Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
But Hillary won more votes throughout that federal republic in 2016
But not more states within the federal republic. The Democrats want to dissolve the federal nature of the constitution but to do so would require the smaller states to consent to their being shafted . . . not going to happen!
The Supreme Court is the issue. When a highly partisan President elected by a minority can get his nominations through a highly partisan Senate elected by a minority, it is going to lead to those in the majority asking questions about whether this should be allowed to continue.
What are they going to do about it? The Founders wanted it to work this way. The US Constitution says this is the way it is meant to work. The Supreme Court will confirm this is the way it is meant to work. The Small States will never accept a constitutional amendment to the way it works.
Even if Warren gets elected she can't change any of that. Not unless she can get the small states to surrender their powers voluntarily which isn't going to happen. The large states can either split into multiple smaller states, or quit the union (though the Civil War said that was illegal) or the parties can adapt to try and be more attractive to smaller states.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
IIRC ...... can't find the reference ATM ........ there was a discussion very early on in US history about the system being slightly unbalanced in favour of smaller states, and the consensus was that not was that deliberate but it was desirable. That may well not be the case 200 years later, of course.
The Supreme Court is the issue. When a highly partisan President elected by a minority can get his nominations through a highly partisan Senate elected by a minority, it is going to lead to those in the majority asking questions about whether this should be allowed to continue.
What are they going to do about it? The Founders wanted it to work this way. The US Constitution says this is the way it is meant to work. The Supreme Court will confirm this is the way it is meant to work. The Small States will never accept a constitutional amendment to the way it works.
Evenstates.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
It's where the US now is. When the minority runs roughshod over the majority for a sustained period, the majority will react. The Republicans are doing all they can to hold back the dam, but at some point it is going to burst and overwhelm them. It did not have to be this way, and largely wasn't for many years, but then Obama got elected and the GOP went mad.
Only the middle class can currently afford to use trains. Reducing fares opens them up to poorer people. Surely you can see that?
As I said, it is a subsidy to richer train travellers at the expense of poorer ones and general taxpayers. As to not yet rail travellers then yes they will benefit from now lower fares but those lower fares will disproportionately benefit those who make more journeys, ie the rich.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
It might be. But you seem remarkably unconcerned about the very dangerous precedents set by the Republicans in recent years.
You don't know my views on American politics then. I am disgusted by the GOP nowadays. I would 100% vote Democrat if I was in America. The modern Republican Party is a disgusting, vile, racist, nasty, hateful mess. The way ICE behaves should ashame anyone who cares about people. The way the Federal Government has been separating parents from children makes me furious. The Republicans need to be driven from power urgently. Can I make myself any clearer? That won't happen by making fairytale promises you can't honour by wistfully wishing that the Electoral College doesn't exist. If people like Warren end up as the nominee and continue to act like California should override smaller states then she is going to lose the Electoral College and we will have Trump inflicted on us for another 4 years. I would like to see that avoided at all costs. The Democrats should not be threatening smaller states influence. They should be going hell to leather to win the smaller states so they can get Trump out. That should be the overwhelming priority! Do you disagree with anything I've written?
The Supreme Court is the issue. When a highly partisan President elected by a minority can get his nominations through a highly partisan Senate elected by a minority, it is going to lead to those in the majority asking questions about whether this should be allowed to continue.
What are they going to do about it? The Founders wanted it to work this way. The US Constitution says this is the way it is meant to work. The Supreme Court will confirm this is the way it is meant to work. The Small States will never accept a constitutional amendment to the way it works.
Evenstates.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
It's where the US now is. When the minority runs roughshod over the majority for a sustained period, the majority will react. The Republicans are doing all they can to hold back the dam, but at some point it is going to burst and overwhelm them. It did not have to be this way, and largely wasn't for many years, but then Obama got elected and the GOP went mad.
The Supreme Court is the issue. When a highly partisan President elected by a minority can get his nominations through a highly partisan Senate elected by a minority, it is going to lead to those in the majority asking questions about whether this should be allowed to continue.
What are they going to do about it? The Founders wanted it to work this way. The US Constitution says this is the way it is meant to work. The Supreme Court will confirm this is the way it is meant to work. The Small States will never accept a constitutional amendment to the way it works.
Evenstates.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
It's where the US now is. When the minority runs roughshod over the majority for a sustained period, the majority will react. The Republicans are doing all they can to hold back the dam, but at some point it is going to burst and overwhelm them. It did not have to be this way, and largely wasn't for many years, but then Obama got elected and the GOP went mad.
I'm not - not 100% - but I am happy to take the likes of Batman at face value. He appears to respect women, certainly no #metoo issues have ever come to light, and so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he's a genuinely decent guy as far as I am concerned. Ditto the others. "Boris" OTOH? Quite.
I have met Batman and I can tell you he is very much a ladies' man.
His teenage ward and companion 'Dick' Grayson very much agrees.
