My understanding is that DRT schemes which run a basic scheduled service from which buses can make limited deviations work well; but ones which pick up anywhere in an area don't. They tend to be very Smartphone-based and the booking algorithms often seem to be complex and defective. In deeply rural areas, wouldn't it be simpler for Councils just to issue free or subsidised taxi vouchers?
Our ring-n-ride service works ok, but it's time consuming. It can get you to your doctor's appointment on time but you might have to leave an hour prior because they need to go and pick up Effie from the west end too and when you're ready to go home you might have to wait a while because the bus is meeting people at the airport and taking them to the hostel. Not a big deal if you're retired with no major commitments (and in some ways a plus as you get out and about and see people) but limiting otherwise.
In deeply rural areas, wouldn't it be simpler for Councils just to issue free or subsidised taxi vouchers?
Almost certainly not. First you’d need a taxi firm that actually served the area. Where we are, there’s a £12 call out charge *before* they start the meter when you get in…
My understanding is that DRT schemes which run a basic scheduled service from which buses can make limited deviations work well; but ones which pick up anywhere in an area don't. They tend to be very Smartphone-based and the booking algorithms often seem to be complex and defective. In deeply rural areas, wouldn't it be simpler for Councils just to issue free or subsidised taxi vouchers?
Our ring-n-ride service works ok, but it's time consuming. It can get you to your doctor's appointment on time but you might have to leave an hour prior because they need to go and pick up Effie from the west end too and when you're ready to go home you might have to wait a while because the bus is meeting people at the airport and taking them to the hostel. Not a big deal if you're retired with no major commitments (and in some ways a plus as you get out and about and see people) but limiting otherwise.
DRT isn’t quite ring-n-ride - you can book an arrive-by time, and book your return journey at the same time as your outbound. I’ve spoken to people who successfully commute on it.
Also, even if it was as limited as your service, where I live *any* service at all represents an improvement over the last four decades of nothing.
IME the vast majority of people want to replace it with a democratically accountable second chamber, not remove an advisory and revising chamber altogether.
The problem is to make it democratically accountable while keeping it independent of whatever government is in the primary chamber.
Election by proportional representation might be a start.
However you elect it, it’s the same people doing the voting. Which means the same issues, concerns and prejudices will be catered to.
The only way to achieve true independence from the democratically elected chamber is to make it not democratically elected.
How many advanced, democratic countries have an unelected Upper House?
I would love to know. My feeling is that we in the UK think we are somehow unique, and what works for (say) Denmark would not work here.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters - and we can't have that!
One of the major difficulties in sensibly reforming the Lords is the selfish (and frankly anachronistic) attitude of the Commons which says that their House must always have almost all the power. This makes it difficult to come up with a sensible reform. Any system that leaves the nominations of sundry PMs (i.e. their dodgy mates) in the Upper House is an automatic fail. Any reform that is truly democratic (see most of the rest of the democratic world) scares the horses.
How many advanced, democratic countries have an unelected Upper House?
I would love to know. My feeling is that we in the UK think we are somehow unique, and what works for (say) Denmark would not work here.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters - and we can't have that!
One of the major difficulties in sensibly reforming the Lords is the selfish (and frankly anachronistic) attitude of the Commons which says that their House must always have almost all the power. This makes it difficult to come up with a sensible reform. Any system that leaves the nominations of sundry PMs (i.e. their dodgy mates) in the Upper House is an automatic fail. Any reform that is truly democratic (see most of the rest of the democratic world) scares the horses.
Well that’s the problem isn’t it?
Outside the enthusiasts for electoral reform, Lords reform tends to start from the position that the political system basically works (including the Lords) except for the lack of legitimacy of the Lords.
Consequently rather than starting with a blank piece of paper and ‘how do we want British politics to work’ it’s always ‘how do we make the revising chamber more legitimate while basically not changing it, or its role and place in the system?’
The most interesting idea I’ve seen for Lords reform was a dozen or so years ago from Dan Hannan of all people (so obviously it was mad but it had a certain internal logic) which was a senate where all the old counties - including the Scottish and Welsh shires (told you it was mad) elected two senators each by STV for IIIRC one ten year term.
It was interesting partly because of the madness of recreating counties few remember (or lament) outside England but principally because despite the madness considerable thought had nevertheless been given to the questions that others usually blithely duck - like what do we want the upper house to do, how, and what’s it’s relationship to the Commons?
