Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Edwardian]

22 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

I had a 4 day powercut, with the added bonus that being on tank water the electric pump didn't work so I had no water either... Not being able to flush stuff adds yet  another dimension.

 

 

 

Yes I remember that from my time in the Caribbean 

 

When on hurricane warning, they cut the power for safety and you had the added joy of being boarded up, so no ventilation and little natural light!

 

I soon learnt that it was better to be boarded up in a bar than at home!

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I soon learnt that it was better to be boarded up in a bar than at home!

 

I've seen Key Largo...

[uax6]

Interestingly here in West Norfolk we had a power cut on Friday last week. I appears that its cause was a tree branch in West Acre (Just round the corner from Castle Aching), which is 20 miles away. It goes to show just how interconnected the pole routes are....

We were off for 50 minutes, hardly a hardship, and having a signal lamp in the hearth with matches on the mantle piece, we weren't in darkness for long (although the smell of lamp oil isn't fun!). 

 

It does seem that we have been getting more power cuts that we used to. Interestingly the last one of any real lenght was in 1998/9 when we were off for about 5 days. Working for BT at the time I used to visit the local exchange to have a hot drink, as the gennys were running.

 

In the move to an IP telephone world, although the exchanges will still have gennys, you will loose your phone line, as they will be fed via fibre, with local power supplies, that, if you are lucky, might have an hours battery back-up. That will make emergency calls interesting, as the mobile masts will probably have gone off the air as well, so whole areas will not have any phone service. Lucky that weather changes don't happen with climate change, isn't it? 

 

Andy G

[monkeysarefun]

4 minutes ago, uax6 said:

In the move to an IP telephone world, although the exchanges will still have gennys, you will loose your phone line, as they will be fed via fibre, with local power supplies, that, if you are lucky, might have an hours battery back-up. That will make emergency calls interesting, as the mobile masts will probably have gone off the air as well, so whole areas will not have any phone service. Lucky that weather changes don't happen with climate change, isn't it? 

 

 

Thats happened here with the rollout of the National broadband network, phones now no longer work in a power cut, dangerous when there's bushfires that cut power by burning through poles and wires and you need to call the emergency services to let them know you are trapped in your house or whatever.

 

The phone carriers answer is to have a mobile but most places out of the major towns and cities  don't have decent coverage, I'm 40km south of  the Sydney CBD and there's many areas around here where I cant get a signal. 

 

Has this had an airing here yet?

 

 

 

[uax6]

Its something that is a backwards step, which the regulator here seems happy to allow to happen, and which Joe Public is probably completely oblivious too, and which they won't find out about until the day when its really needed.... Strange how things that we have had for almost 100 years can be lost overnight in the match of progress...

 

Andy G 

[rocor]

There is an obvious need for infrastructure to be periodically updated and uprated. This all comes at a not insubstantial cost.

 

If this is pointed out by politicians, who are honest enough to state that the primary source of finance to pay for this, can only come from the electorate. Then they tend to find it having a negative impact upon their chances of being the next Government.

 

Short-termism will be the death of us. 

[Edwardian]

23 minutes ago, rocor said:

There is an obvious need for infrastructure to be periodically updated and uprated. This all comes at a not insubstantial cost.

 

If this is pointed out by politicians, who are honest enough to state that the primary source of finance to pay for this, can only come from the electorate. Then they tend to find it having a negative impact upon their chances of being the next Government.

 

Short-termism will be the death of us. 

 

The trick, no one seems to have managed, is to combat the short-termism inherent in the system without sacrificing democratic freedoms.

 

Give a leader an 80-seat majority for 5 years and he behaves as if the rules don't apply and he can do as he pleases. 

 

Imagine such an one in a system designed to maintain the continuity and stability of an administration for the sorts of periods necessary to see the long-term benefits of the immediate sacrifices asked of voters and tax payers?  

[Regularity]

7 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Has this had an airing here yet?

Probably not, because it’s not funny.

