The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
I happen to agree - I grew up with some Imperial weights and measures still around, but I find them mostly unfathomable. But why not let the market decide? If someone wants to sell a pound of bananas, let them.
"Businesses and voters largely prefer the metric system." Another wizard wheeze meets reality.
How is it a 'wheeze' to allow sellers to use Imperial measurements if they so wish? If nobody wants to buy things in those measurements, they will go out of business.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
I happen to agree - I grew up with some Imperial weights and measures still around, but I find them mostly unfathomable. But why not let the market decide? If someone wants to sell a pound of bananas, let them.
Because it's a prime example of the nonsense DavidL is talking about.
There are some laws that specify weights and measures.
Drafting and enforcing those laws in 2 different measurement systems, "a Brexit Freedom" (sic), makes life harder, not easier.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
I happen to agree - I grew up with some Imperial weights and measures still around, but I find them mostly unfathomable. But why not let the market decide? If someone wants to sell a pound of bananas, let them.
Because it produces confusion over weights and measures that hurts consumers. Having standardised weights is one of the first things ancient civilisations did millennia ago!
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
But a lot of older people have struggled with their replacement and still do. Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all? Why can't producers simply pick the one that suits their target market best?
Because left to their own devices they will happily sell you something that is less than what it says on the packaging.
Brexit was sold to voters seven years ago on the basis it would be the answer to myriad problems. It would address Britain’s laggardly growth by putting rocket boosters under the economy. It would free up money to spend on an underfunded NHS. It would boost wages in low-paid jobs by reducing immigration levels. And it would reinvigorate our parliamentary democracy by returning sovereignty to Westminster.
None of this was ever going to materialise and recent years have only served to underline just how false these promises were. Last week, the government finally put to bed the idea it is feasible to scrap thousands of retained EU regulations in one swoop when Kemi Badenoch junked the profoundly undemocratic sunset clause in the retained EU law bill.
Brexit stopped Ukraine invasion from succeeding, Jacob Rees-Mogg says
A rare instance of where Jacob Rees-Mogg is spot on.
A UK outside the EU meant that Germany and France were dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing.
I note that the EU is now to ban the import of Russian gas, thereby completing the full 180 degree turn on Merkel's strategy of fitting snugly in Putin's lower colon.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
The UK can be proud of its early and active support for Ukraine. The battle for Kyiv may well have gone very differently without UK anti tank weapons. It is very much in Boris's somewhat limited credit column.
Membership of the EU is almost completely irrelevant to it. I say almost because I think we might have been able to push the EU to a firmer sanctions regime quicker from the inside. But that is just speculation.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
But a lot of older people have struggled with their replacement and still do. Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all? Why can't producers simply pick the one that suits their target market best?
Because left to their own devices they will happily sell you something that is less than what it says on the packaging.
So the regulation should require whatever they put on the packaging is accurate whether it is in ounces or grams.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
How strange. My job has become harder and with much duplication and paperwork required, which has had impact on productivity and profit.
I shall never forget this government and which Rishi was Chancellor spent more time and energy on fishing than they did on financial services in the withdrawal agreement.
Can you tell me when this sector will see a Brexit benefit?
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
I happen to agree - I grew up with some Imperial weights and measures still around, but I find them mostly unfathomable. But why not let the market decide? If someone wants to sell a pound of bananas, let them.
Because it's a prime example of the nonsense DavidL is talking about.
There are some laws that specify weights and measures.
Drafting and enforcing those laws in 2 different measurement systems, "a Brexit Freedom" (sic), makes life harder, not easier.
Besides, the current rules don't stop people buying and selling in imperial; it's just that it has to be done as a translation from metric, and if you are using scales for loose products, inspectors have to check the metric scale.
Yes, inspectors could carry round two sets of standards, metric and imperial, but that's extra hassle which someone (Mr and Mrs Taxpayer) has to pay for.
This isn't necessarily about refighting 2016 either. Within the constraint of "not being in the EU", or even "not being in the single market", there is still a wideish spectrum of options of alignment to divergence.
The question is whether, looked at case-by-case, many of the possible divergences actually make sense. I suspect that they don't, and the 52 percent of 2016 was made of lots of minorities animated by a single issue but otherwise pretty chilled about Euroalignment.
