Re: I won't be voting for them...

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , John Blake at
wrote on 19/7/2003 3:14 pm:

> I agree that this is a possible solution. Encourage car use to the
> point that no one can actually get anywhere due to the volume on the
> road.

Someone on uk.tosspot was saying that "only" 2% of Britain's land area was
covered by roads. That sounds like a huge overestimate to me, but someone
did calculate that if every adult becomes a car owner it would require an
area the size of Berkshire to park them all - and that's assuming they park
in someone else's space the other end...

Guy

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , John Blake at
wrote on 19/7/2003 3:14 pm:

[re: modern alternatives to tarmacadam]

> So if this new material is any good why is it necessary to re do some
> roads so frequently? Would it be because poor workmanship enable
> repeat business in corrective or remedial action?

It's volume of traffic as much as anything else.

Guy

[Arthur Clune]

John Blake > wrote:
: And started a revolution in British society. You have Internet access
: and expertise in its use, no matter what level that might be. I don't
: know you from Adam, but if I were to assume that you owned / mortgaged
: your own home,

Yup. THe bank indeed owns by home. Though last time I looked people
were getting mortages before Maggie :)

:owned / financed a car

No

: owned a colour television or

No

: two or more, a video,

No

: a DVD player,

No

: a cuddly bear

Well, yeah, you've got me here

:, one foreign holiday
: per year at least

True enough.

: and owned equities at one point in your life,

No, but I do ahve a pension, hence own some indirectly. Though
it's of the old fashioned final salary type.

: how
: completely am I about you?

Well, not so hot on me :)

Even people who think that Maggie did some things that need doing
(and I'll happly agree that many things did need chaning) can
think that the way it was done was shocking.

arthur

[Arthur Clune]

John Blake > wrote:

: Darwinism. Let them go as fast as they like. When they wrap their

WHich would be fine if their going fast didn't kill/injury etc
other people.

Arthur

[Nick Kew]

In article >, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of John Blake > wrote:

>>Imagine Kent with all the disruption of cross-channel traffic but
>>without any economic benefits from it ...
>
> Like the residents under the Heathrow flight path?

Nope, they get all the economic benefits of being the hub of high-paying
industries that involve lots of worldwide travel.

> BAA says the South
> East needs more terminals and runways to keep Heathrow as the pre
> eminent hub airport in Western Europe.

That's BAA's business. Of course, those of us with a broader view should
be questioning the very notion of such a hub. The crux is - who oils the
wheels in the corridors of power?

> Problem with this idea? NIMBY's in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow,
> Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff etcetera who don't want extra traffic over
> their skies.

Nope. Problem is an artificial market, with the massive subsidies
aviation gets (by being exempted from so many costs).

> I agree with you Nick, that the real transport problem is one that no
> politician will ever tackle.

Within my lifetime, Thatcher and Gorbachov took on major problems
of their time against stiff opposition. In our time, Ken Livingstone
is making a very commendable try. Of course, his hands are tied
by the very limited powers the Westminster PolitBuro allow to him,
but within those constraints he's taken on the mediocracy[1]
establishment by the horns, and is doing what appears to be a good job.

[1] mediocracy[n], a form of government with pretensions to democracy,
but governed by special interest groups who get their way by telling us
through the mass-media what "people" think. C.f. fuel protests, after
"dump the pump" failed to get popular support despite the massive
support from the likes of the BBC.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars?
Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5, Germany 0.8
(The Economist, July 2002)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

in article , John Blake at
wrote on 19/7/2003 11:45 pm:

>> Try "Thatcher is not responsible for /any/ of these things."
> Right to buy was one of her policies wasn't it? ICBW

And most houses are ex-council? Maybe they are, but not in any place I've
ever lived.

>> She was
>> responsible (in addition to a few good things) for the most selfish
>> generation in recent history, for undermining manufacturing industry to the
>> point that it is now all but dead
> Rising labour costs eradicating any profit margin may have had more to
> do with it. The same is happening now with call centres.

The problem is that manufacturing is dirty and smelly, so the British
government have stopped caring about it. The rules on capital and taxation,
and City short-termism, make it very hard to finance long-term investment
here, and there is such a focus on the desirability of white-collar work
that it is hard for manufacuturies to recruit.

> Multi nationals will keep transferring plants to wherever they can get
> the cheapest labour / largest government subsidies.

Which is a great argument for supporting indigenous business rather than
giving money to multinationals who will then bugger off the moment they've
spent our money ;-)

>>> The best result is a hung parliament. Hang the lot of them!
>> Or give us a fair voting system,
> I agree totally.

Thought you might ;-)

> The current system is not being taken up on. Turn out rates are poor.
> If higher levels of participation are required another system has to
> be chosen. But those in power are not going to choose another system
> if it means they will lose power. They are not there for our benefit,
> they are there for their own. It don't matter if they are blue or red.

Quite. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

>> And if no candidate scores more than 33% of the available vote following all
>> transfers, no candidate is returned. In other words, the "none of the
>> above" party gets the opportunity to return their candidate. That would
>> have a salutory effect on the parties, I think.

> Even if you got 34%, 66% are not being represented. None of the above
> delivers power to a minority who have no opposition.

Single transferable vote, though - all the votes end up with one of the last
two candidates, or in the "none of the above" pile. So if the winning
candidate scores over a third it's fair to say that they have a majority, in
that more than half of those who voted support them to some degree, and
their support outweighs "none of the above."

It's only an idea, anyway, but fundamentally I think some system to leave
seats vacant in the event of insufficient turnout is an absolute necessity
if we're to give the parties a genuine incentive to increase turnout. Right
now, low turnout works for them as only the activists bother to vote. A lot
of pre-election publicity by Blue Labour and the Monster Raving Tory Party
is designed to get the other lot's supporters (and in particular the
Lib-Dems' supporters) to stay at home. Well, that's my view anyway.

Guy