It might. For example, this rail innovation appeals to middle class commuters but it will not annoy the lower orders. Why? Because Jeremy is already very strongly associated with improving the buses. Indeed it was his signature policy for months well before this GE was called. That will have sunk in. People can see - people who use buses can see - that the issue is a real priority. It has not been dreamt up on the fly just for Dec 12th. "You can't fatten the pig on market day" (Bing Crosby).
It should appeal to middle class voters because the policy overwhelmingly benefits the better off at the expense of the poorer. It is a subsidy to better off train travellers. Is that a policy you are hugely in favour of?
Only the middle class can currently afford to use trains. Reducing fares opens them up to poorer people. Surely you can see that?
No. The majority of traffic is commuter peak, and if you're not middle-class working a high paying job in a city in all likelihood you don't live that far enough from your workplace for the train to be worth it. When you factor in time to and from stations (often requiring a car anyway) it doesn't make sense. And that is even if you live in the South where stations are somewhat close to employment centres. No one is going to commute into London to do a minimum wage job etc.
The Lib Dems are uncompetitive in almost all Labour seats and more so in Tory ones because the Lib Dems have almost no appeal in aggregate to areas of deprivation. The exception that proves the rule is Sheffield Hallam, Labour's least deprived constituency by some distance. The broad seat structure and biggest indicator of whether your seat is Labour or (Tory/Lib Dem) is deprivation.
Sheffield Hallam is less deprived than Cambridge, Canterbury and Kensington? I don't know the place but it seems unlikely. And in Broxtowe, the Labour vote was and I believe still is concentrated in the near-wealthiest areas (because that was also the near-university area). There's plenty of polling data that link between class and party is much weaker these days - the real pointer is age structure.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
Dunno though. The problem is that since the Senate underweights Democrats, the Dems who might win in a wave year still have to think about how to appeal to Republicans next time, when the circumstances may be less favourable. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with 2 senators from West Virginia. So I'm not convinced the Dems will do anything bold that has to pass the Senate.
There will come a point when the Democrats win back the Senate. When that happens, a lot of things will probably happen quite quickly. One of the first will be to increase the size of the Supreme Court. That does not need a constitutional amendment.
It will require 60 seats in the Senate unless they plan to end the filibuster too. It would be a very dangerous precendent to set.
It's where the US now is. When the minority runs roughshod over the majority for a sustained period, the majority will react. The Republicans are doing all they can to hold back the dam, but at some point it is going to burst and overwhelm them. It did not have to be this way, and largely wasn't for many years, but then Obama got elected and the GOP went mad.
But the Democrats aren't the majority. The GOP have a majority of States and rather consistently do. The Democrats urgently need to ask themselves how they can start winning more seats and doing that. There may very briefly be a period when the Democrats can gain both the Senate and Presidency - as Obama did for just 2 years from memory - but if they do the GOP will very quickly regain the Senate unless the Democrats stop concentrating so much on the coastal states.
The Lib Dems are uncompetitive in almost all Labour seats and more so in Tory ones because the Lib Dems have almost no appeal in aggregate to areas of deprivation. The exception that proves the rule is Sheffield Hallam, Labour's least deprived constituency by some distance. The broad seat structure and biggest indicator of whether your seat is Labour or (Tory/Lib Dem) is deprivation.
Sheffield Hallam is less deprived than Cambridge, Canterbury and Kensington? I don't know the place but it seems unlikely. And in Broxtowe, the Labour vote was and I believe still is concentrated in the near-wealthiest areas (because that was also the near-university area). There's plenty of polling data that link between class and party is much weaker these days - the real pointer is age structure.
Strange then that Labour just announced a policy that may encourage LDs in Con remain seats to vote Labour...
Hopefully it will just give that extra nudge to LDs in Lab/Con marginals to vote Labour. In Con/LD battlegrounds it will lessen fear of PM Corbyn and support the LD vote (maybe even for some soft Cons). Again, hopefully.
The Lib Dems are uncompetitive in almost all Labour seats and more so in Tory ones because the Lib Dems have almost no appeal in aggregate to areas of deprivation. The exception that proves the rule is Sheffield Hallam, Labour's least deprived constituency by some distance. The broad seat structure and biggest indicator of whether your seat is Labour or (Tory/Lib Dem) is deprivation.
Sheffield Hallam is less deprived than Cambridge, Canterbury and Kensington? I don't know the place but it seems unlikely. And in Broxtowe, the Labour vote was and I believe still is concentrated in the near-wealthiest areas (because that was also the near-university area). There's plenty of polling data that link between class and party is much weaker these days - the real pointer is age structure.
Interesting that Walsall North, the 21st most deprived constituency in England, votes Conservative. Why is that?
Historically Labour, flipped in 2017... But as Pulpstar has alluded to, aggregate constituency deprivation figures mask that most have a real mix of poor and wealthy areas. E.g. many of the "poor" London constituencies have pockets of huge wealth. When reading across into elections you must remember poorer people generally vote at much lower rates, so elections are really about what the wealthier (at least, not rock bottom poor) members of any constituencies are thinking.