To that extent it was a welcome contribution to be honest IMO.
The most interesting idea I’ve seen for Lords reform was a dozen or so years ago from Dan Hannan of all people (so obviously it was mad but it had a certain internal logic) which was a senate where all the old counties - including the Scottish and Welsh shires (told you it was mad) elected two senators each by STV for IIIRC one ten year term.
It was interesting partly because of the madness of recreating counties few remember (or lament) outside England but principally because despite the madness considerable thought had nevertheless been given to the questions that others usually blithely duck - like what do we want the upper house to do, how, and what’s it’s relationship to the Commons?
To that extent it was a welcome contribution to be honest IMO.
This smacks of the US Senate and gives disproportionate power to rural areas at the expense of densely populated urban areas. Very convenient for some of a certain political persuasion I dare say, but imagine if that bias was reversed! How they would cry!
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
You can combine both by using larger constituencies which return a number of MPs to parliament who are selected by PR within the constituency.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
You can combine both by using larger constituencies which return a number of MPs to parliament who are selected by PR within the constituency.
It needn't be either/or.
STV+. It’s the future.
(Edited to add, or indeed the present, if you live in the Republic of Ireland)
I agree an elected upper house has its own problems. Particularly how much power does it have compared to the Commons. Currently the Commons, being an elected house has more power. If both houses are elected how will the power be split?
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
We are accustomed to a (federal) system in which the members of the lower Federal house are elected by the preferential system and the upper house by the proportional; the lower house has single member constituencies and the upper has a state/territory as a single constituency electing multiple members. There are variations on this amongst the States for their elections, with Queensland being unicameral.
I've just heard the 1 'o' clock news on R4 with a long slot deploring the likelihood of an extreme right party getting into the government coalition likely to be formed after the Spanish election today, and the general anxiety about the rise of the extreme right in Europe. It cited Hungary, Marine le Pen, the German AfD etc. with the BBC's usual little pat on the head for the UK in its success in resisting this siren call, Farage being assumed to be a busted flush.
There was, as ever, no recognition that the Conservative Party has shifted so far to the right and towards populism since the referendum in 2016 that it's difficult to classify it now as anything other than an extreme right and populist party. If one asks the question, what distinguishes it from Farage and the Reform Party, the only difference I can see is that the Reform Party is a limited company under the control of three shareholders rather than a political party in the normal sense of the word. In politics, policies, ethos and what they stand for, it's only the faces that are different.
I've just heard the 1 'o' clock news on R4 with a long slot deploring the likelihood of an extreme right party getting into the government coalition likely to be formed after the Spanish election today, and the general anxiety about the rise of the extreme right in Europe. It cited Hungary, Marine le Pen, the German AfD etc. with the BBC's usual little pat on the head for the UK in its success in resisting this siren call, Farage being assumed to be a busted flush.
There was, as ever, no recognition that the Conservative Party has shifted so far to the right and towards populism since the referendum in 2016 that it's difficult to classify it now as anything other than an extreme right and populist party. If one asks the question, what distinguishes it from Farage and the Reform Party, the only difference I can see is that the Reform Party is a limited company under the control of three shareholders rather than a political party in the normal sense of the word. In politics, policies, ethos and what they stand for, it's only the faces that are different.
This.
As more of the world becomes uninhabitable due to the climate crisis, and as more and more people seek refuge in other countries, the situation will only get worse.
I've just heard the 1 'o' clock news on R4 with a long slot deploring the likelihood of an extreme right party getting into the government coalition likely to be formed after the Spanish election today, and the general anxiety about the rise of the extreme right in Europe. It cited Hungary, Marine le Pen, the German AfD etc. with the BBC's usual little pat on the head for the UK in its success in resisting this siren call, Farage being assumed to be a busted flush.
There was, as ever, no recognition that the Conservative Party has shifted so far to the right and towards populism since the referendum in 2016 that it's difficult to classify it now as anything other than an extreme right and populist party. If one asks the question, what distinguishes it from Farage and the Reform Party, the only difference I can see is that the Reform Party is a limited company under the control of three shareholders rather than a political party in the normal sense of the word. In politics, policies, ethos and what they stand for, it's only the faces that are different.
This.
