Twitter under Musk....

[monkers]

Except he (and his sidekicks) felt they needed to make loads of commitments that almost certainly mean they can't address the needs of the country or at best mean the more vulnerable suffer whilst those is "broader shoulders" are not impacted as much. And they illustrated this fairly soon after getting power pretty well their 1st economic action taking the winter Fuel allowance from many who were already struggling.

And even having won they still seem to feel the need to make undertakings which mean they are even less able to resolve needs of the country should their initial plans not go 110% to plan.

(Sorry, going a bit off-topic now but for me Starmer is the disappointment of the decade even though I didn't vote for him).

Ian

People can't blame me, I vote Green. I think it important to make the case for them.

Starmer may appear to be a disappointment, and for me as a Greeny, he was always going to be.

We (the electorate) have lost a talent in this country. We used to have a keen eye on what politicians were perhaps not telling us. We'd remember that at election time. Now the electorate are focussed towards using our vote as an opportunity for voting against the interests of people the parties try to teach us to hate.

Apart from this structural damage and ongoing frictions to society that the 'woke agenda' generates, there is the hiding of what the government spends money on.

Brexit - not only was there not the windfall bonus that the then AG (Braverman promised) but there is no more talk of the money being paid for the divorce bill. Yes, we've forgotten all about that.

Other things they want us to forget is the student debt mountain that will prove impossible for those with them to pay off; and let's not forget nuclear waste - this is colossally expensive, yet we never talk about it. The bill for this last item is not paid by the energy companies, or their shareholders. It is paid to a contractor company, who have shareholders to make profits from at the taxpayers expense.

The Greens were always against nuclear for a number of reasons, mostly all concerned with security and safety, but also to do with costs. There is too much to say about this, and of course it would be off-topic. Nutshell version, if we end nuclear energy production today, we will be paying for it for a dozen decades.

Last year the NDA estimates rose to £131bn, and its latest annual report said £149bn was needed to pay for the clear up. But Thomas said rising costs meant the total bill was on track to reach £260bn.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/uk-nuclear-waste-cleanup-decommissioning-power-stations#:~:text=In 2005, the cost for,pay for the clear up.

 

[icowden]

These numbers don't show Corbyn as unelectable. It shows that old folk are more reliable in turning out to vote than younger folk.

But the numbers aren't the only factor. In Corbyn vs May, people voted *for* May. Same with Johnson (unbelievably). Both of those were seen as being a better choice than Corbyn. In the 2024 election people voted *against* Sunak having seen how badly the Tory party had mismanaged everything - and added to which the Tory party split into Tories and Reform which devastated their usual majorities.

To be honest I'd love the Greens to have a chance at Government, or the Lib Dems. Anything but the same old boring two. At least PR would mean coalitions having to work together and probably therefore making better policy.

 

[monkers]

But the numbers aren't the only factor. In Corbyn vs May, people voted *for* May. Same with Johnson (unbelievably). Both of those were seen as being a better choice than Corbyn. In the 2024 election people voted *against* Sunak having seen how badly the Tory party had mismanaged everything - and added to which the Tory party split into Tories and Reform which devastated their usual majorities.

To be honest I'd love the Greens to have a chance at Government, or the Lib Dems. Anything but the same old boring two. At least PR would mean coalitions having to work together and probably therefore making better policy.

Thanks for the reply.

I'd love to agree, but I can't get past noticing the subject views (and I don't mean just your own) being piled on top of numbers that can't fully justify those views.

When the second candidate is a close runner up, is it a valid subjective view that 'they were unelectable'? For me, it isn't.

 

[Rusty Nails]

It is.

A thing to note is that the GPEW are a bottom up grassroots party where all policy is made only by ordinary members voting at conference. Consequently, they are a party where their position on the political compass hardly changes, whereas others, especially Labour can be seen to move about. The shift from Corbyn where Labour were further left than Green to where they are now under Starmer is remarkable given the short space of time.