Strange then that Labour just announced a policy that may encourage LDs in Con remain seats to vote Labour...
Hopefully it will just give that extra nudge to LDs in Lab/Con marginals to vote Labour. In Con/LD battlegrounds it will lessen fear of PM Corbyn and support the LD vote (maybe even for some soft Cons). Again, hopefully.
It would if anyone believed they will be in a position to act on their bribes
Interesting the lib dems are opposing nationalisation, so with the conservatives and dup it is not going to happen
It should appeal to middle class voters because the policy overwhelmingly benefits the better off at the expense of the poorer. It is a subsidy to better off train travellers. Is that a policy you are hugely in favour of?
Not "at the expense of" if you look at transport in the round, and in particular, as I say, at the bus side of things. Will somebody in Barnsley whose life has been transformed by a better and cheaper bus service be annoyed that the commuter in Barnes is also getting a better deal? I don't think they will. You don't help the poor by clobbering the rich. Well, I think you do, but everybody tells me that is the Politics of Envy and is to be avoided. Looks like Corbyn & Co agree.
The Tories now trashing freedom of movement . Any evidence that anyone using FOM has ever committed a terrorist act in the UK ! Thought not , just more lies from Bozo and the rest .
I have never seen even one Tory try to link FoM with terrorism. If you're going to attack straw men then why not provide a link to what you're claiming rather than BS?
The Vote Leave (run by Johnson, Gove et al) poster showing Iraq and Syria on the border of the EU was I think at least dog whistling in that direction.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
The way things have panned out I honestly cannot see the Lib Dems getting more than 12 seats. Could be another single finger calamity. All that money they had what has happened, the Leadersip appears to have lost heart and doomsday AGAIN beckons. If this is what happens then the who party will need to be reformed from top to bottom, including a proper clear out of personnel.
I can see a lot of second places in the South East, up from third in many cases, which should give them more of a launchpad for the future. Most of the 2017 LDs should be safe (but not many of the defectors), and they might pick up a handful of others around the place. I reckon 15-20.
And there is the stupidity of LibDems. Until they understand that as a left of centre party the largest pool of available seats are those held by the parties to the left they will fail to grow. There is very little chance of having two left of centre major parties in our system. Winning a few Tory seats may make them happy, but it is a strategy limited to a handful of seats. There are over 200 seats held by a left wing party that is despised by a large number of people who vote to the left. That is where most of the possible LibDem long term gains reside, if they ever want to be a party with a regular good sized representation. The swing seats they may win or lose are the Tory seats they have so many orgasms over winning occasionally or coming second.
If they were serious about winning they wouldn't have elected the idiot Swinson as leader. Possibly the least able politician ever to lead a national party
No wonder Vince hung on as long as he did
I thought he hung on precisely to give Swinson a chance given that she was on maternity leave with her second child.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
Squaw Warren is on the warpath against the federation
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, which requires all the states to agree? Why would they? And won’t that take up time and legislative energy? It seems a foolish priority.
It isn’t. It’s a call out to the radical left who like to bias the system when they can
How is a system that allows a minority to create lifelong Supreme Court justices not biased in favour of that minority?
Which is the folly of tactical voting. Every vote they 'give away' weakens the LibDems for next time. I like the sweet innocence they have that it is a two way process. Mostly they are givers and Labour are receivers. Labour end up laughing all the way to the next election.
It's folly if you are a committed LD. However, if you are mainly anti-Tory, it isn't.
Only the middle class can currently afford to use trains. Reducing fares opens them up to poorer people. Surely you can see that?
As I said, it is a subsidy to richer train travellers at the expense of poorer ones and general taxpayers. As to not yet rail travellers then yes they will benefit from now lower fares but those lower fares will disproportionately benefit those who make more journeys, ie the rich.
The majority of those commuters will not touch Labour with a barge pole anyway
He said "we have a queen's speech that was blocked by Parliament"
Why did he lie about that?
He didn't. The Queen's speech was heavily focused on delivering Brexit. Everything in it required MPs to vote through the deal Johnson had agreed with the EU. They blocked it, thus blocking the whole of his legislative agenda. Hence this general election.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
The Lib Dems are uncompetitive in almost all Labour seats and more so in Tory ones because the Lib Dems have almost no appeal in aggregate to areas of deprivation. The exception that proves the rule is Sheffield Hallam, Labour's least deprived constituency by some distance. The broad seat structure and biggest indicator of whether your seat is Labour or (Tory/Lib Dem) is deprivation.
Indeed. Its in Labour's political interest to ensure deprivation continues, it is in Tory interest to end deprivation. If you want deprivation to end then vote Tory.
As Berlusconi said 'the left love poverty and every time they get in they create more of it!'
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Just to note that electric vs petrol/diesel cars and private vs communal cars operate on completely different axes, and the move to electric doesn't affect how long they spend stationary. Third hilarious typo of the morning there, by the way: the second being someone projecting a single finger number of seats for the Lib Dems. Which would indeed be a clear message to Swinson.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
Carbon neutral by 2050 is the aim but I expect cars of some kind will dominate personal transport for most outside London and the big cities even beyond 2050
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
the reality is they are a bit shit with low range, but that is changing, we are on the cusp of mass market.
