individuals which were never previously caught by the LTA."

Fantasticly on brand. Tax cut that isn't really a cut, and will result in rises for poorer people.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Anyone not interested in the fact that for years QE did nothing but as soon as the government got spenny and stopped austerity, inflation flew up?

Not really keen to redo an old argument.

It's really hard to have the discussion when we just assume QE is inflationary, which I don't think is proven at all.

Pross

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Shouldn't affect the mayoral elections should it? A lot of London was already in the ULEZ so those people are probably of the view that why shouldn't others pay if they have to.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

surrey_commuter said:

1. I would agree that interest rate setters (politicians and civil servants) would benefit from greater exposure to the real world but that is not to be found on Twitter.

2. I also think you would be surprised at how many data points they study as what they need are leading indicators.

Re 1, fair point to an extent, but there are some interesting themes on Twitter if one is prepared to keep an open mind.

RE 2, maybe, but the organisations like the BoE and obviously politicians (who one assumes have access to the best information that the "organs of the state" can gather) seem hopelessly out of touch a lot of the time, so one wonders how much "out of the box" thinking the BoE etc. actually do undertake.

I am not sure you want or need "out of the box thinking" when setting base rate.

Actually you do. You should never make any key decision without having considered the seemingly "daft" questions. Without considering them you cannot have any confidence that the question concerned does not raise a serious issue. By only thinking within the box, you are automatically constraining your answer to a limited number of acceptable outcomes.

You make the point yourself re the Brexit credentials of any aspiring BoE applicant.

Failing to consider the seemingly daft questions is "Groupthink" by another name.

They have a very limited mandate and a very limited number of tools so what questions should they have been asking?

Two years ago, there should have been more thought given as to whether the rise in inflation at that time really was just "transitory". There was a lot of chat in social media at the time questioning this conclusion. Maybe they just made the wrong judgement call.

But my comment was more aimed at politicians etc. in general, who seem to surround themselves with "yes men" and actively avoid considering scenarios that might result in them having to question their beliefs and / or prior judgement.

I suspect our biggest disagreement is over the importance of social media.

Two years ago the Govt was doing colossal QE to help the economy. Very few agreed with me that they were merely funding day to day Govt borrowing. For the BofE to have raised rates at the same time would have been very controversial and probably resulted in them losing their independence.

They could have done less QE. They could do QT instead of interest rate rises.

Anyone not interested in the fact that for years QE did nothing but as soon as the government got spenny and stopped austerity, inflation flew up?

Not really keen to redo an old argument.

It's really hard to have the discussion when we just assume QE is inflationary, which I don't think is proven at all.

I created an entire thread for that discussion.

TheBigBean

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

I think Corbyn is more likely to win than the Tory candidate.

carbonclem

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

You'd think if it was such a big concern the Greens would have lent the vote that would have seen it endorsed.

veronese68

Pross said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Shouldn't affect the mayoral elections should it? A lot of London was already in the ULEZ so those people are probably of the view that why shouldn't others pay if they have to.

I think you and Bean are probably right, my bubble of being in outer London and the motor trade probably means I hear a lot more of the anti ULEZ stuff than is warranted.

briantrumpet

carbonclem said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

You'd think if it was such a big concern the Greens would have lent the vote that would have seen it endorsed.

I think they are like the Corbynistas, in that they'd rather stick to their guns and see Tories win than admit that messy compromise is better than nothing. It would be easier to argue not compromising under PR, but under FPTP, unbending principles too often lead to the polar opposite of what you stand for.

Jezyboy

Turnout for Uxbridge was pretty measley.

rjsterry

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Shouldn't affect the mayoral elections should it? A lot of London was already in the ULEZ so those people are probably of the view that why shouldn't others pay if they have to.

I think you and Bean are probably right, my bubble of being in outer London and the motor trade probably means I hear a lot more of the anti ULEZ stuff than is warranted.

