Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Careful. Brexit voters might actually agree with this sentiment, and not acknowledge their fundamental hypocrisy, lol
New Diesel & Petrol Ban
- Thread starter Vulcan
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Careful. Brexit voters might actually agree with this sentiment, and not acknowledge their fundamental hypocrisy, lol
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Geez, parliament would be empty, there would be no politicians left! I find it absolutely hysterical that after 15 years in opposition shouting about how corrupt the conservatives are, that Labour has turned out to be far more corrupt, money grabbing, freeby accepting within their short stay in office than I understand the conservatives were in the whole of their fifteenth years. Can’t stop progress
Careful, you'd need to define the word "corrupt" and then, sticking with that definition, describe how Labour are "more" corrupt than {whomever you'd wish to compare them to in any particular timescale}.
You'd probably find that, in reality, your claim is grossly inaccurate.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
That was a two way vote. FPTP may well have been a fair system when there were only two Parties.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
And therein lies the rub. Making the Brexit vote a worse offender, in my view, compared to a multi-option vote. Just an observation and not a criticism, since I didn't vote in Brexit - I knew we were disadvantaged either which way - it was the fact that we were "given" a vote that set us on a negative path on both routes.
A democratically elected government (assuming those elections to be true and fair, unlike, say, Russia) isn't authoritarian unless it is seeking to dismantle democratic structures (like say an Erdogan or an Orban) on the path to creating an authoritarian rather than democratic state.
Yorkieguy
Established Member
That isn't correct. Originally, each town (which had gas), had its own gas works often owned by the local council or small private companies. Gas was made by carbonising coal in 'Retort Houses' at the gas works and storing gas in gas gasholders, often incorrectly terms 'gasometers' because they didn't measure gas - the simply stored it. The reason they were called 'gasometers'. To get the etymology out of the way, here's how 'gasometer' originated:
Antoine Lavoisier devised the first gas holder, which he called a gazomètre, to assist his work in pneumatic chemistry.[1] It enabled him to weigh the gas in a pneumatic trough with the precision he required. He published his Traité Élémentaire de Chimie in 1789. James Watt Junior collaborated with Thomas Beddoes in constructing the pneumatic apparatus, a short-lived piece of medical equipment that incorporated a gazomètre. Watt then adapted the gazomètre for coal gas storage.
The anglicisation "gasometer" was adopted by William Murdoch, the inventor of gas lighting, in 1782, as the name for his gas holders. Murdoch's associates objected that his "gasometer" was not a meter but a container, but the name was retained and came into general use. Gas holders were marked as gasometers on the large-scale maps issued by the British Ordnance Survey and the term came to be used to label gas works, even though there may be several gas holders at any one gas works. However, the term "gasometer" is still discouraged for use in technical circles, where "gas holder" is preferred. The spelling "gas holder" is used by the BBC, among other institutions, but the variant "gasholder" is more commonly used.
They're amazing structures - the pressure of gas, only a little above atmospheric pressure, lifted the holder, and each 'lift' in a multi-lift holder floated in a water seal as the holder went up and down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_holder
So, back to the local gas works:
Having made the gas to meet the local demand, which fluctuated considerably, particularly in the early days as gas was first used for street lighting (leading to a reduction in street crime by the way), and later domestic gas lighting, so the demand was always greater in winter than the summer, and great in the evening than the rest of the day. Gas made from coal, known as 'Town's Gas' serving the town in which it was made in local gas works stayed that way from the early 1800s till nationalisation in 1948, when a national transmission and distribution network was established, but the gas was still manufactured in local gas works and stored in gas holders well into the late 1960s when conversion to natural gas (methane) began.
Natural gas is stored in the transmission system ('grid') at high pressure ('line packing'), and called off from undersea storage as needed. The pressure is reduced in the local distribution system in towns, then at the gas meter at each house, reduced further to 20 millibar. (In 'old money', that's 8 inches water gauge). Natural gas (methane) has twice the heat value of coal gas (in old money, coal gas was 500 Btu per cubic foot, methane about 1,035 Btu, is immediately the heat carrying capacity of the network was doubled at a time when demand was increasing. (There are 3,412 Btu in a KW).
