New Diesel & Petrol Ban

[John Brown]

Hmmm. Have we all forgotten Boris and Baron David Brownlow? I believe Boris claimed he'd paid for the Downing Street redecorating himself at the time.

 

[Chris152]

So are you content that the leader of our government should be accepting freebies the value of which, if he had carried on at the reported rate, could well have exceeded his salary as PM?
If the rules allow this then in my view they certainly shouldn't.
And the idea that these gifts are invariably purely altruistic on the part of the donors seems a little naive.

Not very comfortable with it, but I do find it very amusing that so many conservative voters have suddenly developed a very sensitive moral compass. Here's Nadine getting her nickers in a bit of a twist:
https://www.thepoke.com/2024/10/03/...8pT_IGOPBvYLH13BOg_aem_lp4VhBPlCIZfFM29-kgp7A

 

[John Brown]

Not very comfortable with it, but I do find it very amusing that so many conservative voters have suddenly developed a very sensitive moral compass. Here's Nadine getting her nickers in a bit of a twist:
https://www.thepoke.com/2024/10/03/...8pT_IGOPBvYLH13BOg_aem_lp4VhBPlCIZfFM29-kgp7A

I, too, find the mock outrage and sanctimonious self-righteousness amusing.
I just hope this thread doesn't get shut down before the novelty wears off.

 

[SammyQ]

They are next to the Radisson hotel and Lloyds Bank Building on Cromac Place.

Yes. The gasworks site was still there when I came to Belfast in 1981, but was being wound down as Belfast no longer had mains gas. I am not sure if the gasometers were even still intact at that point. The site was subsequently "developed" (haugh- tho!!) into a business hub (appalling neologism), call centre, hotel, etcetera. The only redeeming fact about the makeover was that ITV House was on the other side of the Ormeau Road and you could sometimes spot the "good and the great" going to their cars in the park at the side.

 

[Yorkieguy]

So what was incorrect? Long after we stopped using town gas the holders if you prefer were in use as local storage at much lower pressure than the high pressure grid creating a demand buffer. After the 1993 attacks they were identified as a high risk target in the same way as stored potable water still is, I believe the final decision to remove them was taken in 1999 although it was not a quick process.

When gas was made locally from coal, it was stored in the gasholders, and distributed around the local distribution system at low pressure, but North Sea Gas changed how the National Transmission System developed. Gas was no longer produced locally, but needed to be transmitted over long distances, and pipelines were built from Easington (1967), Bacton (1968), Theddlethorpe (1972), St. Fergus (1977), Teesside (1993) and the Morecombe Bay gas field at Barrow (1985), integrating into the nationwide NTS. Compressors were built to push gas through the transmission pipelines under high pressure. This is the ‘motorway network’ for gas, transporting gas at up to 94 bar (1,363 PSI) pressure. (A fully inflated car tyre is about 2 bar). It’s made up of steel pipelines, and gas turbines and electric turbines at compressor stations push the gas around the network.

The gas then enters the low pressure distribution system, now known as the UK Gas Distribution Network (GDN) that runs the regional gas distribution networks that connect to the national gas transmission system operated by the NTS. The GDN reduces the pressure for domestic, commercial and industrial customers (through the yellow high density polyethylene these days, which have replaced cast iron pipes since the 70)s.

National Gas steps is System Operator as the ‘residual balancer’ of the network. Each day, the National Control Centre monitors the NTS linepack (the amount of gas stored in transmission pipes) and can take action to keep the balance of supply and demand within acceptable limit.

I would certainly concede that a lot of gasholders we're decommissioned well into the 90s, long after they were not needed. (I think may have listed status). they were extremely expensive to demolish, and all of the buildings and pipework too. Gasworks covered large area of land, which become contaminated with tar and all sorts of other substances. The gasholders in Hull were still in situ in the early 90s, but were not in use. The gasworks had been there since 1823, and in the ensuing years, no thought was given to environmental concerns.

https://www.nationalgas.com/about-us/history-gas-industry

https://powercompare.co.uk/blog/gas-distribution-networks/#:~:text=The UK gas distribution network,businesses, and industrial gas users

I don't know what the IRA thought would happen if they attached a bomb to a gasholder. Maybe they thought it would 'blow up'. The gas would burn, but it wouldn't explode. They could have done things in remote locations which would have been far more devastating, with little chance of detection, but let's not go there.

The NTS is largely owned these days by the Aussies - Macquarie Asset Management.

What was my British Gas pension has been via Centrica, Transco, Lattice, and now National Grid:

https://nguk.pensions.nationalgrid.com/national-gas-transmission-ngt-an-update-on-the-sponsoring-employer-of-section-b#:~:text=On 20 July 2023, National,ownership to 80% of NGT

No wonder the dropped 'British'.

Pension still arrives, so I'll throw another prawn on the barbie!

