Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Marpellian

 

 

That's one for the dictionary of political insults.

[Regularity]

44 minutes ago, Annie said:

Great decision there, we have hydroelectric electricity generation and we have to import diesel, - so somebody in the Tory playroom must have not being paying attention in their 4th Form accounting class.

Oh, I suspect they were paying attention. Very deeply.

Working out how to divert funds without it being immediately obvious...

[robmcg]

49 minutes ago, Annie said:

It was the same idiots that said that our lovely French designed electric locomotives on the North Island Main Trunk Line were too expensive to overhaul so they purchased Chinese built diesel locomotives instead that all fell apart like $2 Shop toys a bare few months after they arrived.  Great decision there, we have hydroelectric electricity generation and we have to import diesel, - so somebody in the Tory playroom must have not being paying attention in their 4th Form accounting class.

 

But don't get me started or I'll bore you all to tears...........

 

 

 

I prefer the insanity of spending billions on light rail or other urban rail for getting people around cities, when we used to have the perfect system... cheap, electric, trams...      and trolley buses.

 

I used to drive Wellington trolley buses, and travelled on the trams so I should know.

 

Personally, being only 68, I don't think anyone younger than 60 should be allowed to vote. 

 

I'll go now...

Edited December 5, 2019 by robmcg
drive not dive...

[Hroth]

14 minutes ago, Adam88 said:

... nor should they have decimalised our wonderful, historic money system until all the old people had died.

 

Given the way they're sorting out the NHS, thats a work in progress....

 

Anyhow, whats wrong with Groats?

[webbcompound]

a much more equitable voting system would be for everyone to get a number of votes calculated on their age, compared to the average lifespan. That way old gits like me with less directly invested in the future would have less say than youngsters with their life ahead of them.

[robmcg]

14 minutes ago, webbcompound said:

a much more equitable voting system would be for everyone to get a number of votes calculated on their age, compared to the average lifespan. That way old gits like me with less directly invested in the future would have less say than youngsters with their life ahead of them.

 

But, but, that would take power away from the patriarchy.   Inconceivably bad idea.  Have you never heard of self interest, lad?

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

Well that was a brief digressive mood exploring the outer limits of inane humour, all too sadly replaced with a plunge into the deep dark depths of depression caused by the realisation that conservatives of the Tory ilk really are depressing.

 

But then if one looks at the average age of Tory politicians (in Australia they congregate in the utterly deceptively named Liberal Party) they are actually 20 years younger than the old farts we are blaming for their ascendancy. One solution could be to ban people over 60 and under 60 from voting but that would upon reflection destroy democracy as we know it, or adopt a suggestion I once made elsewhere that any one who votes Tory or their equivalent in two successive elections should simply have their voting right rescinded as they are incapable of using it properly.

 

But then I live in Australia whose Tory PM is a failed advertising executive and a happy clappy. The sheer horror of those two traits combined on one person seems to have been lost on a majority of Australians which depresses me even more. Is it no wonder I seek solace in novels of Austen and Trollope, which I hasten to add is not meant to infer that Austen was a trollop (hopefully forestalling any attempts at pedantry at my expense  ). 

 

We are living out the Chinese curse of living in interesting times.       

[ian]

39 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Given the way they're sorting out the NHS, thats a work in progress....

 

Anyhow, whats wrong with Groats?

 

I initially read that as Goats - I was obviously expecting our system of exchange to regress a bit further.

[St Enodoc]

24 minutes ago, AVS1998 said:

Perhaps a Lockean state of government would make more sense (I believe it was Locke; I haven't looked at my Sociology theory since the early summer), wherein voters are granted a ration of votes dependent upon their status in society (so those who are scientists, teachers, doctors, transport providers etc are granted, say, two votes, lawyers three, farmers one), and when legislating specifically, those who will be directly impacted on by the new laws and pieces of legislature are brought in to consult. University lecturers and theorists are granted the most number of votes. In essence, it is a partial meritocracy, where your vote depends upon what you can offer, rather than a conventional democracy where Joe Public votes in a general or local election according to, most likely, party loyalty, or picking two items off a long dossier that the candidate has provided that appeal to them. 

This was a major theme of Nevil Shute's novel "In the Wet".

[Donw]

I am sure that if you think about it enough you could disqualify practically everyone from voting for one reason or another. In practice denying anyone from voting other than serious criminality ( i.e if you do not accept society's rules) or considerable insanity (unable to understand what the vote is about) woulld be setting a dangerous precedent. It took long enough to get universal sufferage. Would a twenty year old with learning difficulties have more right to a vote than a seventy year old who had spent a lifetime helping such people.  Are the old more selfish than the young or vice versa. For all its faults the present system seems to be better than anything else. On the subject of proportional representation we currently have an interesting situation apparantly some MEP's have changed their allegience. Since no one voted for them personally just voted for a party you could make a case that if they change their allegiance they should lose their seat. Under our current system you vote for a named candidate  not a party even though the majority of the voters do choose by which party they currently belong. 