Hence the difficulty in coming up with a genuinely popular model for our post-EU future.
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
Are you trying to tell me that much if not all of the Brexit appeal was both illusory and damaging if ever implemented.
No, not at all. I am saying that the correct focus for a successful Brexit is to focus on the opportunities and freedom of manoeuvre that it gives us to decide what is in our best interests rather than having to take a rule book from the EU that all too often had been written for someone else's interests.
But that argument has been won. What we need to do now is focus on what we need to do to encourage investment and training in the UK, to make the UK market as attractive as possible, to remove unnecessary paternalistic regulation but ensure adequate consumer protection. In short get on with governing in our interests without wasting time arguing about or hiding behind some EU bogeyman which largely, if not completely, existed in our own imaginations and our politicians book of useful excuses.
If that is what Kemi is doing then she will go up in my estimation.
Clearly that argument has been lost, but I sort of agree with you that the damage should be limited as much as it can be. So for example the loss of investment and productivity due to Brexit is minimised, which weren't great in the first place.
In general I would say the UK's interest lies in staying close to the EU regulatory system but simplifying the rules in many cases. This would allow all EU products and services to flow to the UK and minimize the now unavoidable additional hurdles to place UK products and services in the EU.
Simplification more or less will happen anyway. Regulation is underpinned by law where the EU and UK will be diverging. The EU with some exceptions won't accept UK equivalence - it has to be its rules. Important markets (essentially the EU and the US) can be prescriptive in its regulation. Less important markets like the UK need to keep compliance costs down in order to keep its market somewhat attractive.
Likewise the vision I have of Truss and Kwarteng was of two toddlers pressing buttons on a control panel just to see what happens - the more lights going on the better.
I wonder what happens if I press this button marked Truss?
Oh.
A little light came on that says "Please do not press this button again"...
I guy I know who worked at Wolverhampton Uni always took great delight in their 'smart' water dispensers. They had a snazzy (at the time) new-fangled 'touch screen' to operate them. And when you tapped it it lit up with a message saying 'Please use the physical button below'.
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...
* Prices are still rising with double digits. * Taxes are higher than they've ever been
*You cannot get a doctor's appointment. *You cannot signup to a dentist. *The hospitals are on strike
*The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush. *The trains do not run.
*You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.
*The greenbelt is a building site, *but people cannot afford a place of their own
*The water companies pollute our rivers at will, * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
You must live in the England's worst shithole.
Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
I think there's a general and genuine anger about the greed and sleaze and lies and 'one rule for us and another rule for you' mentality of the Conservatives.
But last week the Conservatives did well in Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Walsall, Thurrock, Peterborough, Hyndburn - life isn't so bad in all the 'grim' places.
And indeed for many millions it's never been better - full employment, pay rises, affordable housing, a better environment and now interest getting paid on savings accounts.
The rest of your list I will accept. But pay rises? Who exactly are these people with real terms pay increases? We keep hearing about them. But all the data suggests it is only those on bonuses who are anywhere near standing still. And there aren't many of them in the places you list.
Well I got 16.6% this year then another 2.5% added 6 months later....no bonuses so I am one
Well then. You are an outlier. The vast, vast majority haven't got half that.
My stepbrother went from 11£ an hour to 18£ an hour in a completely different industry so that is 2 of us, perhaps more common than you think therefore and three friends out of my close friends group of 5, also in different industries no longer earn min wage but 13 to 15 an hour.
No maybe I am just amazingly unusual but I doubt it
So why does the ONS not notice this land of milk and honey for you and your mates? And. More pertinently, why is the government straining every sinew to prevent it spreading?
The ons has noticed it that is why private sector wage rises have averaged 6%, a lot of that made up by the lower end of the payscales getting more than 6% while the upper end have done worse.
And yes the tories are trying to stop it, so will labour
As someone who is both employee and employer (major shareholder in a couple of companies) this matches my personal experience. High end white collar wages are going up a lot slower than inflation in a number of cases. A lot of minimum wage jobs have *lifted* off that floor.
In private sector high end white collar there have been inflation matching increase for some - seems tied to individual performance and capability. Especially for productivity.
Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all?
I would have thought a lawyer might have some inkling about laws governing trading standards...
