MP urges that cyclists should have registration plates – but the government’s answer is likely to remain the same

Just vice signalling. A touchstone for some of their "base" because "fairness" and accountability - for people we see as "not us" and an unloved stereotype.

Or maybe just something to chat about on the show?

Plus there's zero chance of it involving effort (political work, negotiation etc) or backfiring in practice as it's almost certainly never going to happen.

Is that because they want more people to die from heart disease 

In the case of Philip Davis MP. I think the answer is yes. He once talked for ages to defeat a bill that would have taught cardiiac massage to children in school (as practiced in other countries sucessfully).

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14095746.shipley-mp-philip-davies-defends-latest-filibustering-criticism-after-52-minute-speech-by-saying-it-takes-as-long-as-it-takes/

It would be justice if someone did the same to his scheme.

It would be justice if he had a massive coronary on a school visit and a whole class full of kids looked on without a clue what to do.

Bit dark...

The law of unintended consequences applies even to the likes of PD MP.

See also Tom Hunt getting caught out by Voter ID laws that he himself voted for in Parliament. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/03/tory-mps-v...

And Johnson - can you imagine the utter satisfaction of getting to say to him "Yes, I do know who you are, but you still need to show me a valid form of ID"?

I'd add an "unfortunately" before "I do know"

At least Johnson held his hands up ( A first time for everything!) and returned with ID. Hunt blamed his dyspraxia for not being able to find his passport -without a seconds thought for all his fellow sufferers, possibly similarly disenfranchised without the benefit of a local Toiry party machine to run around at his behest and vote on his behalf.

to be disenfranchised means not having the right to vote or having that right taken away, it doesnt mean if you cant remember where your passport so you cant present photo id your right to vote has been taken away, as happened with Tom, he got a proxy to vote for him, so he still voted.

Not sure what your point is, beyond a pedantic hairsplitting over the difference between 'being disenfranchised' and 'being not allowed to cast your vote'.
Before the recent voter ID legislation any dyspraxic person (Including Tom Hunt) who couldn't lay their hands on a narrow range of photo ID could walk into a polling station and cast their vote. After said legislation...not so much.

As for the proxy vote, I turned up without ID last year and at no point did the polling clerk (nor I suspect, in similar instances elsewhere, did any of the so called 'greeters' employed at other polling stations) suggest that I could get any Tom, Dick or Harry to vote on my behalf by proxy without the hassle of cycling home to dig out my driving license. Subtle and underhand disenfranchisement is still disenfranchisement, however you may want to quibble about semantics and definitions. Prior to the legislation my franchise was not conditional on having proof of identity. After the legislation it was. If, for whatever reason, that proof was not available the effect of the legislation is to disenfranchise me every bit as much as if the voting age had been increased to 99.

Bunter did it deliberately. The fat clown craves attention.

Eton Rifle wrote:

Bunter did it deliberately. The fat clown craves attention.

It's well documented by people who have had the misfortune to sit near him at dinners where he's speaking that he has his speeches written out with gaffes, moments of pretending to forget what he's saying, dithering etc carefully written in to his notes, so yes, undoubtedy just another carefully staged "loveable [sic] old Boris, isn't he one of us" moments.

Having been to two dinners with a BoJo speech, can confirm that he arrived late and dishevelled on both occasions, grabbed a napkin and hurriedly wrote some notes at one of the tables, then delivered exactly the same speech. I have to say, it was bloody funny the first time. Not sure why people are affronted - it's an after dinner speech, not a statement outside number 10.

srchar wrote:

Not sure why people are affronted - it's an after dinner speech, not a statement outside number 10.

It's still interesting proof of what an absolute fraud the man is; people who are dishonest in one area are rather more likely to be so in other, more important ones, don't you think?

Rendel Harris wrote:

srchar wrote:

Not sure why people are affronted - it's an after dinner speech, not a statement outside number 10.

It's still interesting proof of what an absolute fraud the man is; people who are dishonest in one area are rather more likely to be so in other, more important ones, don't you think?

Disagree. An after dinner speech isn't a statement to the house; it's entertainment, an act. I think some theatre is perfectly acceptable.

srchar wrote:

Disagree. An after dinner speech isn't a statement to the house; it's entertainment, an act. I think some theatre is perfectly acceptable.

The leader of a great nation should not be an entertainer or actor but a statesperson with some degree of appreciation of the gravitas of their position. If Johnson had changed his act when he gained important offices of state that might be different, but he didn't and showed no respect for his position or those whom he was supposedly serving.

Should be...

Noting Regan, former actor; Churchill (another former journalist with history books to sell who wasn't noted for loyalty to a party) ...

chrisonabike wrote:

Should be...

Noting Regan, former actor; Churchill (another former journalist with history books to sell who wasn't noted for loyalty to a party) ...

Neither of those great favourites of mine but I don't think one can say they lacked gravitas, or distinctly lowered the standards of public discourse, in the way the blond blob has. They both behaved appropriately once they achieved office unlike Johnson who seemed to revel in being a muppet even on the most inappropriate stages (remember the "giant robot chickens" speech to the UN?).

Can't disagree there.  OTOH there were clearly others ready to pile in after him who don't even have the wit to pull off a buffoon act.

Given the existence of Trump and various others embracing a fact-free style I'd simply say that he was the kind of man whose time had unfortunately come.  Let's hope he looks even more inappropriate in the near future.

There'll only ever be one 'Regan'.

Yer nicked !!!

This is a great article.  Misses the point that the real heroes are the Poll Clerks and Presiding Officers. Working for a little over basic wage and a 16 hour day, in a freezing cold village hall, and risking being verbally abused by an entitled resident (who has in my one experience turned up at 9.50pm with their father's passport and hasn't appreciated your jovial quip of "im sorry madam but i cant agree that that is a good likeness").  

There is an economic theory that an unhealthy population relaint on health intervention and drugs whilst buying cars and using fuels support a particular form of economy that benefits those providing vehicles, fuels, medical interventions and pharmaceuticals.  If policy moves people to a healthier, less car/fuel reliant population who looses out?  

Samtheeagle wrote:

There is an economic theory that an unhealthy population relaint on health intervention and drugs whilst buying cars and using fuels support a particular form of economy that benefits those providing vehicles, fuels, medical interventions and pharmaceuticals.  If policy moves people to a healthier, less car/fuel reliant population who looses out?  

That's a variant on the "broken window fallacy" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Ulitmately, when people don't have to spend money on healthcare, cars and fuel, then they have more money to spend on other things e.g. N+1 bikes and squirrel paraphenalia.

Of course, the people fixing windows or selling oil or cars or heart medications would lose out, but that money would go on more productive things whilst also allowing people to have a higher standard of living.

I think you're missing the motivation of these people. It's nothing to do with how workable or right the proposal is. For them it is entirely about gratifying their urge to "force cyclists" to submit - what to is almost irrelevant. I fear it is a very similar instinct to that which motivates punishment passes etc.

60kg lean keen climbing machine wrote:

Less than six months to go, not long now!

Six months too long.