That's what you get by voting tories in. We have done a fair amount in mitigation in Scotland, but Westminster and the England dominance of the ‘voluntary’ union continues to hold us back. The removal and squandering of Scottish/UK resources for ideological reasons did not help either.
'However, figures published this week show injuries on the roads fell by a third in the final quarter of last year compared to the same period a year earlier. After a review, the Welsh government agreed to more 30mph exemptions but insisted that most roads should remain at 20mph.’
The hysteria about 20mph was just that - rabble rousing based on no attention to the details. That included Times reporting.
I should add that for 5 months of the year we live in the Scottish Borders (migrate north during the winter for reasons). We have had 20mph limits on most roads in towns and village for some years - actually a Conservative policy, supported by most - and it has made a noticeable difference to traffic and pedestrians during that time.
“Some people might not mind parties processing their data in this manner, but many people are uncomfortable with political parties building profiles about them. ORG’s tool helps the public take back some control over their data.”
Good. Labour has finally dropped a case against five former Corbyn-era aides, accused by Starmer and his supporters of leaking hundreds of embarrassing (and in some cases racist) WhatsApp messages from Labour staff hostile to Corbyn.
It's reported to have cost the party an unconscionable £1.5m over the last four years, not to mention the stress to the five accused.
There was never a case: it was pure vindictiveness.
"... it felt a little bit to me like a cross between a political program and a bit of a game show. The "raise your hands" and all that stuff. I just wanted something a bit more serious I think."
You know what would be more useful during an election than a Presidential-style debate, where the leaders of the two dominant parties spew talking points at each other?
Well anything really. We need those like a fish needs a bicycle.
But I'm thinking a whole debate on each policy area; housing, social wellbeing, corrections, etc. Between the current minister and opposition spokespeople for that portfolio.
If we are to have a leaders debate, the people running it ought to be obligated by election law to include more than the 2 largest parties. Otherwise the news media end up effectively campaigning for those 2 parties, by giving them disproportionate coverage.
What about any party that got over 3% in the previous election gets a leader into anything billed as a leaders debate? For the same reason that all parties get a broadcast allowance based on their vote at the last election.
Wait, now the Tories work out that you don't win elections by pandering to your own extreme wing? Reform are doing well not because anybody likes them but because the Tories have demonstrated themselves to be so fundamentally unserious about governing that those Tory voters who can't stand Labour have nowhere else to go.
So it’s almost official we are stuffed. Obviously living outside our means. Both the ruling parties have told us so.
But only those if means were constrained by selling of public assets overseas, leasing them back at a premium, running down public services to force their privatisation, siphoning monies off to cronies, and…