I spent my 40 year career in the Gas industry, starting an an apprentice in Nottingham in 1954, ending it as General Manager for North Humberside in 1994. During my apprenticeship, I spent time in each part of the organisation, including 3 months at the gas works, which was like Dante's Inferno! Many medicines and chemicals were derived as by products. Locally, the gas works sold coke, and anyone who wanted creosote and turned up with a container was welcome to it free of charge. Parents often brought children or came themselves to breathe in the acrid fumes if they had a 'chesty cough' which was considered a beneficial remedy!
One of the depots I was in charge of was Newark, Notts, where I found the attached items.
Ofgem didn't exist back then!
You'll see that they reduced the price of gas in summer, when it was only really used for lighting in the mid 1800s. The two pics show the gas-workers and the bosses. Not difficult to spot one from the other! Only one bowler hat with the workers - he'd be the foreman (too old to be shovelling coal into the retorts!). Third from left on the front row looks like he didn't want his pic taken. In the pic of the bosses, waistcoats, ties and fob watches were much in evidence!
The 'Gas Workers 8-Hr day' in 1889 was a landmark victory which still resonates today, and became the foundation of what morphed into the GMB Union:
The first group of Workers to achieve the 8-hour day were the Beckton [East London] Gas workers after the strike under the leadership of Will Thorne, a member of the Social Democratic Federation. The strike action was initiated on 31 March 1889 after the introduction of compulsory 18-hour shifts, up from the previous 12 hours. Under the slogan of "shorten our hours to prolong our lives" the strike spread to other gas works. He petitioned the bosses and after a strike of some weeks, the bosses capitulated and three shifts of 8 hours replaced two shifts of 12 hours. Will Thorne founded the Gas Workers and General Labourers Union, which evolved into the modern GMB union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement
Imagine expecting people to work 18-Hr shifts on such an arduous job!
(135 years later, that 'privilege' is now reserved for Junior Doctors).
Attachments
Last edited:
NickDReed
Established Member
I think the initial suggestion was that all authoritarian ideas are wrong, and then that a policy cannot be authoritarian if it is introduced by a democratically elected government. Now it seems to be that a democratically elected government cannot be authoritarian. All interlinked but slightly different point of contention.
I thinks it's probably reasonable to suggest that not many authoritarian governments get democratically elected. I'd assume its not a great platform to run a campaign on. So in that case, there is either some form of coup that brings about an authoritarian regime. Or, an elected democratic regime gradually erodes the freedoms of a population by the introduction of increasingly authoritarian policies.
Surely the latter means there is a point of critical mass when a democratically elected government has introduced enough authoritarian policies for them to be considered authoritarian? I highly doubt the path to becoming an authoritarian state it littered with neon signs telling the population the destination, you're more likely unwittingly walked there being told its in your best interest.
It's quite simple really, authoritarianism is the antithesis of democracy, it's a system of government in which the leader holds power irrespective of a democratic mandate. I think that's an absolute wrong and have no time for anyone who espouses it. Yes, leaders with an authoritarian bent or objectives occasionally get elected before transforming a democracy into an authoritarian regime. The measures they take which are directed at effecting that change (distorting elections, undermining the independence of the judiciary, undermining citizens' human rights, and so on) can be called authoritarian as that end point is their very objective. Again, I think those are absolutely wrong and I have no time for listening to those who espouse them. I'm not open minded to that sort of fascist/proto fascist viewpoints (or communist ones) as I think they are morally indefensible.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I remember the gasometers in Redruth, they were about 100 yards from Murdoch's house (I doubt they were anything like original).
Redruth was the first place in the world with gas street lighting.
NickDReed
Established Member
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has espoused the benefits of an authoritarian or fascist regime. Certainly not me, I think my meter for authoritarianism may be set lower than yours as you seem unconcerned by our past or current governments decision to ban ICE vehicles (the topic of this thread), something I consider probably tips over into authoritarianism in spite of the government being democratically elected.