Boris Johnson's mendacity has now reached peak danger, not just for the period of the election but for the months that are to follow. We have a possible Prime Minister who is prepared to lie his way to power and no one is really offering an effective challenge to his bumbling pretence.
A small chink of light may exist in the silent army of true blue Tories in the shires who have a profound sense of distaste about Johnson's character and behaviour. Anecdotal evidence in this corner of Dorset presents a powerful testament of these distinguished switchers who have already voted for the Liberal candidate and have sent in their postal vote with a sense of being the right thing to do.
They may be too small in number to make a difference to the result but they are a very powerful moral force in their community.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Actually you're quite wrong on that one. It is the Tories policy to support Electric Cars more. Labour today are saying they'll take fund out of roads to bribe rail commuters that will make roads worse not better. And while the days of the Internal Combusion Engine are coming to an end the days of cars will never end. The only way we will move away from having our own cars is if we move to a vastly expanded Uber system which would mean more wear and tear on the roads not less. We generally leave our cars stationery where we are, while they are stationery they're not damaging the roads. If we need to call an Uber every time we want to move then that would mean the vehicle needs to not just do our journey but come to us too - that increases road wear and tear it doesn't reduce it.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
I think it will be normal by the end of the next decade and I agree it will depend upon a lot of investment.
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
The way things have panned out I honestly cannot see the Lib Dems getting more than 12 seats. Could be another single finger calamity. All that money they had what has happened, the Leadersip appears to have lost heart and doomsday AGAIN beckons. If this is what happens then the who party will need to be reformed from top to bottom, including a proper clear out of personnel.
They need to carve out a USP
At the moment they are just a squishy version of Labour.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
It will be decades away
Change can come quickly. The ipad and the era of smart phone is barely a decade old yet it has changed our society in ways that are difficult to quantify. Barely a decade... And probably the most disruptive innovation of the 21st century...
Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
Squaw Warren is on the warpath against the federation
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, which requires all the states to agree? Why would they? And won’t that take up time and legislative energy? It seems a foolish priority.
It isn’t. It’s a call out to the radical left who like to bias the system when they can
How is a system that allows a minority to create lifelong Supreme Court justices not biased in favour of that minority?
It is designed to protect the small states
It has been that was for 200 years
Changing it at this point is creating a bias
The electoral college is an anachronism. It doesn't offer much protection to the smaller States as the distortion created by apportioning smaller States a minimum of 3 EC votes isn't huge. Its main purpose was to introduce a layer of elite control via the EC delegates to block the electorate choosing the 'wrong' candidate. Nowadays the main effect is to add an additional layer of randomness in mapping votes into the result. It just doesn't make sense in choosing a single national candidate to count the votes by state (and allowing each state to choose how the vote shares map into electors!) rather than having a national tally. The real problem with unfairly boosting smaller States is via the Senate. Although I have often thought it provides an interesting precedent for an elected House of Lords - with equal numbers of representatives from each of the four UK nations.
Re the WASPI women, as predicted by me (smug mode on - ):- Jeremy Corbyn asked on funding "expensive offers" like the £58bn WASPI women package, he says "it's not an expensive offer, it's a moral duty to pay it and we will make sure it is paid... either from government reserves or from rates of taxation, it won't all be paid at once". Note the last phrase. Anyone expecting a large cheque through the post - dream on.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Actually you're quite wrong on that one. It is the Tories policy to support Electric Cars more. Labour today are saying they'll take fund out of roads to bribe rail commuters that will make roads worse not better. And while the days of the Internal Combusion Engine are coming to an end the days of cars will never end. The only way we will move away from having our own cars is if we move to a vastly expanded Uber system which would mean more wear and tear on the roads not less. We generally leave our cars stationery where we are, while they are stationery they're not damaging the roads. If we need to call an Uber every time we want to move then that would mean the vehicle needs to not just do our journey but come to us too - that increases road wear and tear it doesn't reduce it.
It could however vastly reduce the number of cars on the road which would have a secondary impact on travel times.
Personally I side with your argument more than Uber's. There is a place for Uber's imagined service but it does require cars to be fully self driving so you don't have the labour costs. Heck Uber's entire business model was that driving would be automated before it ran out of money (that isn't going to be the case by the way).
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
My new build (and every house on the estate) came with a car charging point.
Not "at the expense of" if you look at transport in the round, and in particular, as I say, at the bus side of things. Will somebody in Barnsley whose life has been transformed by a better and cheaper bus service be annoyed that the commuter in Barnes is also getting a better deal? I don't think they will. You don't help the poor by clobbering the rich. Well, I think you do, but everybody tells me that is the Politics of Envy and is to be avoided. Looks like Corbyn & Co agree.
the policy would shift the cost of the railways more to general taxation. ie that bus user in Barnsley. That person would be subsidising the commuter in Barnes. It's illiterate of Labour. But typical I suppose.