As more of the world becomes uninhabitable due to the climate crisis, and as more and more people seek refuge in other countries, the situation will only get worse.
Who needs Farage, when we've got Braverman?
Do we have to choose? Can we not choose someone else?
The other thing is - I don't think it's been mentioned much although I might have missed it - is that the constituency boundaries will be changing next year before the election I think
I was wondering if these would have an impact?
From that article:
Initial estimates are that the review will benefit the Conservatives by between five and 10 seats, not all at the expense of Labour.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
I'm sorry, but in effect, in this country, the government is an elected dictatorship. There are virtually no checks and balances and those that do exist the present bunch of rogues kick against as 'undemocratic'. I believe they would really like to overrule even the rulings of judges, a time-honoured measure of resistance to an over-mighty executive going back to at least Stuart times.
This would be unconscionable in my eyes in any circumstances, but even more so when the government is elected by the largest minority (about 43.5% in the present case) and then claims a 'mandate' to do what it likes. How can that possibly be democratic?
In between 12-18 months, we shall have a Labour government almost certainly elected by a minority, quite possibly with a huge majority in Parliament and claiming a 'mandate'. For the record, I find that as undemocratic as the present arrangements.
The majority of us, at any given time, have no political heft whatever, and anyone who does not support one of the two Ugly Sisters has no hope of anything better.
Even in many of the sacred constituencies (which I do not see as sacred at all BTW) the MP does not have the majority support of electors and is put in by the largest minority. It's a joke!
The Electoral Commission published proposed boundary changes years ago (IIRC it was shortly before the 2015 election, with the proposal being to have them in place for the 2020 election ... which was then scuppered by snap elections in 2017 and 2019). There was a long consultation period after publication, in which members of the public could have a say - though, from what I saw almost all responses were from political parties.
Actually, just looked up the Electoral Commission site and they restarted the process in 2020. Which had the following stages:
8 June 2021 - initial proposals published and an 8 week consultation opened (written submissions only)
22 Feb 2022 - responses published and a secondary 6 week consultation opened (including public hearings in each region)
8 Nov 2022 - publish revised proposals and open a further 4 week consultation (written submissions only)
So, the public had a total of 18 weeks when they could comment on the proposals, plus public hearings where they could ask questions directly. Which seems to be a long way from "zero say".
I remember the process because here it was very controversial. The initial proposal was ridiculous. It was as if someone had used a map which didn’t show mountains, lakes and roads. There was pretty strong feedback and the proposal was revised.
I suspect the public were distracted by other events over that period.
Not sure what other events you're referring to, but it's over 18 months for people to think about the general idea, and then the 18 weeks Alan Cresswell notes as the total of periods to comment. The other events would have had to be pretty distracting.
I suspect the public were distracted by other events over that period.
Not sure what other events you're referring to, but it's over 18 months for people to think about the general idea, and then the 18 weeks Alan Cresswell notes as the total of periods to comment. The other events would have had to be pretty distracting.
Do you mean things like a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, record inflation, a climate crisis and a revolving door of incompetent and morally questionable prime ministers?
I suspect the public were distracted by other events over that period.
Not sure what other events you're referring to, but it's over 18 months for people to think about the general idea, and then the 18 weeks Alan Cresswell notes as the total of periods to comment. The other events would have had to be pretty distracting.
I think it's really for Doublethink to answer that, so a combination of the posts from Alan Cresswell and Doublethink.
I suspect the public were distracted by other events over that period.
Not sure what other events you're referring to, but it's over 18 months for people to think about the general idea, and then the 18 weeks Alan Cresswell notes as the total of periods to comment. The other events would have had to be pretty distracting.
I think it's really for Doublethink to answer that, so a combination of the posts from Alan Cresswell and Doublethink.
Do you think so?
In contrast, I think if one sees an asinine remark on an open forum it is perfectly reasonable to critique it.
That was the reason I responded to you to highlight the distracting events you had not noticed, vis:
“…things like a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, record inflation, a climate crisis and a revolving door of incompetent and morally questionable prime ministers”
…which you seem to have missed again, in your reposting, along with the fact that DT had endorsed the list and added to it.
Unless, of course, you mean to only engage in intercourse with yourself.
In fairness, @Gee D lives in Australia (IIRC), and so may not be quite as familiar with the woes of England, and their world-beating ramifications, as those of us who have to live here...