Government regulation of weights and measures just tiresome interference, introduced only as recently as late-medieval times. Let's get back to the Dark Ages with the Tory right!
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
Absolutely. In fact we should return to using sexagesimal, after all it worked for the Babylonians for thousands of years and is way better than having a ten measly digits.
And why not combine with the abolition of place notation as well? And we got by for thousands of years with any of those pesky zeros.
If we made counting and arithmetic much, much harder like they were in the past, think of how fantastically numerate everyone would become!!!
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
It’s the decline in pub going and consequently dart playing which is responsible for any decline in mental arithmetic ability.
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
Absolutely. In fact we should return to using sexagesimal, after all it worked for the Babylonians for thousands of years and is way better than having a ten measly digits.
And why not combine with the abolition of place notation as well? And we got by for thousands of years with any of those pesky zeros.
If we made counting and arithmetic much, much harder like they were in the past, think of how fantastically numerate everyone would become!!!
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
Absolutely. In fact we should return to using sexagesimal, after all it worked for the Babylonians for thousands of years and is way better than having a ten measly digits.
And why not combine with the abolition of place notation as well? And we got by for thousands of years with any of those pesky zeros.
If we made counting and arithmetic much, much harder like they were in the past, think of how fantastically numerate everyone would become!!!
FFS!
We could teach them about non sequiturs too
We could also teach them that fractions are as accurate in metric as they are in imperial
Does anyone know why you need a tin opener on the supermarket cheap range but the supermarket standard range have a ring pull ?
A little inconvenience just to remind you you're poor? And also now have to buy a can opener.
Extra production cost - if you are aiming to sell at the absolute lowest price an extra 0.5p production cost (and it's probably nearer a penny) adds up.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
Do you drink half litres down the pub then?
I do.
Half a litre of water.
Again (going back to Paris last weekend) I was surprised how many pubs / restaurants served large (0.5l) drinks in pint glasses with the top bit either empty or just froth.
The UK can be proud of its early and active support for Ukraine. The battle for Kyiv may well have gone very differently without UK anti tank weapons. It is very much in Boris's somewhat limited credit column.
Membership of the EU is almost completely irrelevant to it. I say almost because I think we might have been able to push the EU to a firmer sanctions regime quicker from the inside. But that is just speculation.
In the lead up to the war, France and Germany were quite vocal about not “inflaming the situation” by supplying arms. They took the view that it was a bluff/stick waving exercise by Putin. As did a number here.
Hard to say whether the pressure that was applied to the U.K. government to get in line would have been more or less effective if we were in the EU.
Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all?
I would have thought a lawyer might have some inkling about laws governing trading standards...
Government regulation of weights and measures just tiresome interference, introduced only as recently as late-medieval times. Let's get back to the Dark Ages with the Tory right!
As far as we can tell Government regulation of weights and measures existed as far back as the Indus Valley Civilisation in the 3rd Millenium BC. They had standardised weights and measures across their whole civilisation - all the more remarkable because there are no other signs of centralised government at all, including no central buildings that might have served as temples, palaces or forts.
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
It’s the decline in pub going and consequently dart playing which is responsible for any decline in mental arithmetic ability.
So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.
Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.
The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.
I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
What about marry?
Then you should have been more specific.
It was ambiguous whether someone being old to drive *or* marry meant either or both. Indeed, unless you used the word "and", you were very much open to misinterpretation.
My point is we seem to be tightening up rules on various things sixteen and seventeen year olds can do, and simultaneously slacking off in others, for no discernible rhyme or reason.
It looks stupid, because it is stupid.
It would be better to have a serious think about what is or isn't appropriate and at what age. And then stick to it.
I'm strongly in favour of votes for 16/17 year olds because voting is learned behavior and far too few young people are learning that behaviour, to the detriment of democracy. Having elections while young people are at school is an opportunity. It can be seen as an apprenticeship, if you will.
This is the case in Scotland. It's supported almost by everyone. Ruth Davidson was a big proponent.
If that is a good idea - and I can see why it is - then how does it fit with the Scottish view that the young are too immature to be held responsible for their actions, cannot be sent to prison and so on?
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
Absolutely. In fact we should return to using sexagesimal, after all it worked for the Babylonians for thousands of years and is way better than having a ten measly digits.
