danharkin.bsky.social
66 posts
80 followers
230 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I feel like it’s probably the only way to save dental care because that’s never going to win the fight for tax funded care against doctors, nurses and hospitals.
comment in response to
post
I also agree that local govt should be more electorally competitive. However the case of combined authorities shows that if you abolish county councils you just have to reinvent them eventually.
comment in response to
post
I totally agree that services should be moved as close to the people they serve as possible and these should be democratically accountable. My point is there is no optimal level where one tier of local govt could perform all these functions.
comment in response to
post
And on your specific point of waste collection vs waste disposal: in London in turned out unitary authorities lacked capacity and it is frequently argued resp should be transferred to the Mayor. Do you think Londoners won’t understand and therefore we should abolish the boroughs?
comment in response to
post
The reason I find you argument (something is complex so voters don’t understand it) is that is also frequently used to argue against electoral reform. If you’re right, the answer is surely better political education rather than suboptimal local govt reform?
comment in response to
post
Except i don’t think English voters are stupid. My point is that two tier local government is hardly complex and I don’t see any evidence that voters struggle to understand it. Indeed in London, voters are clearly able to understand the difference in powers and functions of the different tiers.
comment in response to
post
What I *think* voters are responding to in local elections in the fact that in the UK local govt has little power. It is rational to treat them as proxies for national elections because that is the only real way for voters to affect the services they receive.
comment in response to
post
I’d like to see some evidence that this is the case. London voters seem to have a good understanding of Mayor vs borough responsibilities. Scottish voters have Parliament, Westminster and local government. So you do think English voters are uniquely stupid?
comment in response to
post
I don’t buy this. Are British voters uniquely stupid compared with voters in every other democracy?
comment in response to
post
The district-county model is fine. What local governments *need* is money not reform. Reorganisation without meaningful tax raising powers is bullshit.
comment in response to
post
We are the only developed economy that thinks this is possible.
comment in response to
post
Metro mayors *are* restoring county government after previous round of unitary-ising. Unitary local authorities are a *nonsense* - there is no optimal size of municipality that could carry out all the functions of local government.
comment in response to
post
We have fewer levels of local government and elected local officials than France, the most dirigiste country going.
comment in response to
post
Why is that insane? Waste disposal is best organised at a higher level, that’s why unitary authorities club together. After we’ve finished this round of unitary-ising the country we are just going slowly re-invent district and county government.
comment in response to
post
EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW THIS.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps I’m responding more to the writing than the casting; I *completely* agree with you about that scene. There’s no way that character could do the stuff Toby does in the subsequent novels.
comment in response to
post
I seem to remember it getting tonnes of the critical praise at the time but just felt it was horribly miscast. (Toby Esterhase was pretty egregious.)
comment in response to
post
Torvill and Dean?!?!
comment in response to
post
Replacement eye stalks for all the blind Dapol Daleks.
comment in response to
post
A 2019 report by the Office of Health Economics found that 21% of palliative care patients dying in hospitals had unrelieved pain. Its modelling concluded that even if we achieved the perfect level of palliative care, 50,709 palliative care patients a year would still die in some level of pain.
comment in response to
post
… is Ari pleased that his account of voluntary leaves non-rational animals capable of voluntary movements too. Understanding the “principle in agent” as proper cause seemed to me to thread together the discussion.
comment in response to
post
I’m being too quick. I saw your (2) as partly aimed at capturing the last part of 3.1. Your comment about mixed actions prompted me to see 3.1 as a maximalist account of the voluntary (biting bullet on mixed actions) … and then the ignorance discussion is one small carve out. So the gar…
comment in response to
post
I’m not up to date on Jen’s work… but yes I think I was thinking in terms of proper cause of action, rather than bodily movement. Hmm…
comment in response to
post
The gar at 1111a24 has often thrown me, but linking that discussion with mixed actions makes sense when you put it like that. The proper cause must lie within the agent and specific cases of ignorance fail to meet this condition (because they are not explanatory in the right way?).
comment in response to
post
I like it because it parallels his account of chance, meeting so-and-so in the marketplace.
comment in response to
post
That was one thought I had: my desire to drink the coffee isn’t the proper cause of my getting drugged. Is this just another way of doing the Davidson stuff about switching off the light though?
comment in response to
post
On reflection it still looks like there’s a problem even once we’ve refined (1) to rule out drunk driving etc. My drinking the spiked drink looks like it counts as involuntary by (1) and voluntary by (2).
comment in response to
post
Does he straightforwardly commit himself to (1) though?
comment in response to
post
Cheeky
comment in response to
post
And these are different to the current provisions how?