The way forward on Brexit is truth and reconciliation.
We can't lance the boil until we admit the lies on which it was won.
When NHS waiting times have gone up because there are not enough EU staff, we can't fix that unless we are honest about it.
FoM was a benefit of membership, for everybody.
Both sides told whoppers, as you well know.
Of course they did. That's politics. It is the winners lies that grate though as they are the ones that we live with. Hence the falling support for Brexit.
The difference in this case is that we also get to see the losers case in action, as we witness EU bungling over vaccines, twice as high unemployment and incoherence over Ukraine.
There speaks a true Little Englander, utter and unmitigated bollox of the first order from a cretinous half witted excuse for a human being.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
All PMs get the bird. Johnson's interface with the public is meant to be his trump card, however.
Particularly this crowd of daft twats who actually turned up in person to this nonsense bedecked in the Butcher's Apron. They should be Johnson's Republican Guard.
For me, like many Leavers, it was the Lisbon Treaty that made me decide to leave once it was clear that no meaningful renegotiation was possible.
Amongst many things that awful treaty did, as a nakedly transparent rehash of the EU Constitution, it gave the EU legal identity so it could sign treaties in its own name, without reference to its member nations, created a president and high commissioner for foreign affairs, drove a huge extension in QMV voting, and enshrined the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law. This was one of the most potent drivers for me as it made rights judicable by the ECJ which led to them demanding the UK review its policy of not giving suffrage to prisoners.
This was then exacerbated by the agenda laid down by the new President Juncker who wanted to go even further and laid out a vision of EU social and fiscal union on top. A man who Cameron tried to stop and failed to stop.
No. No No No.
If Cameron had managed to achieve what he'd laid out in his Bloomberg Speech in 2013 it might have been different, but it wasn't.
I won't vote for any party that wants to take the UK back into that.
Believing that the students who looked forward to learning Italian with a bar job in Florence or Rome or doing street photography in Arles or waiting tables in Vienna or doing ski instruction in Insbruch or being allowed free movement to 28 different countries is a sacrifice worth making so that prisoners in the UK don't get the right to vote is barking mad
Straw man. Wrong comparison. Many Brexit supporters believed, and believe, that the EU had a significant democratic deficit and ambitions that subverted the nature of the UK. The evidence that UK political elites decided to overlook those issues and ignore the people was strong. The failure to hold referendums at points of serious development was palpable.
The point had been reached where no good outcomes were available. The EU are still not open to sensible compromise. I hope SKS etc in due course can do better for us.
You will be hoping for a long time, will take years to get the skelves out of his arse from all that fence sitting.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
Ed Davey is certainly closer to that though than any LD leader since Clegg
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
Note for railway enthusiasts: on my way to London and for the first time ever the journey starts at Okehampton not Exeter st David's. Life changing.
I did Exeter to Okehampton as a Sunday special back in 2019.
Sure. But this is a routine, unexciting, scheduled service.
Pity the line hasn't been extended all the way to Plymouth - then it would have the views from the Meldon Viaduct. Stumbled across, or rather under, it unexpectedly when being taken for walkies by a local friend - one of the last of the wrought iron constructions on the railways. Fascinating postindustrial landscape in the valley which it crosses, remains of mining and so on.
PS and this is Sunil. For him any service is exciting - especially on a new line. A commendable sentiment.
Viaduct won't take trains without a complete rebuild. Also I live close enough to that line that they could use my house to remake the railway children and I don't want express trains in my backyard so I am happy as is, a lift to the station is no longer a 2 hour round trip
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
To clarify, NUPES is the Nouvelle Union Populaire, Ecologique et Sociale which is basically Melenchon's party plus the Greens and Socialists. Ensemble is Macron's LREM plus a couple of others. National Rally is the Le Pen party while UDC (Union de droite et centre) is the alliance of centre-right and liberal parties led by Les Republicans. Reconquete is Zemmour's party.
