The depressing Manchester vote.

[User269]

We live in a democracy, which means we abdicate responsibility for running things to those we have voted for. But now and again, those to whom we have abdicated responsibility to, chicken out and think that consensus politics is the order of the day. Suddenly, the residents of Greater Manchester respond in larger numbers than at a general election, to vote down the proposed Manchester congestion charge, on the basis of personal cost and inconvenience. Why bother with government at all? Let's just have a free for all and everybody can just do exactly what they like and screw everything. The cult of the individual rules.

Don't discuss, just agree with me OK?

 

[alecstilleyedye]

consider it done, and check out the thread in p&l…

 

[beanzontoast]

We live in a democracy, which means we abdicate responsibility for running things to those we have voted for. But now and again, those to whom we have abdicated responsibility to, chicken out and think that consensus politics is the order of the day. Suddenly, the residents of Greater Manchester respond in larger numbers than at a general election, to vote down the proposed Manchester congestion charge, on the basis of personal cost and inconvenience. Why bother with government at all? Let's just have a free for all and everybody can just do exactly what they like and screw everything. The cult of the individual rules.

Don't discuss, just agree with me OK?

I would point out that, where government wants to do something it's not sure about having popular support for, it might be wise to ask the electorate of the affected area directly, but as you've asked me not to discuss what you said, I won't.

 

[bonj2]

The reason the public aren't allowed to vote forthings,is that the vast majorityof the general public are stupid. If they'd been allowed to vote for storing fags behind the counter they would have voted no, because they would largely choose the wrong answer, given the bigger picture. The government has to tell the public what's best for them, because usually,they don't know.

 

[beanzontoast]

The reason the public aren't allowed to vote forthings,is that the vast majorityof the general public are stupid. If they'd been allowed to vote for storing fags behind the counter they would have voted no, because they would largely choose the wrong answer, given the bigger picture. The government has to tell the public what's best for them, because usually,they don't know.

But they are! Hence Manchester! I think the issue is more over their choice of issues for what they choose to go to a referendum over.

 

[Chuffy]

Democracy is great isn't it?

 

[Cranky]

To me it seems that driving a car is an addiction to many people. I understand a little about addiction as I'm an ex-smoker. It's amazing what the mind will do to maintain that fix, and if that means being moved to vote against the congestion charge, despite being apathetic about local/general elections, then I'm not surprised. However, like smoking, the price of that decision in the long term will be high.

 

[Lardyboy]

Did the ruling party say in their manifesto that they would introduce the charge? If not, then they didn't have the mandate to introduce the legislation without consulting the populace, hence the referendum. If they did state in their manifesto that the charge was going to be introduced, they saw what happened in London to Ken and didn't want it to happen to them and so hoped that the proposal would be turned down thus saving their bacon so to speak.

 

[oxbob]

Radio 5 were discussing this today, the gov gave a ref because they wanted a no vote to save 3-4 billion implementing it. This is according to a yes vote campaigner?

 

[Chuffy]

Radio 5 were discussing this today, the gov gave a ref because they wanted a no vote to save 3-4 billion implementing it. This is according to a yes vote campaigner?

As opposed to facing a civil revolt by whinging b'stards complaining drivers if the scheme got railroaded through regardless of local opinion? The people have got what the people want. How can you argue against that?
Whether the people are right is another matter....

 

[oxbob]

As opposed to facing a civil revolt by whinging b'stards complaining drivers if the scheme got railroaded through regardless of local opinion? The people have got what the people want. How can you argue against that?
Whether the people are right is another matter....

Agreed, i may have to share a pork pie, mustard?

 

[yumpy]

Yes its a very different referendum from the one that we get (not!) by having a small planning notice on a lampost saying "this path will soon be narrower due to road widening, therefore bringing your 2 year old within a foot of a 40mph lorry while you're wheeling him along in his pushchair and making it pretty dangerous for you to take your 5 year old along it on their new bike in case they wobble off into the traffic".

I must admit to being very confused about democracy as its also possible for a small minority to object to what the majority want and stop it happening.
They can even stop you using certain words.

 

[LLB]

Did the ruling party say in their manifesto that they would introduce the charge? If not, then they didn't have the mandate to introduce the legislation without consulting the populace, hence the referendum. If they did state in their manifesto that the charge was going to be introduced, they saw what happened in London to Ken and didn't want it to happen to them and so hoped that the proposal would be turned down thus saving their bacon so to speak.

A fair appraisal

 

[TVC]

The people of Manchester said no, so let them get more congested - it's their choice.

 

[a_n_t]

The people of Manchester said no, so let them get more congested - it's their choice.

thing is, its not that bad.