 

[Jake]

I believe the initial post you responded to from @Spectric referred to an interview seen that suggested a more effective method of managing a multicultural society was that of authoritarianism giving the Balkans as an example. He then went on the imply that we in the UK may expect more authoritarian policies in the future to maintain order here. I may be wrong, but it did not to me read like he is a proponent for this.

Precisely. He was repeating something from a probably propaganda source (note he refused to identify the person) which was seeking to promote (true) authoritarianism by exploiting racial division. Spectric was not saying that he was promoting it or agreed with it, but at the same time he was regurgitating and spreading it while saying it would be wrong not to have an open mind to it. No. Really no need for an open mind to fascist propaganda *****. That's a really basic 'just asking questions' approach to promoting poisonous ideas (cf Joe Rogan etc).

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

So are you content that the leader of our government should be accepting freebies the value of which, if he had carried on at the reported rate, could well have exceeded his salary as PM?
If the rules allow this then in my view they certainly shouldn't.
And the idea that these gifts are invariably purely altruistic on the part of the donors seems a little naive.
If nothing else it shows that he, and others have appallingly bad judgement.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why any politician, from any party, should be involved in this sort of thing.

My first question would be: how do you know about Starmer accepting gifts?
Second would be: what is your understanding of when these gifts were accepted and over what time frame?
If you can answer those without reference to any source of "info" then we can delve into your viewpoint a bit further.

 

[woodieallen]

I saw this Recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-boom-may-be-ending-amid-slowdown-in-permits

“Coal plants are struggling economically, according to David Fishman, a senior manager at the Lantau Group, an energy consultancy in Shanghai. He said it was no longer profitable in the long term to build coal power plants in China.”

Profitable for whom, I wonder? His consultancy ?

 

[woodieallen]

My first question would be: how do you know about Starmer accepting gifts?
Second would be: what is your understanding of when these gifts were accepted and over what time frame?
If you can answer those without reference to any source of "info" then we can delve into your viewpoint a bit further.

First question......newspapers ? TV news ?

Second...irrelevant now as he's giving a load of money back.. His nose is in the trough as are the rest of them - both Labour and Tory

 

[selectortone]

I saw this Recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-boom-may-be-ending-amid-slowdown-in-permits

“Coal plants are struggling economically, according to David Fishman, a senior manager at the Lantau Group, an energy consultancy in Shanghai. He said it was no longer profitable in the long term to build coal power plants in China.”

Not good news for Australia. Their biggest export is coal, closely followed by iron ore, with the lion's share of both going to China. When I was there on business back in the 90s I saw vast open-cast mines where massive drag-line excavators the size of bungalows were shoveling up mind-boggling quantities of coal destined for China. Miles long trainfulls every few hours. I've never seen such a huge operation. I hope they have a strategy to replace all that revenue.

 

[Fergie 307]

Hmmm. Have we all forgotten Boris and Baron David Brownlow? I believe Boris claimed he'd paid for the Downing Street redecorating himself at the time.

Not in the slightest, many disgraceful examples by the Tories.
I had hoped we might see something better.
Unfortunately the current mob seem to have no more qualms about getting their noses in the trough than their predecessors.
High time all gratuities were banned, what possible justification is there for them?

 

[Lons]

Not in the slightest, many disgraceful examples by the Tories.
I had hoped we might see something better.
Unfortunately the current mob seem to have no more qualms about getting their noses in the trough than their predecessors.
High time all gratuities were banned, what possible justification is there for them?

They've all done it and I doubt anyone conservative or otherwise could honestly say different however it's the hypocritic attitude of Starmer, Reeves and Rayner especially who have spent years screaming about Tory sleaze and corruption saying they are different, honest and transparent. Pull the other one, they're as transparent as 100% opaque glass and just as much on the take as their predecessors

 

[Fergie 307]

To be fair they are a long way off reaching the sleaze level of the Tories, Michelle Mone springs to mind.

But they have also badly let down those who had hoped they would set a better example.

Great opportunity as an incoming government with a massive majority to simply ban these practices outright.
I really cannot see any justification for them.

More worrying is the fact that we have senior figures in government who have so little common sense that they can make such stupid decisions.

Did we see the back of such buffoons as Truss and Johnson, to replace them with more clueless idiots, just flying a red rather than a blue flag?

Hopefully not, but the early signs are not promising.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

First question......newspapers ? TV news ?

Second...irrelevant now as he's giving a load of money back.. His nose is in the trough as are the rest of them - both Labour and Tory

Nope,

and Nope.

It's really important to get the fact straight if they are to be the basis of one's viewpoint.