Cluster 17 does tend to inflate the NUPES numbers more than other posters. Pollsters such as Elabe, Harris and Ifop have Ensemble just ahead of NUPES (27 to 25) with National Rally a close third on 21%.
It's of course a two-round poll and I suspect this will help Ensemble who may be able to pick up centre-right votes to overhaul NUPES on June 19th.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
I must be unusual in that I don't know what height I am. Because I'm bang average it never comes up. I'm a little shorter than six feet. And over 5 ten. But I couldn't tell you by how much.
A touch above average, I think. And as it happens precisely same as me. You and I would be eye to eye (assuming no slouching or tippytoes).
“Brexit was a mistake which is causing harm but we shouldn’t do anything to reverse it” is a bizarre way of thinking. It’s like mishandling a knife and then resolving to let yourself bleed to death. https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1532630897173962752
Not really. Some divorces are mistakes and people find out the grass is not greener. For that group it would still be the exception rather than the rule to get back together with the ex.
Perhaps we should try and tempt the EU with friends with benefits instead of a second marriage or bitter enemies bitching about each other?
I think that, in time, the UK and the EU will adopt a closer and more cooperative relationship with each other but we'll never go back to full EU membership. You can't ever put the genie wholly back in the box.
We had decades of friction over our membership for very good reasons and I think both sides recognise it was the wrong model for both the EU and the UK.
Agree with that although would replace wrong with imperfect. The Ukraine war may actually open up possibilities for different levels of involvement with the EU and a strong UK government would be exploring what possibilities an outside EU satellite group could develop.
Of course, if you look at the original Vote Leave manifesto (and I'm not trying to trigger anyone here) but 'create a new European institutional architecture' was in there.
It's certainly what I voted for, and would consider supporting today too.
I think that's a bit naïve, CR. Anything that puts the UK back in the EU's orbit is, IMO, unacceptable. I have no issue with co-operation with the EU as long as it's a very tightly defined set of rules with the basis of co-operation set out in separate agreements or treaties rather than one overall and undefined relationship based on "trust" or relying on the other partner to act favourably. No more freebies, no more favours.
I agree with that post. I am a remainer, but we have left and so what you describe is the way forward. I wish both sides would get on with it. In my opinion there are hundreds of trivial to complex agreements that have to be made to make all our lives better. Red tape on trade, and a particular bug bear of mine, is red tape on temporary exports, and then we trivial things, but which have significant real effects on people, like the pet passport fiasco and the 90 day in 180 day travel issue.
Lets get on with it.
However what we do re NI I have no idea.
I think that broadly will be the Labour, and LD, approach to Brexit at the next election To "do away with unnessecary Brexit red tape", the former tacitly, and the latter expicitly to ultimate Rejoin.
Red Wall Tory MPs would be over the moon if Labour takes that approach.
Recent polling on Brexit as a mistake and the 58% voting Lab/LD/Green suggests other wise.
Doubling down on Brexit culture wars is not the votewinner that you think.
Thinking it was a mistake but wanting to reverse it are two different questions
Furthermore, why are those who want to rejoin not standing fair and square and honestly saying so
Oh, I think the LD policy is honestly stated. To have a closer relationship inclusing rejoining the SM with the long term aim of Rejoin once opinion has moved.
Labours is less transparent, but clearly a move to closer alignment, which in practice means following EU regulations .
Absolutely not. Labour has no intention of joining the EU short or long term under Starmer. The issue is toxic
And for now, he's right to do so. Noise and toxicity beat raw numbers.
I stick by my calendar proposed on Brexit Day;
The 2024 rewrite of the TCA (which has to happen) will actually promote trade and co-operation at the expense of the UK giving up some of the more hypothetical freedoms.
2029 will be EEA in all but name.
2040ish will be the UK choosing to be in the room when decisions are taken.
A generation of withered trade and soured relationships. And all so Boomers with 3 O-Levels could get a different coloured passport and a vacuum cleaner that pumps out useless extra heat.
I suppose those with 3 O levels were to be respected previously when they voted the right way?