[monkeysarefun]

Tough crowd!

[Dunsignalling]

If you want a political system that provides the longer-term stability necessary for uninterrupted and efficient progress with major infrastructure projects, I'd suggest you will never find it in the UK, or not in England at any rate.

 

The conditions needed come with elections that consistently exclude single-party government. These generally result in coalitions with fairly uniform make-up that last for three or four electoral cycles with little alteration. That may not sound all that democratic in the way it works (or too often fails to) in the UK, but it has the great benefit of circumscribing the ideological tendencies present in most parties by making those wings less influential in formulating policy.

 

The medium/long term doubt/instability engendered by our first-past-the-post system is pretty much guaranteed to ensure that the best we can usually hope for is half the job for three quarters of the money, and/or massive delays.

 

John

Edited December 3, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Regularity]

The irony is, of course, that there is more in common with the left of the right, and the right of the left, and that most people are inclined to be centrists. There is common ground, and if people actually believe that taxation will pay for better services, then that would be a popular move - Tony Blair realised this and dragged the Labour Party towards the vacant plot left by the lurch to the right of the Tory party. Unfortunately, his strange relationship with George Bush, and Gordon Brown’s mismanagement of the economy (when it’s booming, you save for when it’s not - even Time Rice learned that from “Pharaoh’s Dream”, Genesis, 41:34-36) in an attempt to buy votes with excess credit facility, selling off the gold reserves at a stupidly low price, and a desire not to frighten the financial services industry by under-regulating them, meant this opportunity was lost.

With the immigrant-blaming extremes of the press being owned and manipulated by those who wish to retain London as the most corrupt money market in the world, this is sadly likely to continue.

[Compound2632]

28 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

If you want a political system that provides the longer-term stability necessary for uninterrupted and efficient progress with major infrastructure projects, I'd suggest you will never find it in the UK, or not in England at any rate.

 

The conditions needed come with elections that consistently exclude single-party government. These generally result in coalitions with fairly uniform make-up that last for three or four electoral cycles with little alteration. That may not sound all that democratic in the way it works (or too often fails to) in the UK, but it has the great benefit of circumscribing the ideological tendencies present in most parties by making those wings less influential in formulating policy.

 

The medium/long term doubt/instability engendered by our first-past-the-post system is pretty much guaranteed to ensure that the best we can usually hope for is half the job for three quarters of the money, and/or massive delays.

 

Indeed, it sounds like a recipe for centrist dictatorship. What is needed and has too often been lacking is effective opposition; that's the factor which should dampen the left-right oscillation and steer policy towards the centre-ground.

[Dunsignalling]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, it sounds like a recipe for centrist dictatorship. What is needed and has too often been lacking is effective opposition; that's the factor which should dampen the left-right oscillation and steer policy towards the centre-ground.

But such centrist coalitions will, in general, better reflect the balance of opinion within the electorate than any single party can.

 

The problem we have is that our electoral system is pretty much rigged to ensure that even two-way coalitions are freak occurrences that only happen as a last resort and which the larger party will dissolve as soon as the opportunity arises...

 

John

Edited December 3, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[monkeysarefun]

15 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The problem we have is that our electoral system is pretty much rigged to ensure that even two-way coalitions are freak occurrences that only happen as a last resort and which the larger party will dissolve as soon as the opportunity arises...

 

We've had a coalition of our two rightleaning parties since 1946 ,neither can govern in their own right. One  - the "Liberals(!) is the urban kind of trad conservative mob,  the other the former rural farmers party, now taken over by mining interests all keen to dig up their former constituents farms to get the coal out before we cant sell it any more.

 

Hence our zany climate  stance - the libs tie themselves up in knots catering to the global warming concerns of their suburban voters while trying to not rattle the cage of the nationals who are always threatening to pull out of the marriage unless they get all they ask for. Which usually means  more coal mines and when that ends they will try to solve global warming by flogging  off our uranium.. 

