Wild fires in BC Canada.

[Phil Pascoe]

Stop making stuff up, and actually read posts before replying. I’ve never mentioned delegates, everything I stated is how you vote for representatives, ie with a mandate to represent the citizens will.

Unfortunately we do not elect politicians to represent us, we elect them to act as they see fit. If an MP knows his constituents are 100% against something he can still vote in its favour. He can of course be booted out at the next election, but by then his future sinecures are assured and the damage is done.

 

[Jacob]

I can't be bothered to search for it just to prove a point. You'll only say it was in a right wing newspaper ergo a lie, anyway. It was well publicised at the time.

You've just picked up a bit of petrol-head loose gossip!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yeah, right. I expect inane comments from you.

 

[Jacob]

Unfortunately we do not elect politicians to represent us, we elect them to act as they see fit. If an MP knows his constituents are 100% against something he can still vote in its favour. He can of course be booted out at the next election, but by then his future sinecures are assured and the damage is done.

Half correct - the hope is that our MP will be a good judge of the right thing to do in our interests. That's what we elect them for.

 

[Cobbs]

No, we should infirm and educate the citizens on all aspects of what the policies will entail. We should then allow them to vote on the parties manifestos that state what and how they may tackle the issue. What one man thinks is the right thing t9 do is another’s worst nightmare.

You're saying we shouldn't do things that we know to be right? Interesting point of view...

 

[Cobbs]

You’re absolutely right, the route problem I believe is that 99% of the population don’t read the manifestos before voting. They vote either on ‘traditional’ lines, or in sound bite presentations of leaders ‘personalities’. Id like to suggest you ask you family and friends how many read all the parties manifestos before voting at the last election. If you don’t know what they were and they voted for them they can’t now very well complain.

Well I doubt if many people do read the entire manifesto of the party they vote for, but that has no bearing whatever on whether or not said party goes back on anything in that manifesto. If they say they will do something and then don't, they have failed to uphold their pledges. Of course, that's not always a bad thing - just imagine if Doris had reneged on his promise to take us out of Europe...

 

[stuart little]

Unlikely to change average speeds, reduces accidents, reduces fuel consumption, reduces air pollution, makes road usage for all, including drivers, and those who live alongside the road, a pleasanter experience.

Fuel consumption reduced? Using lower gears - I don't think so, more likely to increase it. That's my 2p. worth.

 

[John Brown]

Fuel consumption reduced? Using lower gears - I don't think so, more likely to increase it. That's my 2p. worth.

I believe Stuart, rather than the experts who know what they're talking about.
Good grief!

 

[John Brown]

I can't be bothered to search for it just to prove a point. You'll only say it was in a right wing newspaper ergo a lie, anyway. It was well publicised at the time.

There was a study of 551 speed cameras that concluded that accidents had increased at 21 sites, and reduced at 530.
It didn't say that the speed cameras had caused the accidents to increase at the 21 sites, it was just a correlation.
However, my theory is that the speed cameras do, in fact, cause accidents by jumping out in front of law abiding motorists.
Why do so many people think it's their god given right to drive how they like? If we didn't have cars, and somebody proposed the idea, along with the fatality and casualty figures they are responsible for, no civilized country would allow them.
If you are incapable of sticking to the speed limit, or think it doesn't apply to you, then don't drive.
What's any of this got to do with wild fires in Canada?

 

[stuart little]

There was a study of 551 speed cameras that concluded that accidents had increased at 21 sites, and reduced at 530.
It didn't say that the speed cameras had caused the accidents to increase at the 21 sites, it was just a correlation.
However, my theory is that the speed cameras do, in fact, cause accidents by jumping out in front of law abiding motorists.
Why do so many people think it's their god given right to drive how they like? If we didn't have cars, and somebody proposed the idea, along with the fatality and casualty figures they are responsible for, no civilized country would allow them.
If you are incapable of sticking to the speed limit, or think it doesn't apply to you, then don't drive.
What's any of this got to do with wild fires in Canada?

My thoughts entirely, definitely 'gorn orf track'.

 

[Jacob]

Fuel consumption reduced? Using lower gears - I don't think so, more likely to increase it. That's my 2p. worth.

Driving faster than about 20mph does not improve fuel economy except by a small amount, and it then falls off around 55mph. according to this interesting graph. Mpg For Speed - Fuel Efficiency Vs. Speed
Figures likely to be very different for a modern car with electronic fuel control etc

 

[artie]

stuart little said:
Fuel consumption reduced? Using lower gears - I don't think so, more likely to increase it. That's my 2p. worth.

I believe Stuart, rather than the experts who know what they're talking about.
Good grief!