It's the contempt Remainers can't stop. "Anyone that disagrees with me is old and thick". They are completely unable to have a level headed conversation about it.
And in most discussions they can't even make a single concession in the argument. If you point out the predictions of the Remain campaign all turned out to be flat out lies, they will twist and turn trying to pretend otherwise. At best they will try to say the predictions were from evil Tories, rather ignoring the Labour leader of the Remain campaign repeating them everywhere.
Yes, they exude a fetid stench of sneering and snobbery, the Remainers: they cannot help themselves. The reek always escapes
It’s like Ken Livingstone trying to have a sensible conversation about Jews. Just wait a few minutes. Ah. There it is. Bingo
How long till you are fighting to get us back in EU
About five hours, when I am well into my 2nd bottle of Saperavi, and fancy a ruck
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
To clarify, NUPES is the Nouvelle Union Populaire, Ecologique et Sociale which is basically Melenchon's party plus the Greens and Socialists. Ensemble is Macron's LREM plus a couple of others. National Rally is the Le Pen party while UDC (Union de droite et centre) is the alliance of centre-right and liberal parties led by Les Republicans. Reconquete is Zemmour's party.
Cluster 17 does tend to inflate the NUPES numbers more than other posters. Pollsters such as Elabe, Harris and Ifop have Ensemble just ahead of NUPES (27 to 25) with National Rally a close third on 21%.
It's of course a two-round poll and I suspect this will help Ensemble who may be able to pick up centre-right votes to overhaul NUPES on June 19th.
Are those big moves? They look big, but there’s no timescale.
I’d be surprised if Le Fiasco at Stade de France did not damage Macron’s party, via his hapless Interior Minister
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
True. I don't. But the direction of travel on measurement units should be consolidation not the other way. That's my point really.
Agree there.
I use metric when calculating BMI in my head, but then the calc in Imperial is slightly complex !
What's 5'10" squared, divided by 13 stone 12 lb.? There are limits.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Average person loses about 1cm per decade from around 40. Office desk bod will be faster than that.
At 65 most men will be an inch shorter than they think they are and two inches shorter than they claim to be.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
To clarify, NUPES is the Nouvelle Union Populaire, Ecologique et Sociale which is basically Melenchon's party plus the Greens and Socialists. Ensemble is Macron's LREM plus a couple of others. National Rally is the Le Pen party while UDC (Union de droite et centre) is the alliance of centre-right and liberal parties led by Les Republicans. Reconquete is Zemmour's party.
Cluster 17 does tend to inflate the NUPES numbers more than other posters. Pollsters such as Elabe, Harris and Ifop have Ensemble just ahead of NUPES (27 to 25) with National Rally a close third on 21%.
It's of course a two-round poll and I suspect this will help Ensemble who may be able to pick up centre-right votes to overhaul NUPES on June 19th.
Yes. Still polling a majority for Macron in second round.
Careless cigarette disposal in Russia is epidemic.
Moscow Grand Setun Plaza business center is on fire. The fire which spread to 1,000 m2 received top level of complexity. Helicopters and 200 people are involved in the firefighting, the head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations arrived at the site, reports Russian media 1/3 https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1532646107507040256
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
I distinctly remember Tony being booed at some Royal event... possibly Queen Mothers funeral after it was reported he'd been angling for a bigger role?
Those attending a royal event booing a Labour PM is par for the course, those attending a royal event booing a Tory PM isn't.
Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France
In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France
💬 "Je n'ai jamais eu aussi peur de ma vie qu'en sortant du Stade de France samedi"
💥 Le combattant UFC Paddy Pimblett, venu au SDF en tant que fan de Liverpool raconte les incidents. Il résume tout en une phrase : "au moins dans une cage c'est un contre un".
Note for railway enthusiasts: on my way to London and for the first time ever the journey starts at Okehampton not Exeter st David's. Life changing.
I did Exeter to Okehampton as a Sunday special back in 2019.
Sure. But this is a routine, unexciting, scheduled service.