What about people who drive? Which is the vast, vast, vast majority of workers in the North.
There is a policy there too. Electric cars. Longer term, it's important to realize that the era of the private car is drawing to an end. It won't be long until we look back and chuckle at this notion that the best way to move around the place is in individual lumps of metal on rubbered wheels, which spend almost all of their time stationery for one reason or another.
Actually you're quite wrong on that one. It is the Tories policy to support Electric Cars more. Labour today are saying they'll take fund out of roads to bribe rail commuters that will make roads worse not better. And while the days of the Internal Combusion Engine are coming to an end the days of cars will never end. The only way we will move away from having our own cars is if we move to a vastly expanded Uber system which would mean more wear and tear on the roads not less. We generally leave our cars stationery where we are, while they are stationery they're not damaging the roads. If we need to call an Uber every time we want to move then that would mean the vehicle needs to not just do our journey but come to us too - that increases road wear and tear it doesn't reduce it.
It could however vastly reduce the number of cars on the road which would have a secondary impact on travel times.
Personally I side with your argument more than Uber's. There is a place for Uber's imagined service but it does require cars to be fully self driving so you don't have the labour costs. Heck Uber's entire business model was that driving would be automated before it ran out of money (that isn't going to be the case by the way).
Unless you are including parked cars, which don't affect traffic in sensibly designed streets, it would increase not reduce the number of vehicles on the road if we had to get a vehicle to come to us before we can get into it.
Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
Squaw Warren is on the warpath against the federation
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, which requires all the states to agree? Why would they? And won’t that take up time and legislative energy? It seems a foolish priority.
It isn’t. It’s a call out to the radical left who like to bias the system when they can
How is a system that allows a minority to create lifelong Supreme Court justices not biased in favour of that minority?
It is designed to protect the small states
It has been that was for 200 years
Changing it at this point is creating a bias
The electoral college is an anachronism. It doesn't offer much protection to the smaller States as the distortion created by apportioning smaller States a minimum of 3 EC votes isn't huge. Its main purpose was to introduce a layer of elite control via the EC delegates to block the electorate choosing the 'wrong' candidate. Nowadays the main effect is to add an additional layer of randomness in mapping votes into the result. It just doesn't make sense in choosing a single national candidate to count the votes by state (and allowing each state to choose how the vote shares map into electors!) rather than having a national tally. The real problem with unfairly boosting smaller States is via the Senate. Although I have often thought it provides an interesting precedent for an elected House of Lords - with equal numbers of representatives from each of the four UK nations.
If the Electoral College was scrapped US presidential elections would basically become like the second round in French Presidential elections, solely determined by popular vote.
Though Congress would still see individual districts and states represented as the French legislature represents individual departments and regions
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
My new build (and every house on the estate) came with a car charging point.
That should be the law (assuming it’s not). The annoying thing is the variety of charging standards - internationally as well as domestically. Should be a priority for us all to standardise to ease transition.
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
I was referring to electric cars. The number of times I can park outside my house does not make it sensible to rely on an electric car in London. I don't use it often - mainly for transporting plants or to travel out of the city. In the Lakes when I move there, yes, I can charge at home but would need reliable charging points in the area. You don't want to be stuck on the fells with a car that's run out of energy. BTW - still no response from Labour on the abortion question. Very feeble of them. The Tories responded within 24 hours on the WASPI issue.
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
Londoners tend to start work late. I think it's down to the prevalence of long distance commuting. Also transport is pretty reliable most of the time and you can generally predict your arrival time quite closely. Say 5 minutes each way. If something goes wrong, being late is considered acceptable (unless you make a habit of it)
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Until you have charging points all over the place, dream on. They are too few, too slow, too unreliable to make it sensible to move to an all electric car. This is one area of infrastructure where the government ought to be investing heavily. I would like to get one but not if I can’t be certain of finding a charging point which works.
You can get one at home, I believe. My brother has one on his fence.
Only works if you have your own parking space at home though. Not everybody does, that's the problem with electric. Electric cars will only be able to completely replace the internal combusion engine once we can reliably, affordably and quickly charge them on the move and have no requirement to charge at home.
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
People are shocked and angry when redundancies at car companies are announced.
What does anybody expect? In a couple of decades their main produts will be illegal.
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
45 mins to spare, don't you have better things to do with your time other than sit in the office working for free?
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Fuel tax will be a problem but power generation will not be. We’re rapidly closing in on more then 50% renewable. Add in a solid 20% nuclear and improved battery storage, and we will only need a smallish amount of gas to manage demand. In terms of replacing the stock of cars, I’d need to look at stats, but I doubt too many people have a car older than 15 years old. So 15-20 years from the sale of the last petrol car (hastened as petrol stations close or convert to electric) you’ll see change over. Petrol cars will be limited to classics only in 30 years.
Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
Squaw Warren is on the warpath against the federation
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, which requires all the states to agree? Why would they? And won’t that take up time and legislative energy? It seems a foolish priority.
It isn’t. It’s a call out to the radical left who n
How is a system that allows a minority to create lifelong Supreme Court justices not biased in favour of that minority?
It is designed to protect the small states
It has been that was for 200 years
Changing it at this point is creating a bias
The electoral college is an anachronism. It doesn't offer much protection to the smaller States as the distortion created by apportioning smaller States a minimum of 3 EC votes isn't huge. Its main purpose was to introduce a layer of elite control via the EC delegates to block the electorate choosing the 'wrong' candidate. Nowadays the main effect is to add an additional layer of randomness in mapping votes into the result. It just doesn't make sense in choosing a single national candidate to count the votes by state (and allowing each state to choose how the vote shares map into electors!) rather than having a national tally. The real problem with unfairly boosting smaller States is via the Senate. Although I have often thought it provides an interesting precedent for an elected House of Lords - with equal numbers of representatives from each of the four UK nations.
If the Electoral College was scrapped US presidential elections would basically become like the second round in French Presidential elections, solely determined by popular vote.
Though Congress would still see individual districts and states represented as the French legislature represents individual departments and regions
Why would you not want it determined by the popular vote? It is a national position, and the winner should command the biggest national mandate, it shouldn't matter how that vote is distributed. I can just about understand the rationale for equal representation in the Senate. Although if it systematically over-represented the votes of minorities and Democrats rather than the opposite you can be sure it would have been changed by now.
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
Why do non-Londoners finish work so early? Noone leaves the office here until at least 7pm, every day. Other cities' offices are blackout by 6
And you are aware of the sexual activities of a range of superheroes how exactly?
I'm not - not 100% - but I am happy to take the likes of Batman at face value. He appears to respect women, certainly no #metoo issues have ever come to light, and so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he's a genuinely decent guy as far as I am concerned. Ditto the others. "Boris" OTOH? Quite.
Didn’t Spidey get up to some tricks with Mary-Jane?
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
45 mins to spare, don't you have better things to do with your time other than sit in the office working for free?
Nope - because I also leave 45 minutes earlier when what I need to do is done.
The majority of those commuters will not touch Labour with a barge pole anyway Seems utterly stupid
So, given they are NOT stupid when it comes to campaign offers, you must be missing something. And what it is, IMO, as alluded to by @Stark_Dawning, is that Corbyn is positioning himself as a One Nation Socialist. The policy is great for this because it conjures up the image of middle class strivers being helped out - a lot - by a Labour government. It sits nicely with Waspi in this regard. All that's missing now is something big on uni fees. But at the same time we have the emphasis on buses which has been going for a long time now. You will recall that months ago when all parliament wanted to talk about was Brexit, Jeremy at PMQs would calmly and forensically - but with passion too - push the cost v benefit case for the buses. People laughed at him for it but it was astute. Buses are important to many of the less well off and they will have clocked his stance. Now, come election time, it pays off. Reap and ye shall sow.
And you are aware of the sexual activities of a range of superheroes how exactly?
I'm not - not 100% - but I am happy to take the likes of Batman at face value. He appears to respect women, certainly no #metoo issues have ever come to light, and so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he's a genuinely decent guy as far as I am concerned. Ditto the others. "Boris" OTOH? Quite.
Didn’t Spidey get up to some tricks with Mary-Jane?
He actually kills her with his radioactive semen. And for once I'm not joking
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
45 mins to spare, don't you have better things to do with your time other than sit in the office working for free?
Nope - because I also leave 45 minutes earlier when what I need to do is done.
That's fine for people with flexible working hours, loads don't have that luxury and have to finish at a set time.
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
Why do non-Londoners finish work so early? Noone leaves the office here until at least 7pm, every day. Other cities' offices are blackout by 6
Yes, if you arrive later work until later if the office is still open
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Fuel tax will be a problem but power generation will not be. We’re rapidly closing in on more then 50% renewable. Add in a solid 20% nuclear and improved battery storage, and we will only need a smallish amount of gas to manage demand. In terms of replacing the stock of cars, I’d need to look at stats, but I doubt too many people have a car older than 15 years old. So 15-20 years from the sale of the last petrol car (hastened as petrol stations close or convert to electric) you’ll see change over. Petrol cars will be limited to classics only in 30 years.
I agree largely with your post but am doubtful on power generation considering the massive increase in demand that will follow all vehicles being electric
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Fuel tax will be a problem but power generation will not be. We’re rapidly closing in on more then 50% renewable. Add in a solid 20% nuclear and improved battery storage, and we will only need a smallish amount of gas to manage demand. In terms of replacing the stock of cars, I’d need to look at stats, but I doubt too many people have a car older than 15 years old. So 15-20 years from the sale of the last petrol car (hastened as petrol stations close or convert to electric) you’ll see change over. Petrol cars will be limited to classics only in 30 years.