At the moment, and given their size, that is true. My cynical/pragmatic view is that if or when they become a major party with the potential for government their membership will have a wider range of priorities than at present, their more powerful leaders will find conference inconvenient as a policy making mechanism and it will become as irrelevant for making real decisions as the Labs/Cons/Libs.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

That's not compulsory. It's a governmental choice.

Not brake dust. They use far less brake pad than an ICE car. Yes tyres are still a bit contentious but, as I keep having to point out - they are not *that* much heavier than their ICE counterparts. This is a false canard used by the ICE lobby.

30% a false canard? (source: https://ctr.utk.edu/electric-vehicl...ineering professor,hundreds of pounds or more. )

 

[icowden]

30% a false canard? (source: https://ctr.utk.edu/electric-vehicles-damage-roads/#:~:text=Civil and environmental engineering professor,hundreds of pounds or more. )

That article literally tells you that EV's don't really do any more damage to roads than ICE cars. It's the Lorries. So yes they are *up to* 30% heavier, which is heavier, but not by a lot, and the weight is distributed more as they tend to have bigger, wider tyres.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

That article literally tells you that EV's don't really do any more damage to roads than ICE cars. It's the Lorries. So yes they are *up to* 30% heavier, which is heavier, but not by a lot, and the weight is distributed more as they tend to have bigger, wider tyres.

Quote from that article ''Civil and environmental engineering professor Kevin Heaslip, director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Transportation Research, said EVs often weigh 30% more than gas-powered vehicles.'' so not *up to* but foten according to them at the time of said research.
If a road is made to carry 2000kg cars and the cars now weigh 2300kg due to them being electric, they are gonna do more damage how much wide tires influence this is i think very hard to measure as you would need an baseline and considering suv's etc. also have wider tires it doesn't say a lot. obviously lories do more damage, but they typcally don't drive the same residential road up and down. (like someone driving home does)

 

[monkers]

Quote from that article ''Civil and environmental engineering professor Kevin Heaslip, director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Transportation Research, said EVs often weigh 30% more than gas-powered vehicles.'' so not *up to* but foten according to them at the time of said research.
If a road is made to carry 2000kg cars and the cars now weigh 2300kg due to them being electric, they are gonna do more damage how much wide tires influence this is i think very hard to measure as you would need an baseline and considering suv's etc. also have wider tires it doesn't say a lot. obviously lories do more damage, but they typcally don't drive the same residential road up and down. (like someone driving home does)

You've ignored the wear from more instant torque acceleration. Tyre wear on EVs is about 25% higher due to this and other factors such as weight. Road wear is similarly increased.

 

[the snail]

Quote from that article ''Civil and environmental engineering professor Kevin Heaslip, director of the University of Tennessee’s Center for Transportation Research, said EVs often weigh 30% more than gas-powered vehicles.'' so not *up to* but foten according to them at the time of said research.
If a road is made to carry 2000kg cars and the cars now weigh 2300kg due to them being electric, they are gonna do more damage how much wide tires influence this is i think very hard to measure as you would need an baseline and considering suv's etc. also have wider tires it doesn't say a lot. obviously lories do more damage, but they typcally don't drive the same residential road up and down. (like someone driving home does)

I don't think there is a definitive answer, but a commonly quoted rule is that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, which means that a few hundred kg extra weight on a family car is irrelevant compared to the extra weight of a 44T truck. If you want to see the difference, look at the road surface in lane 1 of a motorway - you can see the ruts in the surface from HGV traffic.

 

[Ian H]

The fact remains that EVs as currently produced are not going to solve anything. Fewer cars and smaller cars would help.

 

[icowden]

Quote from that article ''

You seem to be missing this bit

Heavy trucks damage roads
Heaslip and professional engineer Mark Gottlieb, associate director of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Institute for Physical Infrastructure and Transportation, said heavy trucks cause the vast majority of damage on U.S. roadways.