Pity the line hasn't been extended all the way to Plymouth - then it would have the views from the Meldon Viaduct. Stumbled across, or rather under, it unexpectedly when being taken for walkies by a local friend - one of the last of the wrought iron constructions on the railways. Fascinating postindustrial landscape in the valley which it crosses, remains of mining and so on.
PS and this is Sunil. For him any service is exciting - especially on a new line. A commendable sentiment.
Viaduct won't take trains without a complete rebuild. Also I live close enough to that line that they could use my house to remake the railway children and I don't want express trains in my backyard so I am happy as is, a lift to the station is no longer a 2 hour round trip
Tldr meldon is a bridge too far
No need to worry, the film has already been remade (though the eldest sis is now a yummy mummy for some reason).
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
I think we should pander to him if he wants to sell in pounds and ounces. I'm ok with it as long as Sainsbury's don't or stuff where measurements actually matters aren't. If you open an oldie worldie sweet shop it might be a good gimmick to sell a quarter of sweets (not sure about using old money though).
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
just like Premier League football you could argue.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Not these days. Labour stand candidates as Labour and have had a few elected, IIRC. There are some local groupings that have formed parties too. Although the majority of those elected are still independents.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
I think we should pander to him if he wants to sell in pounds and ounces. I'm ok with it as long as Sainsbury's don't or stuff where measurements actually matters aren't. If you open an oldie worldie sweet shop it might be a good gimmick to sell a quarter of sweets (not sure about using old money though).
yes , variety is nice in life - Never understood this desire to make everything standard or the same - it happens in a lot of walks of life - My old firm used to bang on about "one truth" which always struck me as a fascist slogan . It was one of the strengths of the EU in that the concept of we all get along but have our different ways and cultural idioms and also one of its weaknesses when it got the "everything must be the same everywhere" mentality
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Ironic comment really given her defecatory capabilities.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Not these days. Labour stand candidates as Labour and have had a few elected, IIRC. There are some local groupings that have formed parties too. Although the majority of those elected are still independents.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
Friends of my wife (can’t abide the grifting, freeloading leeches) who we are supposed to be going out tomorrow with for an afternoon in the toon have gone down from Durham to stand in the mall. Your perceptive comments are right on the nail Malc.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.
Point taken (from you and others) but that sort of guesstimate is rightly banned for commercial traders. We are dealing with a staple of life and he may be the only trader or the only one of two. Refusing to give the metric equivalent is outright subversion of the essential common units system for many people. Doesn't matter if he has a stall vs Sainsburys - it's impossible to compare properly.
This sort of subversion goes against the entire trend of modern history - and would not be tolerated by the great heroes of the so-called British Constitution. This shite about allowing people to deal in the units they want is straight out of 18th centiry custom and practice.
Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France
In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France
💬 "Je n'ai jamais eu aussi peur de ma vie qu'en sortant du Stade de France samedi"
💥 Le combattant UFC Paddy Pimblett, venu au SDF en tant que fan de Liverpool raconte les incidents. Il résume tout en une phrase : "au moins dans une cage c'est un contre un".
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
I think we should pander to him if he wants to sell in pounds and ounces. I'm ok with it as long as Sainsbury's don't or stuff where measurements actually matters aren't. If you open an oldie worldie sweet shop it might be a good gimmick to sell a quarter of sweets (not sure about using old money though).
Maybe just discourage Steve rather than sanction him. But yes I see what you mean about a business with this as a USP. That's a bit different. No need to discourage that, quite the opposite. And maybe even old money could work too. You'd just have to implement some local voucher system whereby using real money you purchase shillings & pence which can only be spent in this olde shoppe you're running. I can see the point of that. Customers go in there, ask for (say) thrupence worth of liquorice and hand over the necessary. On a technical note, you would need to use 1973 exchange rates otherwise your thrupence won't buy anything.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.