Firstly, you only know about this because he entered everything into the record of interests. All of it was within the rules. There is categorically no evidence or implication of wrongdoing or "corruption". No "investigative journalism" was performed, or even possible, because nothing at all that you have seen (secondhand, with spin attached) was outside of the public record. Digging has of course been going on, but nothing at all has been uncovered, otherwise we'd definitely all know about it (and I'd be first in line to condemn Starmer).

Corruption would be where, for instance:

An MP deliberately avoided entering gifts into the register.
Failed to respond about where gifts had been accepted when questioned. (And further doubled down by insisting that they no longer had access to that info because they'd lost their phone, changed their phone, etc and didn't retain messages,,,)
Accepted a gift on a direct promise of acting on the donor's financial interests, or worse, acting *illegally* in the direct financial interest of the donor,
etc...

None of what has happened with Starmer (and this connects with the second question nicely) has had any impropriety attached.

MPs accept gifts. Whether you like that or not is a different discussion altogether.

So we can categorically refute your claim of any corruption.

Secondly, the timescale in question was over the period of the last 4 years. WHEN LABOUR WERE IN OPPOSITION.
Two things can be deduced from this.
It reinforces the point that no corruption would even be possible. Labour were not in power and Starmer had no control over policy or funding decisions. I think we can safely doubly put the claim of corruption to bed.
Also your second claim about "doubling salary" or whatever you said, is rendered entirely untrue. It was over 4 years. Before entering government.


I suspect that the basis of your viewpoint is not founded upon the facts and evidence outlined above, but rather something else (and possibly pre-existing bias?).

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Not in the slightest, many disgraceful examples by the Tories.
I had hoped we might see something better.
Unfortunately the current mob seem to have no more qualms about getting their noses in the trough than their predecessors.
High time all gratuities were banned, what possible justification is there for them?

The gifts thing is an entirely different conversation to the term "hoped we might see something better".

Following the rules = better.
Not following the rules = what happened before.

 

[Lons]

Back to the original thread heading "diesel and petrol ban.
Watching the news this morning it seems that car manufacturers are likely not to meet targets because sales of new diesel cars are outstripping those of new EVs who would have thought.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Back to the original thread heading "diesel and petrol ban.
Watching the news this morning it seems that car manufacturers are likely not to meet targets because sales of new diesel cars are outstripping those of new EVs who would have thought.

I haven't seen the numbers, did the news article say whether EV sales were down from previous with a recent increase in diesel sales, or is it just that diesel sales have kept steady and EVs, although still increasing in sales just haven't caught up with diesel yet?

 

[Lons]

I haven't seen the numbers, did the news article say whether EV sales were down from previous with a recent increase in diesel sales, or is it just that diesel sales have kept steady and EVs, although still increasing in sales just haven't caught up with diesel yet?

It was BBC news so should be on catch up, I only caught part of it but think it was EVs down despite subsidies though haven't had time to research so don't know as always what's accurate.
If it's true then of course with RFL and luxury car tax coming into force in April that will almost certainly affect sales you would think.

 

[Yorkieguy]

They've all done it and I doubt anyone conservative or otherwise could honestly say different however it's the hypocritic attitude of Starmer, Reeves and Rayner especially who have spent years screaming about Tory sleaze and corruption saying they are different, honest and transparent. Pull the other one, they're as transparent as 100% opaque glass and just as much on the take as their predecessors

Spot on.

First point to not loose sight of, is that in opposition, Starmer et al, quite rightly, exposed shocking examples of Tories accepting largesse from any quarters, (notwithstanding Blair, Ecclestone and attempts to continue tobacco sponsorship of F1 to get around tobacco advertising being banned on TV). The Michelle Mone PPE malarkey contract when recognised major UK suppliers of PPE were not invited to tender.

Starmer was especially sanctimonious, and a major platform of his pitch in the General Election was:

'We're not like them - our mission will be to clean up politics. No more cash for questions, no more private jets, we'll bring trust into politics. A fresh start - we have a fully costed and fully funded manifesto, we'll bring stability' and so on". As far as I was concerned, the Tories lost my vote during lockdown, with 'partygate', a draconian lockdown, the Dominic Cummings Barnard Castle 'eyesight test drive, and so on. The Tories were (still are) in a state of disarray, and as the local Labour candidate was Dame Dianna Johnson and the Tory candidate someone I'd never heard of, I voted for her. (Certainly not for Starmer).

So saying the the 'Tories were a lot worse' is irrelevant. That's why they were turfed out. Two wrongs don't make a right.

About the 'freebies':

It's been said that 'they'd been declared and were within the rules'. But it's clear there was deceit, as some payment were disguised as funding for the private office etc. If there was no intent to deceive, why was it not stated as 'money for frocks, suits, ties and spectacles? and £40k for suits - how many does he need, he's the PM for goodness sakes - not a fashion icon. The bleaker they say the country's finances are (22bn black hole), the more inappropriate it is for MPs to feel 'entitled'. Starmer says 'well have to tighten our belts', when the belt holding his trousers up will be an Armani hand-tooled finest leather and he's staring at the camera through freebie designer specs.