In fairness, @Gee D lives in Australia (IIRC), and so may not be quite as familiar with the woes of England, and their world-beating ramifications, as those of us who have to live here...
Seriously?
The English pandemic?
The English climate crisis?
The English war in Ukraine (possible, but you are nearly two centuries out with that one)
And although we might not like it, the follies of our PMs are well known around the globe.
Australia even has the same dead Queen as us.
Unless Gee D has his head in a bucket (who knows?) it is hard to see how he would not know about the points raised already.
Anyway I will leave it at that, so that I do not provoke more solo intercourse.
Carbon Capture is on the cards. Filling up the left over space from North Sea Oil drilling with carbon dioxide. Is it just another way of keeping the fossil fuel companies happy?
I think Douglas Adams had it right when he talked about road building - dragging tons of tar out of the ground where it been safely out of harms way to allow people to get from point A to point B very quickly, which was a bit pointless as point B was very much like point A - full of cars, covered with tar and short of fish.
Carbon Capture is on the cards. Filling up the left over space from North Sea Oil drilling with carbon dioxide. Is it just another way of keeping the fossil fuel companies happy?
Carbon Capture is on the cards. Filling up the left over space from North Sea Oil drilling with carbon dioxide. Is it just another way of keeping the fossil fuel companies happy?
Yes.
It assumes continuing burning of fossil fuels, because the only realistic way to capture enough CO2 to make it worth storing is to capture that from power stations (and, some other industrial processes such as cement manufacture). Current "carbon storage" is basically using CO2 to increase pressure in oil and gas fields to allow more to be extracted, which at least means that part of the technology needed has been developed. There's still work to be done on how to capture a significant proportion of CO2 produced in a power station, and how to get that to the wells in sufficient quantity. If there was "off the shelf" mature technology that could be deployed to capture and store a lot of CO2 it might be a useful step ... investing in something that's going to need a decade or two to develop is going to be a lot less useful.
Carbon capture should be an option for technologies where CO2 production is unavoidable (something like cement production - we're always going to need cement and concrete, and though we can cut CO2 production there's always going to be some), but is a dead end for electricity generation where we can generate all we need without burning stuff. It's always better to not burn stuff when there's an alternative.
My contact in the CCS community thinks there is more than enough coal and gas that we know about to justify CCS projects; they are rather more sceptical about the need to find more deposits.
So far as coal is concerned, the issue is with the types of coal available. Some preserved steam railways are in trouble because of the non-availability of Welsh steam coal.
So far as coal is concerned, the issue is with the types of coal available. Some preserved steam railways are in trouble because of the non-availability of Welsh steam coal.
Some are, however, experimenting with different types of coal or *coal substitute*, notably the Tal-y-llyn Railway.
Good steam coal is available from places other than Wales, of course. One railway I worked on some years ago found that Welsh coal didn't burn hot enough (!), so used Polish coal instead...
It was the GWR which was the main user of Welsh steam coal. The others better grades of coal from their own areas. Two big issues for the BR steam era were that some of the quirks of GWR boiler and fire-box design were alleged not so effective with other coals, and after coal was nationalised, the government instead on exporting the best coal and leaving the railways with slack, briquettes and other rubbish.
Immediate post-war, the UK was so short of convertible currency that some very tough decisions had to be made, some of which, with hindsight, were not ideal. Of course, it is worth remembering that then, and for many years after, a tin god was made of keeping the currency at a particular level.
Later, governments discovered that if you allowed the pound to 'float' and descend towards the approximate value of the Confederate dollar, this allowed more 'flexibility'. It became much easier to con the populace about the true state of the economy, and some of those politically-difficult decisions could be deferred. (Until such time as we are retired, drawing our index-linked pensions, and writing our memoirs in which we point out that everyone else was to blame.)
It'll be all right, even though Rish! and family are jetting off to California, thereby adding to the tale of carbon emissions, and leaving Oliver Dowden in charge of the country...
It'll be all right, even though Rish! and family are jetting off to California, thereby adding to the tale of carbon emissions, and leaving Oliver Dowden in charge of the country...
Oh dear. Do the Civil Service like him? He seem to be nicer than his predecessor, but a bit in the thick side.
Comments
My apologies, Ariel - I should have referred to them as your trespassers.