I’m not particularly bothered by Steve either way. Steve does not seem like a legislative priority. The cost of living, the crisis in Ukraine, a monkeypox outbreak and a continuing COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse in UK exports after Brexit, the unaffordable cost of housing… y’know, everything else going on in the world seems rather more important. So why is the UK government focused on Steve? And vacuum cleaner power levels?
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Average person loses about 1cm per decade from around 40. Office desk bod will be faster than that.
At 65 most men will be an inch shorter than they think they are and two inches shorter than they claim to be.
I'm getting a jump on things and claiming to be shorter than I actually am now, so I will match up later.
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
You shouldn't feel embarrassed for enjoying something. Sure, people who get really into it can be amusing, but that's the case for any kind of fanboy, be it monarchy, political party or anime. Don't let miserable gits make you doubt your own enjoyment.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
yes I bet all those moaning leavers are really glad there is now nobody to pick their fruit and veg or serve them coffee in their seaside cafe . Or look after them in their care homes in 10 years time
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
For lots of people it probably was to stop it, but day in day out people cannot really tell the difference. As long as they think it is being controlled they won't punish a failure to keep the numbers down.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
Or could it simply be that immigration is simply less visible to most people, which is a consequence of both Brexit and Covid. And if it's not visible, then - for most people - it's not a problem.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
Look at the polling. Concerns about migration collapsed exactly the moment we voted Leave, and literally took control of the borders
It may not be the only factor (there are others, as you suggest) but Brexit is certainly at work. Liberal lefties and Remainers will struggle to digest this, but,,, whatever
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
Consciously, no. I just wonder if tribalism has led remain voters to hold being pro-immigration as a core belief, because it is part of the Remain canon.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
Consciously, no. I just wonder if tribalism has led remain voters to hold being pro-immigration as a core belief, because it is part of the Remain canon.
Surely they should be unhappy, as there's no longer free movement?
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
It's 28.34 grams.
Which is not a lot of use, really.
An ounce is about a handful.
Ummm. How big are your hands and what are you measuring?
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
Consciously, no. I just wonder if tribalism has led remain voters to hold being pro-immigration as a core belief, because it is part of the Remain canon.
Although, as a counterpoint, I have one hardcore remainer friend who told me, after a few drinks, "I don't know why you people care about Poles, the problems are coming from Africa".
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
Leavers remain much more opposed to immigration than Remainers. Both groups, albeit in different ways, have become more positive about immigration since the referendum. I don’t think this supports a simplistic narrative that “taking back control” has made everyone happier and that explains the shift, but it does suggest that that may be part of the story for some people, while for other, the Brexit debate has made those opposed to Brexit appreciate immigration more.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
Consciously, no. I just wonder if tribalism has led remain voters to hold being pro-immigration as a core belief, because it is part of the Remain canon.
Surely they should be unhappy, as there's no longer free movement?
Are we discussing a particular polling question? Can you link to it?
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
The report I linked to does show Remainers viewing the cultural benefits of immigration more positively. Whether that’s because Remain = pro-immigration has become ingrained in their minds is harder to tell.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
It's 28.34 grams.
Which is not a lot of use, really.
An ounce is about a handful.
An ounce is a useful measure of freedom (give him an ounce of freedom and he bla bla)
I think i have heard courage measured in pints as well?
Maybe more modern concepts need to be in metric though - What should wokeness be measured in - metres , grammes , kelvin?
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
You shouldn't feel embarrassed for enjoying something. Sure, people who get really into it can be amusing, but that's the case for any kind of fanboy, be it monarchy, political party or anime. Don't let miserable gits make you doubt your own enjoyment.
Thank you.
I’m not embarrassed really. I’m too long in the tooth to give a shit what anyone thinks of me. The 18 year-old me would be mortified and would rip the piss out of me mercilessly though.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with patriotism. We’re so fortunate to live in the UK, despite all the bollocks we argue about on here endlessly. The people who join the forces, who risk their lives for us, are quite often the best of us.
