3 ms·

Not being funny, but 'elected' has lost some of the properties it used to be associated with. For example, the UK parliament consist of elected MPs - in theory,

by jarym 3y ago

Not being funny, but 'elected' has lost some of the properties it used to be associated with. For example, the UK parliament consist of elected MPs - in theory, representing their constituents. In practice, they are 'whipped' by their party into however the government wants them to vote - often against the will of the constituents that elected them. Another example is the Mayor of London, elected - but instituting wildly unpopular plans like extending the ULEZ zone despite the fact that it will not improve air quality, will push the cost of living in and around London higher and will cost more to implement than it raises in revenue. What is the purpose of electing people who will then do as they please?

thicknavyrain 3y ago
Do you have any sources on ULEZ not improving air quality? The latest research I can find indicates yes, ULEZ did lower concentrations of several pollutants: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104222001969 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S130910422...
- jarym 3y ago
  ULEZ did improve air quality in central London - owing to the large concentration of cars. I'd say probably strong incentives for non-gas vehicles helped also (exemptions from Congestion Charge, reduced parking fees in certain boroughs, etc) The ULEZ 'extension' is different. It extends ULEZ to areas on the outskirts of London (the suburbs). There are a number of problems with this: * Public transport options not as great, so car ownership is far higher. Lots of commuters (that either have to travel to surrounding areas or commute in from nearby). * The area is not as densely populated as the central areas and there are more highways and things designed to support greater volumes of traffic. * The costs are high (daily £12.50) * From 2030, all new cars in the UK will be non-gas. The shift is already gaining momentum so naturally through incentives those that can afford to move to an EV are doing so. TfL's own analysis shows that the scheme will cost more to rollout than the revenue it generates. Also, I detest the 'pulling at heart strings' approach taken to justify this extension. It is akin to the people who want to break E2E encryption and privacy crying 'think of the children' - the basis is not logically sound.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
The point of elected people is that if the majority disapproves of their actions they will vote them out at the following election. IMO, the system is not so much about guaranteeing 'good' people are elected but rather about guaranteeing that 'bad' people have a limited expiry date. This is especially valid for someone lie the Mayor of London, who is directly elected and has power individually, so ultimately Londoners will decide. Currently I suspect that Labour is safe, and that they know it.
- jarym 3y ago
  Yea, I agree with you on this. It just sucks when the options available involve trying to guess which candidates are the 'lesser evil' rather than the 'greater good'. But to dig down into the point, if it is to avoid 'bad' people, then the reasoning is questionable as far as the monarchy go. They have very limited powers as things stand and their economic impact from things like tourism has been greater than the cost of maintaining them. I doubt very much anyone will want to visit the UK to see an elected monarch.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Regarding tourism, what would change without the Monarchy? Frankly, I suspect nothing. People would still be able to visit Windsor Castle, perhaps even more of it. People would still be able to see Buckingham Palace, and may even be able to visit it. The parades, Changing of the Guard, etc could remain or be adapted. Does it really make a difference whether you see where the King lives vs. where the King used to live? Especially since in the latter case you may actually be able to see inside, as mentioned. So to me tourism is a weak argument.

by jarym 3y ago

thicknavyrain 3y ago

Do you have any sources on ULEZ not improving air quality? The latest research I can find indicates yes, ULEZ did lower concentrations of several pollutants: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104222001969 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S130910422...

jarym 3y ago
ULEZ did improve air quality in central London - owing to the large concentration of cars. I'd say probably strong incentives for non-gas vehicles helped also (exemptions from Congestion Charge, reduced parking fees in certain boroughs, etc) The ULEZ 'extension' is different. It extends ULEZ to areas on the outskirts of London (the suburbs). There are a number of problems with this: * Public transport options not as great, so car ownership is far higher. Lots of commuters (that either have to travel to surrounding areas or commute in from nearby). * The area is not as densely populated as the central areas and there are more highways and things designed to support greater volumes of traffic. * The costs are high (daily £12.50) * From 2030, all new cars in the UK will be non-gas. The shift is already gaining momentum so naturally through incentives those that can afford to move to an EV are doing so. TfL's own analysis shows that the scheme will cost more to rollout than the revenue it generates. Also, I detest the 'pulling at heart strings' approach taken to justify this extension. It is akin to the people who want to break E2E encryption and privacy crying 'think of the children' - the basis is not logically sound.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

The point of elected people is that if the majority disapproves of their actions they will vote them out at the following election. IMO, the system is not so much about guaranteeing 'good' people are elected but rather about guaranteeing that 'bad' people have a limited expiry date. This is especially valid for someone lie the Mayor of London, who is directly elected and has power individually, so ultimately Londoners will decide. Currently I suspect that Labour is safe, and that they know it.

jarym 3y ago
Yea, I agree with you on this. It just sucks when the options available involve trying to guess which candidates are the 'lesser evil' rather than the 'greater good'. But to dig down into the point, if it is to avoid 'bad' people, then the reasoning is questionable as far as the monarchy go. They have very limited powers as things stand and their economic impact from things like tourism has been greater than the cost of maintaining them. I doubt very much anyone will want to visit the UK to see an elected monarch.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Regarding tourism, what would change without the Monarchy? Frankly, I suspect nothing. People would still be able to visit Windsor Castle, perhaps even more of it. People would still be able to see Buckingham Palace, and may even be able to visit it. The parades, Changing of the Guard, etc could remain or be adapted. Does it really make a difference whether you see where the King lives vs. where the King used to live? Especially since in the latter case you may actually be able to see inside, as mentioned. So to me tourism is a weak argument.