JeffA:
the maoster:
I have absolutely no problem giving the money to a British company. Where are they? Why aren’t they tendering for the work?
Maybe because there’s no british companies big enough at the minute - but that’s the thing, if the government wasn’t so short-termist, if it stood behind a british company to get it off the ground - in the future we could have a decent battery company of our own - but it can’t do that because it’s got to follow 40 year old tory ideology that the state must keep out of the “free market” .
So you just give it to the chinese or indians who demand massive sweeteners (and what’s free-market about the government paying these companies 500 million?)
Mind you - you have to be careful these days with all the grifters around - there was a british company “Britishvolt” who were going to build a battery site - the government gave them 100 million, but then the directors were paying themselves salaries of 3 million a year before the firm had even started, then they demanded another 30 million from the government and eventually they went bankrupt…the laws holding business and the rich to account are so lax now that they can just go bang and take all the government money with them. You need a relationship between government and business based on trust built up over decades - not this “This grifter who went to school with Rishi Sunak says he can build a site, give him 100 million and hope for the best” approach.
The election system needs reform badly…
Once in office with a decent number of votes supporting, an MP should be safe from temporary unpopularity for rather longer than 4-5 years, I suggest.
EITHER a winning seat MP should have more than 50% of those who voted, OR should have the most votes from EVERYONE that votes.
It is rather more difficult to force people to vote however, so surely the 50% of those who’ve voted - makes more sense at this time?
This makes no difference to those MPs who are in safe seats and GET that percentage of the vote, but imagine the change that would happen if you got to lose your far higher deposit for failing to get say, at least 10% of the vote…
You’d have no more than four candidates in each election at the outside - for starters.
Every “Green” and “Libdem” or even “Reform” candidate standing - would effectively ensure that the party currently in second - fails to take that seat, and the party currently holding that seat - would need to campaign all the harder to keep it at every election…
Compare that to the current system where MPs win a small majority, then disappear for five years, and restand without as much as a campaign, only to increase their majority/lose their seat outright based on “nothing done” all along…
We used to talk about “Bed Blocking at the NHS” in this country.
How many of our MPs are effectively “keeping their seat out of the enemy’s hands”, that enemy being a popular people-serving candidate, rather than someone running on a big ticket…?
At what stage did our incumbent, and hard-to-remove MPs - decide that a <10% worry for the public - is rather more important than the 31% that voted Brexit, and the 30% that voted Remain?
Not much in the “Green Agenda” for EITHER of those two big voting blocks among the public - is there? WAS there?
Oh yes… What happens if no one clearly wins a seat? - That seat remains VACANT until the next general election…
Hey presto, the Parliament Payroll is greatly reduced, rather than “Zombie-Lick” for the next “rump” parliament that would then be the case…
I reckon around 100 MPs at Westminster would be able to get rather a lot more done each block of 5 years - than the current 650ish do, half of them not being there at any day along the way, and all…
You could also get key legislation through rather easier, as the lawyer class would have to work 15-15-15-13-13-13 hour shifts to be around often and long enough to block the bits they didn’t like, and force -through the bits they DID like…
Nowt wrong with wanting the Government and NHS to work the same system we Transport workers have to work - eh?