Indeed. It is quite plausible to see a ban on the sale of new petrol/diesel cars by 2030 (so long as the charging situation has been dealt with by then) in which case they would be quickly eliminated. Plus once it reaches a tipping point it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, we will see increasing amounts hopefully of rapid charge points but petrol stations will probably start closing down as they have ever fewer customers relying upon them which will encourage more people to switch across to electric. Its hard to see that many petrol stations still existing come 2040.
Pocohontas in I support the system that benefits me most shocker
I thought the US was a federal republic. So much for the views of the smaller states...
Squaw Warren is on the warpath against the federation
Doesn’t that require a constitutional amendment, which requires all the states to agree? Why would they? And won’t that take up time and legislative energy? It seems a foolish priority.
It isn’t. It’s a call out to the radical left who n
How is a system that allows a minority to create lifelong Supreme Court justices not biased in favour of that minority?
It is designed to protect the small states
It has been that was for 200 years
Changing it at this point is creating a bias
The electoral college is an anachronism. It doesn't offer much protection to the smaller States as the distortion created by apportioning smaller States a minimum of 3 EC votes isn't huge. Its main purpose was to introduce a layer of elite control via the EC delegates to block the electorate choosing the 'wrong' candidate. Nowadays the main effect is to add an additional layer of randomness in mapping votes into cted House of Lords - with equal numbers of representatives from each of the four UK nations.
If the Electoral College was scrapped US presidential elections would basically become like the second round in French Presidential elections, solely determined by popular vote.
Though Congress would still see individual districts and states represented as the French legislature represents individual departments and regions
Why would you not want it determined by the popular vote? It is a national position, and the winner should command the biggest national mandate, it shouldn't matter how that vote is distributed. I can just about understand the rationale for equal representation in the Senate. Although if it systematically over-represented the votes of minorities and Democrats rather than the opposite you can be sure it would have been changed by now.
The US system is states rights but I can see a case for popular vote for presidential elections but seats under FPTP or second ballot for legislatures as in France
Why do Londoners set off for work so late? I get to work/uni with at least 45 minutes to spare so if the bus is late or there is traffic, it does not matter...
45 mins to spare, don't you have better things to do with your time other than sit in the office working for free?
I go to a cafe nearby and relax with a double espresso like the liberal, metropolitan elite scum that I am.
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Fuel tax will be a problem but power generation will not be. We’re rapidly closing in on more then 50% renewable. Add in a solid 20% nuclear and improved battery storage, and we will only need a smallish amount of gas to manage demand. In terms of replacing the stock of cars, I’d need to look at stats, but I doubt too many people have a car older than 15 years old. So 15-20 years from the sale of the last petrol car (hastened as petrol stations close or convert to electric) you’ll see change over. Petrol cars will be limited to classics only in 30 years.
I agree largely with your post but am doubtful on power generation considering the massive increase in demand that will follow all vehicles being electric
Some interesting patents have been issued to the US Navy for zero point and cold fusion related power generation. Would make everything irrelevant.
@Big_G_NorthWales there’s plenty of Teslas driving around the NE and more so every year. I see one at least a few times a week.
I am in favour of electric cars but the issues on affordability and range are immense
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
Fuel tax will be a problem but power generation will not be. We’re rapidly closing in on more then 50% renewable. Add in a solid 20% nuclear and improved battery storage, and we will only need a smallish amount of gas to manage demand. In terms of replacing the stock of cars, I’d need to look at stats, but I doubt too many people have a car older than 15 years old. So 15-20 years from the sale of the last petrol car (hastened as petrol stations close or convert to electric) you’ll see change over. Petrol cars will be limited to classics only in 30 years.
I agree largely with your post but am doubtful on power generation considering the massive increase in demand that will follow all vehicles being electric
This is where my view on making electric cars work departs from greens. We need to really go for nuclear.
Noticed SkyBet has removed a couple of constituencies from its betting options. Both Scottish. Moray (Con/SNP marginal) and Ross, Skye & Lochaber (Ian Blackford's seat targeted by LibDems). Wonder why. Is it normal to withdraw betting opportunities (rather than just adjust the odds)?
I'm not - not 100% - but I am happy to take the likes of Batman at face value. He appears to respect women, certainly no #metoo issues have ever come to light, and so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he's a genuinely decent guy as far as I am concerned. Ditto the others. "Boris" OTOH? Quite.
I have met Batman and I can tell you he is very much a ladies' man.
Comments
It's a leave area and they really.dont want to mention Brexit at all..
That may well not be the case 200 years later, of course.
The modern Republican Party is a disgusting, vile, racist, nasty, hateful mess. The way ICE behaves should ashame anyone who cares about people. The way the Federal Government has been separating parents from children makes me furious. The Republicans need to be driven from power urgently. Can I make myself any clearer?
That won't happen by making fairytale promises you can't honour by wistfully wishing that the Electoral College doesn't exist. If people like Warren end up as the nominee and continue to act like California should override smaller states then she is going to lose the Electoral College and we will have Trump inflicted on us for another 4 years. I would like to see that avoided at all costs.