Well this is awkward. DfT required Khan to bring forward the expansion of the ULEZ as part of the deal to keep afloat TfL during the lockdowns



No doubt someone's hypocrisy klaxon will be going off.

Jezyboy

I don't get why Khan doesn't make more of an effort to pin ULEZ on the Tories.

veronese68

I know ULEZ was originally brought in when Boris was mayor and is being pushed by central government. But the Tory candidates saying they'll stop the expansion is complete nonsense, I don't believe it for a moment. I think any party that gets in would let it carry on, it's inevitable.
As Jezyboy says Khan really should highlight how much this is being pushed by the Tories. Problem is saying he agrees with the expansion and they are pushing it is admitting he agrees with them on something.

Stevo_666

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Maybe not all ULEZ but mostly I reckon. And a timely poke in the eye for Citizen Khan and his anti car policies. Even Angela Rayner has come out against it.

If the Tories ditch a few green policies before the next GE, who knows what could happen?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Shouldn't affect the mayoral elections should it? A lot of London was already in the ULEZ so those people are probably of the view that why shouldn't others pay if they have to.

I think you and Bean are probably right, my bubble of being in outer London and the motor trade probably means I hear a lot more of the anti ULEZ stuff than is warranted.

Well this is awkward. DfT required Khan to bring forward the expansion of the ULEZ as part of the deal to keep afloat TfL during the lockdowns



No doubt someone's hypocrisy klaxon will be going off.

If Khan and Labour bear the brunt, who cares?

wallace_and_gromit

Stevo_666 said:

If the Tories ditch a few green policies before the next GE, who knows what could happen?

The planet will spontaneously combust at the first sign of weakness re green issues. Caroline Lucas says so - not in so many words - on Twitter.

Stevo_666

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

If the Tories ditch a few green policies before the next GE, who knows what could happen?

The planet will spontaneously combust at the first sign of weakness re green issues. Caroline Lucas says so - not in so many words - on Twitter.

More like a few green party members will. Win-win.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

If the Tories ditch a few green policies before the next GE, who knows what could happen?

The planet will spontaneously combust at the first sign of weakness re green issues. Caroline Lucas says so - not in so many words - on Twitter.

More like a few green party members will. Win-win.

Genuinely, are you not concerned about climate change?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

Stevo_666 said:

If the Tories ditch a few green policies before the next GE, who knows what could happen?

The planet will spontaneously combust at the first sign of weakness re green issues. Caroline Lucas says so - not in so many words - on Twitter.

More like a few green party members will. Win-win.

Genuinely, are you not concerned about climate change?

I have a sense of perspective on this, for example that charging poor people £12.50 a day to drive in Greater London won't save the planet. Nor will punishing ourselves by banning ICE cars 5 years before most of the rest of Europe and before we have got the required charging infrastructure. And compared to US and China we are p1$$ing in wind on the whole thing.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

veronese68 said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Looks like it's ULEZ wot won it for the Tories in Uxbridge.

Looks like it, but that won't be much comfort for a GE. And the narrowness of the victory might give those who voted for the Libdem candidate pause for thought: a few more tactical get-the-Tories-out votes would have swung it.

A win's a win. Although not sure that if ULEZ was the issue it would have pushed people to vote for a bunch of anti-car tree huggers like the Lib Dems.

I'm not convinced it was all ULEZ either. I suspect anti ULEZ feeling could lose Labour the mayor, if that does happen I reckon there's a good chance the Tory will carry on with it in spite of what's being said.

Shouldn't affect the mayoral elections should it? A lot of London was already in the ULEZ so those people are probably of the view that why shouldn't others pay if they have to.

I think you and Bean are probably right, my bubble of being in outer London and the motor trade probably means I hear a lot more of the anti ULEZ stuff than is warranted.

Well this is awkward. DfT required Khan to bring forward the expansion of the ULEZ as part of the deal to keep afloat TfL during the lockdowns



No doubt someone's hypocrisy klaxon will be going off.

If Khan and Labour bear the brunt, who cares?

Have you seen the Conservative candidate?

#noteventrying