And why not combine with the abolition of place notation as well? And we got by for thousands of years with any of those pesky zeros.
If we made counting and arithmetic much, much harder like they were in the past, think of how fantastically numerate everyone would become!!!
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
Nation in shock...
We can only grasp the advantages once we have a Labour government delivering a Labour Brexit.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
HYUFD I think if you were leading the Tories they would be in a much better position. I think deep down you know long-term you are in deep trouble unless you change course.
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
Are you trying to tell me that much if not all of the Brexit appeal was both illusory and damaging if ever implemented.
No, not at all. I am saying that the correct focus for a successful Brexit is to focus on the opportunities and freedom of manoeuvre that it gives us to decide what is in our best interests rather than having to take a rule book from the EU that all too often had been written for someone else's interests.
But that argument has been won. What we need to do now is focus on what we need to do to encourage investment and training in the UK, to make the UK market as attractive as possible, to remove unnecessary paternalistic regulation but ensure adequate consumer protection. In short get on with governing in our interests without wasting time arguing about or hiding behind some EU bogeyman which largely, if not completely, existed in our own imaginations and our politicians book of useful excuses.
If that is what Kemi is doing then she will go up in my estimation.
Clearly that argument has been lost, but I sort of agree with you that the damage should be limited as much as it can be. So for example the loss of investment and productivity due to Brexit is minimised, which weren't great in the first place.
In general I would say the UK's interest lies in staying close to the EU regulatory system but simplifying the rules in many cases. This would allow all EU products and services to flow to the UK and minimize the now unavoidable additional hurdles to place UK products and services in the EU.
Simplification more or less will happen anyway. Regulation is underpinned by law where the EU and UK will be diverging. The EU with some exceptions won't accept UK equivalence - it has to be its rules. Important markets (essentially the EU and the US) can be prescriptive in its regulation. Less important markets like the UK need to keep compliance costs down in order to keep its market somewhat attractive.
Or, to go against the grain as a long winded lawyer, we use common sense which will often recognise that alignment with the EU is perfectly sensible.
I would like to go back to having the option of sandwich makers which actually cook and vacuum cleaners that actually suck though. And don't get me started about light bulbs.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
Nation in shock...
We can only grasp the advantages once we have a Labour government delivering a Labour Brexit.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
While base 12 isn't easier nowadays it provides a lot of benefits for selling fractions of a whole.
Half / third / quarter / sixth are easy to work out even for those without much math skills (and in medieval times few people had great maths skills).
Being 61 I am kind of caught in the middle of this argument but for fractions it is quite hard to beat 10ths (even although I have seen staff getting out their phones so they can calculate what a 10% tip is).
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.
What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.
To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
Also - 1992 was pre-devolution. A big difference. SKS is effectively trying to win two elections at once at Westminster - UK and England. So are the Tories.
On the local election results England is most likely to see a hung parliament with the LDs having the balance of power.
If Starmer wins a majority it will now very likely be the SNP implosion and Labour expanding its dominance in Wales that delivers it.
Blair in 1997 would therefore remain the only Labour leader since Attlee in 1945 to win a majority in England as incoming PM (Wilson did win a majority in 1966 in England but was already incumbent PM). If Starmer wins, like Wilson in 1964 and 1974, he will probably win a UK wide majority but fail to win a majority in England
So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.
Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.
The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.
I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
What about marry?
Then you should have been more specific.
It was ambiguous whether someone being old to drive *or* marry meant either or both. Indeed, unless you used the word "and", you were very much open to misinterpretation.
My point is we seem to be tightening up rules on various things sixteen and seventeen year olds can do, and simultaneously slacking off in others, for no discernible rhyme or reason.
It looks stupid, because it is stupid.
It would be better to have a serious think about what is or isn't appropriate and at what age. And then stick to it.
I'm strongly in favour of votes for 16/17 year olds because voting is learned behavior and far too few young people are learning that behaviour, to the detriment of democracy. Having elections while young people are at school is an opportunity. It can be seen as an apprenticeship, if you will.
This is the case in Scotland. It's supported almost by everyone. Ruth Davidson was a big proponent.