Our ring-n-ride service works ok, but it's time consuming. It can get you to your doctor's appointment on time but you might have to leave an hour prior because they need to go and pick up Effie from the west end too and when you're ready to go home you might have to wait a while because the bus is meeting people at the airport and taking them to the hostel. Not a big deal if you're retired with no major commitments (and in some ways a plus as you get out and about and see people) but limiting otherwise.
Almost certainly not. First you’d need a taxi firm that actually served the area. Where we are, there’s a £12 call out charge *before* they start the meter when you get in…
DRT isn’t quite ring-n-ride - you can book an arrive-by time, and book your return journey at the same time as your outbound. I’ve spoken to people who successfully commute on it.
Also, even if it was as limited as your service, where I live *any* service at all represents an improvement over the last four decades of nothing.
However you elect it, it’s the same people doing the voting. Which means the same issues, concerns and prejudices will be catered to.
The only way to achieve true independence from the democratically elected chamber is to make it not democratically elected.
How many advanced, democratic countries have an unelected Upper House?
I would love to know. My feeling is that we in the UK think we are somehow unique, and what works for (say) Denmark would not work here.
It would not be reasonable to elect the Upper House by PR while leaving the Commons FPTP as that would give the Upper House greater democratic legitimacy, as it would actually reflect the wishes of voters - and we can't have that!
One of the major difficulties in sensibly reforming the Lords is the selfish (and frankly anachronistic) attitude of the Commons which says that their House must always have almost all the power. This makes it difficult to come up with a sensible reform. Any system that leaves the nominations of sundry PMs (i.e. their dodgy mates) in the Upper House is an automatic fail. Any reform that is truly democratic (see most of the rest of the democratic world) scares the horses.
Well that’s the problem isn’t it?
Outside the enthusiasts for electoral reform, Lords reform tends to start from the position that the political system basically works (including the Lords) except for the lack of legitimacy of the Lords.
Consequently rather than starting with a blank piece of paper and ‘how do we want British politics to work’ it’s always ‘how do we make the revising chamber more legitimate while basically not changing it, or its role and place in the system?’
It was interesting partly because of the madness of recreating counties few remember (or lament) outside England but principally because despite the madness considerable thought had nevertheless been given to the questions that others usually blithely duck - like what do we want the upper house to do, how, and what’s it’s relationship to the Commons?
To that extent it was a welcome contribution to be honest IMO.
This smacks of the US Senate and gives disproportionate power to rural areas at the expense of densely populated urban areas. Very convenient for some of a certain political persuasion I dare say, but imagine if that bias was reversed! How they would cry!
FPTP reflects the wishes of voters with just as much legitimacy as PR. The difference is that PR is focussed on the national result with minimal regard for constituencies being represented by people they have chosen, whereas FPTP is focussed on each individual constituency selecting its representative with minimal regard for the result of them being aggregated up to national level.
Which system you prefer will depend on which principle you agree with the most - that of individual areas sending representatives to parliament to speak on their behalf, or that of the distribution of seats in parliament reflecting the electorate as a national whole. Personally, I favour the former.
You can combine both by using larger constituencies which return a number of MPs to parliament who are selected by PR within the constituency.
It needn't be either/or.
STV+. It’s the future.
(Edited to add, or indeed the present, if you live in the Republic of Ireland)
We are accustomed to a (federal) system in which the members of the lower Federal house are elected by the preferential system and the upper house by the proportional; the lower house has single member constituencies and the upper has a state/territory as a single constituency electing multiple members. There are variations on this amongst the States for their elections, with Queensland being unicameral.
There was, as ever, no recognition that the Conservative Party has shifted so far to the right and towards populism since the referendum in 2016 that it's difficult to classify it now as anything other than an extreme right and populist party. If one asks the question, what distinguishes it from Farage and the Reform Party, the only difference I can see is that the Reform Party is a limited company under the control of three shareholders rather than a political party in the normal sense of the word. In politics, policies, ethos and what they stand for, it's only the faces that are different.
This.
As more of the world becomes uninhabitable due to the climate crisis, and as more and more people seek refuge in other countries, the situation will only get worse.
Who needs Farage, when we've got Braverman?
Do we have to choose? Can we not choose someone else?
@Enoch mentioned Farage, and Braverman came immediately to mind as someone even worse than the unlovely Nigel...