The Democrats should not be threatening smaller states influence. They should be going hell to leather to win the smaller states so they can get Trump out. That should be the overwhelming priority!
Do you disagree with anything I've written?
The majority of traffic is commuter peak, and if you're not middle-class working a high paying job in a city in all likelihood you don't live that far enough from your workplace for the train to be worth it. When you factor in time to and from stations (often requiring a car anyway) it doesn't make sense. And that is even if you live in the South where stations are somewhat close to employment centres.
No one is going to commute into London to do a minimum wage job etc.
The Democrats urgently need to ask themselves how they can start winning more seats and doing that.
There may very briefly be a period when the Democrats can gain both the Senate and Presidency - as Obama did for just 2 years from memory - but if they do the GOP will very quickly regain the Senate unless the Democrats stop concentrating so much on the coastal states.
But as Pulpstar has alluded to, aggregate constituency deprivation figures mask that most have a real mix of poor and wealthy areas. E.g. many of the "poor" London constituencies have pockets of huge wealth.
When reading across into elections you must remember poorer people generally vote at much lower rates, so elections are really about what the wealthier (at least, not rock bottom poor) members of any constituencies are thinking.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50624056
He said "we have a queen's speech that was blocked by Parliament"
Interesting the lib dems are opposing nationalisation, so with the conservatives and dup it is not going to happen
The only real oddity is California being totally anemic in EC votes in comparison to the rest of the US.
The good news is the voters will not be bought
It has been that was for 200 years
Changing it at this point is creating a bias
Seems utterly stupid
Third hilarious typo of the morning there, by the way: the second being someone projecting a single finger number of seats for the Lib Dems. Which would indeed be a clear message to Swinson.
Hes there to check for Jews and Chuka
A small chink of light may exist in the silent army of true blue Tories in the shires who have a profound sense of distaste about Johnson's character and behaviour. Anecdotal evidence in this corner of Dorset presents a powerful testament of these distinguished switchers who have already voted for the Liberal candidate and have sent in their postal vote with a sense of being the right thing to do.
They may be too small in number to make a difference to the result but they are a very powerful moral force in their community.
And while the days of the Internal Combusion Engine are coming to an end the days of cars will never end. The only way we will move away from having our own cars is if we move to a vastly expanded Uber system which would mean more wear and tear on the roads not less. We generally leave our cars stationery where we are, while they are stationery they're not damaging the roads. If we need to call an Uber every time we want to move then that would mean the vehicle needs to not just do our journey but come to us too - that increases road wear and tear it doesn't reduce it.
Unlike his hero, he appears not to want the trains to run on time.
At the moment they are just a squishy version of Labour.
The real problem with unfairly boosting smaller States is via the Senate. Although I have often thought it provides an interesting precedent for an elected House of Lords - with equal numbers of representatives from each of the four UK nations.
Jeremy Corbyn asked on funding "expensive offers" like the £58bn WASPI women package, he says "it's not an expensive offer, it's a moral duty to pay it and we will make sure it is paid... either from government reserves or from rates of taxation, it won't all be paid at once".
Note the last phrase. Anyone expecting a large cheque through the post - dream on.
Personally I side with your argument more than Uber's. There is a place for Uber's imagined service but it does require cars to be fully self driving so you don't have the labour costs. Heck Uber's entire business model was that driving would be automated before it ran out of money (that isn't going to be the case by the way).
It's illiterate of Labour. But typical I suppose.
Though Congress would still see individual districts and states represented as the French legislature represents individual departments and regions
Classic Pete.
The number of times I can park outside my house does not make it sensible to rely on an electric car in London. I don't use it often - mainly for transporting plants or to travel out of the city. In the Lakes when I move there, yes, I can charge at home but would need reliable charging points in the area. You don't want to be stuck on the fells with a car that's run out of energy.
BTW - still no response from Labour on the abortion question. Very feeble of them. The Tories responded within 24 hours on the WASPI issue.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1201196272159526913
In order to go fully electric where does the extra power capacity come from, how do we replace the 28 billion fuel tax we currently receive, and how do we scrap all the petrol and diesel cars owned across the nation, many of which will still be roadworthy in 15 years time
What does anybody expect? In a couple of decades their main produts will be illegal.
I can just about understand the rationale for equal representation in the Senate. Although if it systematically over-represented the votes of minorities and Democrats rather than the opposite you can be sure it would have been changed by now.
But at the same time we have the emphasis on buses which has been going for a long time now. You will recall that months ago when all parliament wanted to talk about was Brexit, Jeremy at PMQs would calmly and forensically - but with passion too - push the cost v benefit case for the buses. People laughed at him for it but it was astute. Buses are important to many of the less well off and they will have clocked his stance. Now, come election time, it pays off. Reap and ye shall sow.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1201471072756854786?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1201455974739062784?s=20
Its hard to see that many petrol stations still existing come 2040.
Both Parties available now at Evs.
Take your pick