My car will do 70 MPH in third gear. Which is about as fast as I can go on public roads in the UK.

I've got three more higher gears,

Are you suggesting I should stay in third or second gear to save fuel?

 

[Jameshow]

1
Politicians are supposed to lead, as well as to "serve".
Sadiq Kahn has been impressive recently as he calmly and sensibly argues the case for ULEZ, in spite of the dialogue being completely dominated by the mob and their feeble leaders Sunak and Starmer.
Not always a good idea of course - Johnson led us up s**t creek with Brexit, but it does show how much power they can wield, for better or worse.



2
We don't rule by plebiscite, politicians are our representatives, not delegates, and they don't need a mandate on every issue.
In fact they are supposed to stay well ahead of the mob and make intelligent decisions, ignoring the braying from un-woke world of donkeys and Daily Mail readers.
Manifestos are a statement of intent rather than a direct contract. Obvious really or they would have to run into thousands of pages.

Who made you the arbitrator of what is the best for the country any more than Margret Thatcher!!

 

[John Brown]

My car will do 70 MPH in third gear. Which is about as fast as I can go on public roads in the UK.

I've got three more higher gears,

Are you suggesting I should stay in third or second gear to save fuel?

No. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just passing on what those who understand this stuff say, but as I understand things, you should be in the highest gear that is viable for the speed you're doing, and it is true, whether you like it or not, that the air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Not so sure about the friction, I seem to remember that there's limiting friction and sliding friction, but it's some years since I studied physics.
Having said all that, the 20 mph limits have F.A. to do with emissions or efficiency, they're about minimising casualties and fatalities on the roads.

 

[John Brown]

It's coming soon, along with automatic braking.

Let's hope we get automatic indicators first. Or automatic anti-tailgating. A lot of people would argue that speed limiting could be dangerous, I struggle to see a downside to anti-tailgating technology.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The UK Parliament web site describes the role of an MP as - "The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons."

Parties publish a manifesto describing that which they intend should they be elected. Individual prospective MPs may add some more local issues.

MPs should seek to deliver that which they promised, only introducing new material changes if events subsequent to the election force reconsideration of manifesto expectations.

At regular intervals in a democracy the public have the opportunity to judge their performance and elect successive governments accordingly. That one may personally dislike the outcome is an inevitable fact of democracy.

Boris was elected to deliver Brexit - whilst I think it a foolish decision and poorly executed, he was utterly clear about his intentions if elected in 2019. Similarly Sadiq was equally clear in his 2021 manifesto that he intended to expand ULEZ to take in all London boroughs.

Save for major unforeseen events, major policy changes or legislation not promised in the manifesto is a denial of democracy and unacceptable. Therein lies dictatorship, tyranny, despotism.

 

[Jacob]

....

Boris was elected to deliver Brexit - whilst I think it a foolish decision and poorly executed, he was utterly clear about his intentions if elected in 2019.

So you think that in spite of everything, that on our behalf, he should have made a foolish decision, poorly executed?
He was also expected to exercise judgement about the details of what was being delivered and making final decisions based on the final deal, even if that meant cancelling the whole process.

Similarly Sadiq was equally clear in his 2021 manifesto that he intended to expand ULEZ to take in all London boroughs.

He is also expected to adjust policy based on what is known and the outcome, and seems to be doing exactly that. Well done Sadiq, ignore the howling mob!

They are both under the same obligation; to assess the viability of any proposed course of action and to adjust accordingly.

Save for major unforeseen events, major policy changes or legislation not promised in the manifesto is a denial of democracy and unacceptable.

More likely to be error of judgment in the first place, impossible ambition etc. and change of plan accordingly.
What was seriously wrong about recent history was blindly to go ahead and "Get Brexit Done" in spite of there being no deal on paper, many questions unanswered, many doubts about the whole project.
We elect representatives to use their judgement, to act on our behalf, not merely to obey the mob. If the latter we would not need MPs we could just instruct the civil service by plebiscite or other means. We would not need judges and legal processes either.
Johnson failed in his basic duty to act in the bests interests of the electorate, he was not delegated to blindly obey their instructions whatever the outcome.

 

[Jacob]

Who made you the arbitrator of what is the best for the country any more than Margret Thatcher!!

I'm just passing on what I learned, as far as I recall, from many years ago studying A level "British Constitution".
You could do with a bit of study yourself, ignorance is no excuse nowadays, what with the internet etc.

 

[artie]

A bit more on global warming.

 

[Jacob]

A bit more on global warming.

An ignorant berk.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known about and tested in the laboratory since 1819
if not earlier, and consequently
climate change has been forecast since 1896