It's been said time and again, that there's no 'quid pro quo' and the donors get nothing in return. Really???

When you look at who the donors are, MPs seem utterly naïve to the fact that they're being 'groomed' by vested interests.

For example there is deep concern about gambling addiction, which ruins the lives of people who are often impoverished, run up debts, embezzle money from employers to feed their addiction, ruin their own lives and those of loved ones, and sadly sometimes commit suicide. There is pressure to curtain/eliminate TV advertising, and to control internet gambling.

So here's a list (not exhaustive), of donations from the gambling industry to key MPs. Sure, we can say 'well it's not corruption', but it's clearly done by the gambling industry to create influence, or why would they do it - they're not a charity for cash-strapped MPs?:

Chancellor Rachel Reeves accepted three tickets to a musical last year from the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), alongside £20,000 in donations from betting firm bosses to fund her 'private office', before the election.

Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, accepted a £3,457 ticket and matchday hospitality from Entain, the company behind Ladbrokes and Sportingbet, for the England v Denmark European Championship semi-final at Wembley in July 2021.

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh took £1,421 worth of gifts, including tickets for the 2022 League One final between Sheffield Wednesday and Barnsley from the BGC.

Wes Streeting, Health Secretary, took a free dinner ticket work £700 from Allwyn, the National Lottery operator owned by the Czech billionaire Karel Komarek.

During his leadership campaign, Starmer received £25,000 from Peter Coates, chair of Bet365.

Labour has also money from Richard Flint, the former chief executive of Sky Bet and from Lord Mendelsohn, whose firm Red Capital Limited is linked to the gambling sector.

Former prime minister Tony Blair enjoyed a cosy relationship with the sector by liberalising betting rules allowing the industry to flourish.

The BGC is chaired by former Labour MP and Blair-era minister Michael Dugher and employed the former Labour MP Anna Turley as a consultant. It sponsored the Daily Mirror party at Labour conference in 2022 and hosted the new gambling minister, Baroness Twycross, at the Grosvenor Casino in Liverpool during the Labour conference last month.

Tom Watson, a peer and the party’s former deputy leader, has been a paid adviser to the world’s largest listed gambling company, the PaddyPower owner Flutter Entertainment, since 2020.

Graham Stuart, former Conservative gambling minister, and Alex Davies-Jones, the former shadow minister, accepted £444 tickets to the Ivor Novello awards by the BGC before they took up roles overseeing gambling policy.

And former Tory MP Scott Benton was forced to resign his seat when he was caught in a sting offering to table parliamentary questions, leak a confidential policy document and lobby ministers in exchange for payment from gambling industry investors.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24624306.labour-took-1m-donations-gifts-gambling-firms/

No 'quid pro quo'???????

And keep in mind, this is about the supposedly squeaky clean 'Son of a toolmaker' who was elected on a platform of getting rid of 'Tory sleaze'. Now he's given £6k back, so what about all of the others - he's put them in a bit of a bind? What with this, the pensioners' winter fuel allowance, and private school VAT, when I think of Starmer, 'Humty Dumpy' comes to mind: "He fell of a wall (or a high horse in Starmer's case), had a great fall, and cannot be put back together again".

Nothing he says or does will make it better, but it will plague him for the rest of his time in office, however long or short that may be.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

It was BBC news so should be on catch up, I only caught part of it but think it was EVs down despite subsidies though haven't had time to research so don't know as always what's accurate.
If it's true then of course with RFL and luxury car tax coming into force in April that will almost certainly affect sales you would think.

Thanks

Just did a bit of rudimentary searching. Of course the main source of today's "news" on EV and diesel cars is the Telegraph, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt...

What I've quickly deduced is that it is a very very muddy situation, with regular fluctuations month by month over the past 18 months. One month up, one month down.
The overall trend appears to be that total new car sales is significantly down, while currently the used car market is now very buoyant.

I think you are right about RFL and luxury car tax being a huge factor - particularly in light of an overall falling new sales market.

One more thing that I think is a huge factor is that the "early adopters" have already changed over, and for those people and families where EVs suit their lifestyle (eg. not everyone has access to the possibility of home charging), they have probably already changed over.
The rest of us remaining probably fall into two camps - one camp who do have potential home charging (have their own driveway) waiting until the charging network improves and the other waiting until they are absolutely forced into a position of taking on a vehicle that will never, ever suit their needs.

A mate of mine works as a driver and has related about their new fangled electric luton van. It has such a poxy net weight carrying capacity that it is debatable whether it is even suitable as a luton van. Shared platform with diesel luton van. Same gross weight capacity. Far greater empty weight. Who needs a big van that is only capable of carrying a light load. As a graduate of engineering this just weirds me out!