[Compound2632]

24 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

But such centrist coalitions will, in general, better reflect the balance of opinion within the electorate than any single party can.

 

No, because by pushing opposition to the extremes, there's no effective way of calling them to account. It's a recipe for complacency and corruption. (Not that you don't get that with single-party governments...)

[Nearholmer]

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Indeed, it sounds like a recipe for centrist dictatorship

If you can name a sustained one of those, I’ll be much educated, because my perception is that dictatorships inevitably drift-off to some bonkers extreme or the other, even if they start somewhere sanely moderate, often as the dictator goes slowly round the bend, or succumbs to the corruption that is the bedfellow of absolute power and becomes a kleptocrat.

 

Absolute monarchies are supposed to work out rather like centrist dictatorships, but they’re not much good either in most cases, because too many monarchs do roughly as above: go slowly round the bend; or, get so caught-up in their own “divine right” that they bleed their own realm dry to fund an ever more lavish court. Not many absolute monarchs have steered a moderate course with success.

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If you can name a sustained one of those, I’ll be much educated, because my perception is that dictatorships inevitably drift-off to some bonkers extreme or the other, even if they start somewhere sanely moderate, often as the dictator goes slowly round the bend, or succumbs to the corruption that is the bedfellow of absolute power and becomes a kleptocrat.

 

Absolute monarchies are supposed to work out rather like centrist dictatorships, but they’re not much good either in most cases, because too many monarchs do roughly as above: go slowly round the bend; or, get so caught-up in their own “divine right” that they bleed their own realm dry to fund an ever more lavish court. Not many absolute monarchs have steered a moderate course with success.

 

I'm not sure I suggested that it would be sustained, merely that it would arise. The drift you speak of is an inevitable consequence of the lack of effective opposition. I'd point to medieval kingship, which by-and-large was held in check by the balancing power of the church.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Compound2632

[Nearholmer]

Yes, checks on the absoluteness of absolute monarchs have existed in various places at various times almost since the outset, if not through the church, then through things like sibling rivalry, the need in an age of poor communications to appoint empowered regional earls, who then acquired big boots, etc.

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

No, because by pushing opposition to the extremes, there's no effective way of calling them to account. It's a recipe for complacency and corruption. (Not that you don't get that with single-party governments...)

 

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Indeed, it sounds like a recipe for centrist dictatorship. What is needed and has too often been lacking is effective opposition; that's the factor which should dampen the left-right oscillation and steer policy towards the centre-ground.

The problem with traditional oppositions is that, if they are truly effective, they will deliver one of two outcomes at the next election. Either a change of government, or a continuation of the existing one with a much reduced majority.

 

Neither may be good for a big infrastructure project unless it has got beyond "the point of no return" where cancellation costs more than completion. There is either a whole new bunch of people in charge who may have opposed it all along, or an increase in the influence of the ideological end of the governing party who might also have done so but were unable to get their way when their party had a larger majority.

 

If we want centrist governments that stick with long-term plans over extended timescales, coalitions are the only proven way to deliver it. If that "marginalises" the left and right wings, it can be argued that it better reflects their real level of support in the wider context beyond their respective parties.

 

John

[Ian Simpson]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

Probably not, because it’s not funny.

 

Although it was quaint, so thanks for posting. 

Anyway, hope Reg. will enjoy this more:

 

[Regularity]

13 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

Although it was quaint, so thanks for posting. 

Anyway, hope Reg. will enjoy this more

As with the other one, I can see what they are trying to do.

[Ian Simpson]

Far enough. I feel the same way about Michael McIntyre.

[Dunsignalling]

12 minutes ago, Ian Simpson said:

Far enough. I feel the same way about Michael McIntyre.

Though I've never worked out what he's trying to do, or why.

[Regularity]

29 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Though I've never worked out what he's trying to do, or why.

Get attention, for some reason?

[Annie]

5 hours ago, Regularity said:

Probably not, because it’s not funny.

Lovely clothes though.