We could have a system where in a region ( say 10 seats) you get to vote for a party and also which candidate of that party you would prefer so if you are pro a particular party you can vote for the without endorsing a candidate you do not respect. The other problem with proportional respresentation is it gives too much power to the party leadership.

It is also sobering to reflect that the Monster Raving Looney Party was a joke but some of their initial manifesto aims have become law.

 

Don

Edited December 6, 2019 by Donw
extra info

[Nearholmer]

AVS,

 

I am aware that university professors are prone to think that, because they are renowned experts in one topic, they somehow, by osmosis perhaps, have acquired special wisdom in all topics, but, to be direct, I can't see any good reason why the rest of us should think the same.

 

And, similar objections could be raised against giving greater say to any other group. 

 

To say nothing of the objections that can be raised against excluding people from having a say.

 

And, it is gross arrogance to start deciding that one person "offers" more than the next in any general sense.

 

And, it isn't a sustainable system, for the simple reason that the excluded would soon-enough knock the included off their high-horses.

 

No, the best hope isn't in attempting to exclude people from the franchise, it is in attempting to educate everyone to use the critical faculties that they posses.

 

K

 

 

[monkeysarefun]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

so they purchased Chinese built diesel locomotives instead that all fell apart like $2 Shop toys a bare few months after they arrived. 

 

But don't get me started or I'll bore you all to tears...........

 

They should have bought Korean instead, like our NSW conservative geniuses did. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-08/nsw-inter-city-train-costs-face-blowout-to-make-fleet-fit-tracks/9844832

 

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

To which I might add that our Trumpeam PM has in recent times responded to all disasters both natural and man made by offering "thoughts and prayers" which I readily admit is the one utterance by any public figure that nearly drives me to contemplate assassination as an alternative to the ballot box. Thoughts and prayers? what's bloody wrong with actually doing something rather than mouthing bible belt platitudes?

 

I think that this demonstrates quite clearly that we who are citizens of the Western liberal democracies have allowed ourselves to become dangerously complacent.       

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, AVS1998 said:

when legislating specifically, those who will be directly impacted on by the new laws and pieces of legislature are brought in to consult.

Conflict of vested interest there, surely?

”Let’s ask murderers about the death penalty!”

or even worse,

”Let’s ask Murder victims’ relatives about the death penalty!”

 

38 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I am aware that university professors are prone to think that, because they are renowned experts in one topic, they somehow, by osmosis perhaps, have acquired special wisdom in all topics, but, to be direct, I can't see any good reason why the rest of us should think the same.

They don’t have to be professors, or indeed work in a university. 
Just attending the “right” school or university is enough for some to acquire this special wisdom.

 

43 minutes ago, Donw said:

I am sure that if you think about it enough you could disqualify practically everyone from voting for one reason or another. In practice denying anyone from voting other than serious criminality ( i.e if you do not accept society's rules) or considerable insanity (unable to understand what the vote is about) woulld be setting a dangerous precedent. It took long enough to get universal sufferage.

Exactly.

Although on both the criminality and insanity veins of thought, I am more concerned about some of those who have been voted into office than amongst the electorate at large...

[Annie]

39 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

To which I might add that our Trumpeam PM has in recent times responded to all disasters both natural and man made by offering "thoughts and prayers" which I readily admit is the one utterance by any public figure that nearly drives me to contemplate assassination as an alternative to the ballot box. Thoughts and prayers? what's bloody wrong with actually doing something rather than mouthing bible belt platitudes?

 

I think that this demonstrates quite clearly that we who are citizens of the Western liberal democracies have allowed ourselves to become dangerously complacent.       

[Annie]

2 hours ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

........or adopt a suggestion I once made elsewhere that any one who votes Tory or their equivalent in two successive elections should simply have their voting right rescinded as they are incapable of using it properly.

Ah, now that would be a good thing indeed.  

 

The main problem though is voters simply not bothering to vote.  We get cycles here in New Zealand where we have a Tory led government for a while and they utterly mess things up and make everyone miserable and angry to the point where come the election people rush out and vote to get rid of them.  And the new incoming government labours mightily to fix the damage until all is good again.  When the next election comes around people don't bother to vote because everything is fine now and the sons of satan a Tory led government gets back in again.

This cycle has been moderated by the fact that we have MMP now, but of course Tory politicians don't like it because it stops them running roughshod over everybody and doing as they please.  They've had a couple of unsuccessful goes at trying to get rid of it, but it's not going away anytime soon because it's what the citizens of New Zealand want because we very positively voted for it in a referendum.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, AVS1998 said:

 

I can't disagree with that. When we were looking at Hobbes, Locke and the rest in our Human Rights module earlier this year, we all agreed in the class that it was an interesting concept, the notion of value-based voting according to one's ability to contribute, but that it was utterly unfair and highly idealistic. You can't guarantee that someone who is highly qualified in one area doesn't have vested interests and wouldn't promote poor policies that the voter, unknowing in that area, would vote for. 