It’s blind nationalism, exceptionalism, that boils my piss.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
For the purposes of clarity, the graph on “immigration is one of UK’s most important problems”. Look at that drop. In 2016. Not worth over-thinking this
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
It's 28.34 grams.
Which is not a lot of use, really.
An ounce is about a handful.
Ummm. How big are your hands and what are you measuring?
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.
It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.
Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought
St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!
It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.
The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents
Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.
It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central
Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central? I guess you are.
Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.
They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.
The only person in public life Malc approves of is Alex Salmond
Your avatar describes you perfectly, how anyone who worships Boris can have the effronery to try and wimpishly try and insult someone beats me. Response is up to your usual high(sic) level , ie mince
Comments
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1532061580744982528
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
Incidentally. Are there two less user friendly websites?
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
Tldr meldon is a bridge too far
The latest Cluster 17 poll has the following:
NUPES: 31% (+6)
Ensemble: 27% (-5)
National Rally: 19% (+6)
UDC: 10% (-9)
Reconquete: 5% (new)
To clarify, NUPES is the Nouvelle Union Populaire, Ecologique et Sociale which is basically Melenchon's party plus the Greens and Socialists. Ensemble is Macron's LREM plus a couple of others. National Rally is the Le Pen party while UDC (Union de droite et centre) is the alliance of centre-right and liberal parties led by Les Republicans. Reconquete is Zemmour's party.
Cluster 17 does tend to inflate the NUPES numbers more than other posters. Pollsters such as Elabe, Harris and Ifop have Ensemble just ahead of NUPES (27 to 25) with National Rally a close third on 21%.
It's of course a two-round poll and I suspect this will help Ensemble who may be able to pick up centre-right votes to overhaul NUPES on June 19th.
I’d be surprised if Le Fiasco at Stade de France did not damage Macron’s party, via his hapless Interior Minister
Trading, Compliance, Sales, Legal
https://twitter.com/SMTuffy/status/1532453595588837408
At 65 most men will be an inch shorter than they think they are and two inches shorter than they claim to be.
Moscow Grand Setun Plaza business center is on fire. The fire which spread to 1,000 m2 received top level of complexity. Helicopters and 200 people are involved in the firefighting, the head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations arrived at the site, reports Russian media 1/3
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1532646107507040256
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France
💬 "Je n'ai jamais eu aussi peur de ma vie qu'en sortant du Stade de France samedi"
💥 Le combattant UFC Paddy Pimblett, venu au SDF en tant que fan de Liverpool raconte les incidents. Il résume tout en une phrase : "au moins dans une cage c'est un contre un".
https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w
The gun must be cocked.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w
With any luck it will just be the two of us now
This sort of subversion goes against the entire trend of modern history - and would not be tolerated by the great heroes of the so-called British Constitution. This shite about allowing people to deal in the units they want is straight out of 18th centiry custom and practice.
Which is not a lot of use, really.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
https://twitter.com/jake_kanter/status/1532715805384884225?s=21&t=6anESHTUgceG_KjkAELCpQ
I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
It may not be the only factor (there are others, as you suggest) but Brexit is certainly at work. Liberal lefties and Remainers will struggle to digest this, but,,, whatever
Leavers remain much more opposed to immigration than Remainers. Both groups, albeit in different ways, have become more positive about immigration since the referendum. I don’t think this supports a simplistic narrative that “taking back control” has made everyone happier and that explains the shift, but it does suggest that that may be part of the story for some people, while for other, the Brexit debate has made those opposed to Brexit appreciate immigration more.
I think i have heard courage measured in pints as well?
Maybe more modern concepts need to be in metric though - What should wokeness be measured in - metres , grammes , kelvin?
I’m not embarrassed really. I’m too long in the tooth to give a shit what anyone thinks of me. The 18 year-old me would be mortified and would rip the piss out of me mercilessly though.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with patriotism. We’re so fortunate to live in the UK, despite all the bollocks we argue about on here endlessly. The people who join the forces, who risk their lives for us, are quite often the best of us.
It’s blind nationalism, exceptionalism, that boils my piss.