I believe the initial post you responded to from @Spectric referred to an interview seen that suggested a more effective method of managing a multicultural society was that of authoritarianism giving the Balkans as an example. He then went on the imply that we in the UK may expect more authoritarian policies in the future to maintain order here. I may be wrong, but it did not to me read like he is a proponent for this.
I have suggested that the policy to ban the sale of new ICE cars may be authoritarian particularly given that no member of the public have voted on or elected a government based on this ban, you have told me it is not. Based on your above sentence, the only way you would decide any policy is authoritarian is if you have pre-existing knowledge of the 'end point', or the policy was so obviously put forward to subjugate you could clearly see the end game.
My position is that any ruling party/person that wants to subjugate you is reliant on you not questioning things until you're already in chains.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I saw this Recently.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...r-boom-may-be-ending-amid-slowdown-in-permits
“Coal plants are struggling economically, according to David Fishman, a senior manager at the Lantau Group, an energy consultancy in Shanghai. He said it was no longer profitable in the long term to build coal power plants in China.”
So what was incorrect? Long after we stopped using town gas the holders if you prefer were in use as local storage at much lower pressure than the high pressure grid creating a demand buffer. After the 1993 attacks they were identified as a high risk target in the same way as stored potable water still is, I believe the final decision to remove them was taken in 1999 although it was not a quick process.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
It would appear to me that the momentum of developed nations to jump onto the industry of developing and deploying renewables has got to a point on the fulcrum that possibly points toward an overall cheaper energy production ecosystem.
Whether that was an "authoritarian" step, or not, by developed nations, who in the recent history have agreed certain milestones and accords to move toward greener energy, it may be at a point now where the discussion is moot.
I mean, who in their right minds would eschew a cheaper (and cleaner) means of energy production, you'd have to be a bit of a luddite fool, even if it were at the "personal cost" of your choice of propulsion. We're still gonna have cars as our personal mode of transportation for the foreseeable future, so digging one's heels in to the viewpoint of "I want my free options" seems a bit of an overreaction.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a diehard petrol-head and will be retaining my older, powerful, sporty, performance ICE vehicles long, long term, so I'm not speaking as an electric convert. Not until we have a more convenient (for me) means of travelling long journeys and not having to stop for an enforced lengthy period...
What I think this might mean for China is that they see the direction of travel and don't want their industry to be left behind. Once you have a certain mass of equipment, over a certain hump, so to speak, and volume of production that converts free energy into electricity, this should only be able to assist the propagation of further production of free energy systems. What I mean by that, is if it takes ZERO fossil fuels to, say, "mine" the materials to produce the equipment, then ZERO to transport said raw material, and ZERO to convert raw materials into product, then ZERO to transport and erect new energy green producing equipment, the virtuous cycle is complete. China needs to get back in the race if it is to have an appreciable hold on the market share it desires, and not rely on coal systems.
Yes, there is an element of argument that says China could deploy all of the renewables to mine and transport the coal to power production facilities that may have been built on green energy alone, but that fails to recognise the importance of staying on the development and innovation race of new renewables.
There is a coherent thread amongst all of that text, I think, that kind of sidelines any discussion of "authoritarian-istic" or "non democratic" direction of government. And I think it pales into less significance when viewed against the mentions "renewables" in Party Manifestoes over the past decade or so, allied to the international agreements forged by many nations, of which the UK was amongst those nations.
I've accepted that I'm in a minority where the petrol engine for me is a "hobby", but even I can see that my choice is not important weighed against the volume of evidence we have surrounding man made climate change. As a minority, I hope that I can keep my "hobby" alive, but if not I won't be dying on a hill over the "authoritarian" regime that forced a change of direction for the common good. (And that's not to say minorities should have less of a say on everything - far from it - there are many instances where a minority view is far more important and ought to be given far greater importance than an opposing majority populistic view.)
Similar threads