 

Having everyone vote more critically and having them aware of what they're voting for is certainly the way to go. I'm sorry if I came across as a newly qualified academic wanting to implement classroom ideals in the real world, I would never want that - no offence was meant to anyone. 

 

Perhaps exclusions against MPs based on age is unfair, then. It just feels, to a degree, a pragmatic solution, but then, where are you going to consistently find new crops of politicians? Again, being idealistic and unrealistic. 

 

There's a case here of typing before I've thought... 

But we already exclude people based on age, criminality, insanity and so on. Value-based voting is only an extension of this. The argument is based solely on what values you consider, the pass/fail criteria for them and who has the authority to decide.

 

And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "But".

 

Or "And".

 

Or...

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

 

And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "But".

 

Or "And".

 

 

Well some people start a sentence with a conviction 

[Edwardian]

It is a frequent complaint that elections are dominated by the personality of the party leaders.

 

Actually, for once, in our forthcoming General Election, that seems fair enough, as the perceived characteristics of a number of the leaders do appear to represent the most egregious, yet dominant, strains of their respective parties. What you see (provided you're not wearing your tribal blinkers) is what you'll get. Having taken a peek, I just feel like hiding behind the sofa.  

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

Election dominated by personalities, you say? You ain't seen nuffin' yet:

 

[Allegheny1600]

I've been hiding behind the sofa since the end of May (Teresa, that is!).

 

One of the problems the UK faces is that it became polarised in the run up to the EU referendum in 2016, became more so during the dithering years and now, is in a terrible state.

40 or more years of  media propaganda, constantly drip feeding the electorate with "it's all Europe's fault" allied with successive governments taking advantage of that particular scapegoat - I do wonder if the phrase "you get the government you deserve" has really come to pass?

 

TBH, I don't actually think we live in one of these much vaunted "Democratic" countries at all. By electing representatives, we actually pass the buck in a very careless manner.

As far as I understand it, Switzerland is the only country in the world that practices real democracy, where everyone has to vote on all major matters. If we did that here, voter complacency would be even worse than now but the Swiss manage it somehow, I guess because they have to vote! The British would obviously complain like hell if they had to vote!

[Hroth]

29 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Having taken a peek, I just feel like hiding behind the sofa.  

 

 

Perhaps the most egregious leaders will encounter an unexpected flight of political stairs....

 

Floating Voters!!!  Yay!!!

 

 

C'mon folks, this is turning into one of the more convoluted episodes of "In Our Time".  I know things in The Real World (probably a trademarked or copyright phrase nowadays) are getting a bit rough and terrifying*, but lets try to escape from mundanities. Thats why we're railway modellers, isn't it?

 

* I just imagined a model of an Orwellian railway.....

[woodenhead]

30 minutes ago, Allegheny1600 said:

I've been hiding behind the sofa since the end of May (Teresa, that is!).

 

One of the problems the UK faces is that it became polarised in the run up to the EU referendum in 2016, became more so during the dithering years and now, is in a terrible state.

40 or more years of  media propaganda, constantly drip feeding the electorate with "it's all Europe's fault" allied with successive governments taking advantage of that particular scapegoat - I do wonder if the phrase "you get the government you deserve" has really come to pass?

 

TBH, I don't actually think we live in one of these much vaunted "Democratic" countries at all. By electing representatives, we actually pass the buck in a very careless manner.

As far as I understand it, Switzerland is the only country in the world that practices real democracy, where everyone has to vote on all major matters. If we did that here, voter complacency would be even worse than now but the Swiss manage it somehow, I guess because they have to vote! The British would obviously complain like hell if they had to vote!

Personally I think the polarisation was planned, ditto now in America - we're being ripped apart by actors forcing us and governments to in fight and focus on other things whilst said actors do what it is they want to.

 

There is more than one way to win a war and if you play a long game tactic you don't have to do it in someone's face.

[Nearholmer]

Yep.

 

For the first time in my life I’m a conspiracy theorist.

 

I’ve always laughed at conspiracy theories, because they usually assume that a large number of people can form a secret agreement, stick to the agreement, and keep it secret, which is so against normal human behaviour as to be unbelievable.

 

I’ve always been a believer that most apparent conspiracies are simply the c*ck-ups in action.

 

Now however, the ‘reach’ of electronic communications, plus really sophisticated understandings of human psychology, derived from c150 years of formal study added to millennia of practical experience, honed by the advertising industry, spiced by black and grey propaganda practice (invented in Britain, perfected in Russia), and polished to perfection, almost accidentally, by IT-content specialists, make mass manipulation by a tiny coterie possible ....... the conspiracy need only involve a tiny number of actors, which removes my previous objections.

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Hroth]

You DO realise that the day after the election is Friday 13th?