I was wondering if these would have an impact?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/20/the-guardian-view-on-boundary-changes-the-voters-draw-the-line
From that article:
Initial estimates are that the review will benefit the Conservatives by between five and 10 seats, not all at the expense of Labour.
for both sides probably!
I'm sorry, but in effect, in this country, the government is an elected dictatorship. There are virtually no checks and balances and those that do exist the present bunch of rogues kick against as 'undemocratic'. I believe they would really like to overrule even the rulings of judges, a time-honoured measure of resistance to an over-mighty executive going back to at least Stuart times.
This would be unconscionable in my eyes in any circumstances, but even more so when the government is elected by the largest minority (about 43.5% in the present case) and then claims a 'mandate' to do what it likes. How can that possibly be democratic?
In between 12-18 months, we shall have a Labour government almost certainly elected by a minority, quite possibly with a huge majority in Parliament and claiming a 'mandate'. For the record, I find that as undemocratic as the present arrangements.
The majority of us, at any given time, have no political heft whatever, and anyone who does not support one of the two Ugly Sisters has no hope of anything better.
Even in many of the sacred constituencies (which I do not see as sacred at all BTW) the MP does not have the majority support of electors and is put in by the largest minority. It's a joke!
Actually, just looked up the Electoral Commission site and they restarted the process in 2020. Which had the following stages:
8 June 2021 - initial proposals published and an 8 week consultation opened (written submissions only)
22 Feb 2022 - responses published and a secondary 6 week consultation opened (including public hearings in each region)
8 Nov 2022 - publish revised proposals and open a further 4 week consultation (written submissions only)
So, the public had a total of 18 weeks when they could comment on the proposals, plus public hearings where they could ask questions directly. Which seems to be a long way from "zero say".
Not sure what other events you're referring to, but it's over 18 months for people to think about the general idea, and then the 18 weeks Alan Cresswell notes as the total of periods to comment. The other events would have had to be pretty distracting.
Do you mean things like a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, record inflation, a climate crisis and a revolving door of incompetent and morally questionable prime ministers?
I think it's really for Doublethink to answer that, so a combination of the posts from Alan Cresswell and Doublethink.
Do you think so?
In contrast, I think if one sees an asinine remark on an open forum it is perfectly reasonable to critique it.
That was the reason I responded to you to highlight the distracting events you had not noticed, vis:
“…things like a global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, record inflation, a climate crisis and a revolving door of incompetent and morally questionable prime ministers”
…which you seem to have missed again, in your reposting, along with the fact that DT had endorsed the list and added to it.
Unless, of course, you mean to only engage in intercourse with yourself.
Seriously?
The English pandemic?
The English climate crisis?
The English war in Ukraine (possible, but you are nearly two centuries out with that one)
And although we might not like it, the follies of our PMs are well known around the globe.
Australia even has the same dead Queen as us.
Unless Gee D has his head in a bucket (who knows?) it is hard to see how he would not know about the points raised already.
Anyway I will leave it at that, so that I do not provoke more solo intercourse.
I rely upon what Alan Cresswell said.
Well, it's an unusual philosophy of life but not the worst choice, for sure.
Yes.
Carbon capture should be an option for technologies where CO2 production is unavoidable (something like cement production - we're always going to need cement and concrete, and though we can cut CO2 production there's always going to be some), but is a dead end for electricity generation where we can generate all we need without burning stuff. It's always better to not burn stuff when there's an alternative.
Some are, however, experimenting with different types of coal or *coal substitute*, notably the Tal-y-llyn Railway.
Good steam coal is available from places other than Wales, of course. One railway I worked on some years ago found that Welsh coal didn't burn hot enough (!), so used Polish coal instead...
Later, governments discovered that if you allowed the pound to 'float' and descend towards the approximate value of the Confederate dollar, this allowed more 'flexibility'. It became much easier to con the populace about the true state of the economy, and some of those politically-difficult decisions could be deferred. (Until such time as we are retired, drawing our index-linked pensions, and writing our memoirs in which we point out that everyone else was to blame.)
It'll be all right, even though Rish! and family are jetting off to California, thereby adding to the tale of carbon emissions, and leaving Oliver Dowden in charge of the country...
Oh dear. Do the Civil Service like him? He seem to be nicer than his predecessor, but a bit in the thick side.