“Load-related damage to pavement and bridges is caused almost exclusively by heavy trucks. The deterioration from a single large truck can easily be equal to that of thousands of autos,” Gottlieb said. “The contribution from autos and light trucks is insignificant. It makes no difference if they are EV or internal combustion.”

Just think of how much heavier, and how many more wheels, are on commercial trucks.

A semitruck with eight axles weighing 80,000 pounds does 2,500 times more road damage than a two-axled, 4,000-pound sedan, according to the American Institute of Physics.

It's not EVs that are the problem

 

[monkers]

You seem to be missing this bit

It's not EVs that are the problem

No it's people.

 

[AndyRM]

This is worth a read on what Musk has done to Twitter over the year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1elddq34p7o

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You've ignored the wear from more instant torque acceleration. Tyre wear on EVs is about 25% higher due to this and other factors such as weight. Road wear is similarly increased.

It was not my point to go list up all the factors think there are a few more and also anomalies with cause more wear to the road surface my point was more the stated claim that 30% extra wear due to EV was not a ''canard of the ICE Lobby'' . (summarized as i remembered please scroll back for the original quote)

I don't think there is a definitive answer, but a commonly quoted rule is that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, which means that a few hundred kg extra weight on a family car is irrelevant compared to the extra weight of a 44T truck. If you want to see the difference, look at the road surface in lane 1 of a motorway - you can see the ruts in the surface from HGV traffic.

Yes but that 44T truck won't visit apple tree lane. daily it's more likely directly from the supplier on the motorway to an distribution Centre. Sure if pete from apple tree lane orders some nice garden titles they might need to send in an truck, but wear by cars driving daily on said road clearly caused different kind of damage then a very heavy truck once or at the very least infrequently.

The fact remains that EVs as currently produced are not going to solve anything. Fewer cars and smaller cars would help.

Actually very bluntly stated, we(humanity) live too long and re-produce too much. But not being able to solve that yes smaller and primarily less cars would help and or different car utilization like for example in the Netherlands you almost never see crowds of cars in front of the school gates because everyone uses an bike. similar for most supermarket visits, don't think car ownership is that much lower, but car use is so much different as is size as the road tax system makes bigger cars much more expensive. (alltough EV's have shifted this a bit))

You seem to be missing this bit

It's not EVs that are the problem

I never claimed that, but calling the increase in weight and associated more road wear ''a canard of the ice lobby'' is simply not true, there are many other factors and in addition it is not fair to pretend EV cars are all happy-fun-joy and ignore their downsides the increased weight and harder to recycle batteries is an downside. No matter how many ICE lobbies you claim to blame for it.

 

[AndyRM]

It was not my point to go list up all the factors think there are a few more and also anomalies with cause more wear to the road surface my point was more the stated claim that 30% extra wear due to EV was not a ''canard of the ICE Lobby'' . (summarized as i remembered please scroll back for the original quote)

Yes but that 44T truck won't visit apple tree lane. daily it's more likely directly from the supplier on the motorway to an distribution Centre. Sure if pete from apple tree lane orders some nice garden titles they might need to send in an truck, but wear by cars driving daily on said road clearly caused different kind of damage then a very heavy truck once or at the very least infrequently.

Actually very bluntly stated, we(humanity) live too long and re-produce too much. But not being able to solve that yes smaller and primarily less cars would help and or different car utilization like for example in the Netherlands you almost never see crowds of cars in front of the school gates because everyone uses an bike. similar for most supermarket visits, don't think car ownership is that much lower, but car use is so much different as is size as the road tax system makes bigger cars much more expensive. (alltough EV's have shifted this a bit))

I never claimed that, but calling the increase in weight and associated more road wear ''a canard of the ice lobby'' is simply not true, there are many other factors and in addition it is not fair to pretend EV cars are all happy-fun-joy and ignore their downsides the increased weight and harder to recycle batteries is an downside. No matter how many ICE lobbies you claim to blame for it.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/climate-crisis-are-we-doing-enough.17/page-132