If that is a good idea - and I can see why it is - then how does it fit with the Scottish view that the young are too immature to be held responsible for their actions, cannot be sent to prison and so on?
As I’ve pointed out before it also seems to be the English view.
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
I agree with the general principle that if the full bill was genuinely impossible for whatever reason, prioritise the big ones where doing business can be genuinely made easier, for repeal. If you read Redwood's passage, that's exactly what she *hasn't* done. The 600 due to be scrapped are fluff, and the genuinely irksome laws remain. That is poor by any measure, and it has nothing to do with being a Brexiteer - any good Trade Secretary, recognising the fact that we're out of the EU would seek to remove those laws that made doing business more difficult.
Can you be more specific. What rules should she have repealed that she has left alone? What, in your view, is the best example?
VAT - Reform of our VAT laws to allow greater flexibility or even abolition of VAT in some instances. This is written into UK law but the primacy of EU law in this area needs to be repealed to allow that law to change, and by Redwood's account, this has not happened.
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R “I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.” (Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/ The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
But a lot of older people have struggled with their replacement and still do. Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all? Why can't producers simply pick the one that suits their target market best?
Metric measurements was mandated 23 years back. If a few have not familiarised themselves with the units by now its little more than obstinance at a changing world.
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
"I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units".
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
"I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units".
What kind of Remainer Traitor talk is that?
As with so many things Boris has completely devalued dying in a ditch anyway.
The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are
I happen to agree - I grew up with some Imperial weights and measures still around, but I find them mostly unfathomable. But why not let the market decide? If someone wants to sell a pound of bananas, let them.
Because it produces confusion over weights and measures that hurts consumers. Having standardised weights is one of the first things ancient civilisations did millennia ago!
Yes, I really do not understand why this becomes a culture war issue.
So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.
Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.
The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.
I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
What about marry?
Then you should have been more specific.
It was ambiguous whether someone being old to drive *or* marry meant either or both. Indeed, unless you used the word "and", you were very much open to misinterpretation.
My point is we seem to be tightening up rules on various things sixteen and seventeen year olds can do, and simultaneously slacking off in others, for no discernible rhyme or reason.
It looks stupid, because it is stupid.
It would be better to have a serious think about what is or isn't appropriate and at what age. And then stick to it.
I'm strongly in favour of votes for 16/17 year olds because voting is learned behavior and far too few young people are learning that behaviour, to the detriment of democracy. Having elections while young people are at school is an opportunity. It can be seen as an apprenticeship, if you will.
This is the case in Scotland. It's supported almost by everyone. Ruth Davidson was a big proponent.
If that is a good idea - and I can see why it is - then how does it fit with the Scottish view that the young are too immature to be held responsible for their actions, cannot be sent to prison and so on?
Teens are the transition to adulthood and different milestones kick in at different ages. Criminal responsibility in Scotland I think is at 12 and you can be detained, but not in an adult prison, from 16. None of this is relevant to the optimal voting age. I think setting it at 16 rather than 18 has advantages in encouraging young people to vote and keep voting during their adulthood, which is a good thing. But either age is arbitrary, as are all these age limits.
Remarkable. Those passionately pushing Brexit, with all its negative outcomes, still want the people to know they didn’t want this. Grant Shapps: “Well I was never a sort of Brexiteer. It’s not my ideology. But I’m all saying is things have moved on”
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.
What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.
To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
Also - 1992 was pre-devolution. A big difference. SKS is effectively trying to win two elections at once at Westminster - UK and England. So are the Tories.
On the local election results England is most likely to see a hung parliament with the LDs having the balance of power.
If Starmer wins a majority it will now very likely be the SNP implosion and Labour expanding its dominance in Wales that delivers it.
Blair in 1997 would therefore remain the only Labour leader since Attlee in 1945 to win a majority in England as incoming PM (Wilson did win a majority in 1966 in England but was already incumbent PM). If Starmer wins, like Wilson in 1964 and 1974, he will probably win a UK wide majority but fail to win a majority in England
On local election voting patterns, Labour wins a comfortable majority. The results show that in most areas voters went for the party best placed to beat the Tory candidate. In a general election that is going to be the Labour candidate in all but a few dozen English and Welsh constituencies.
Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
While base 12 isn't easier nowadays it provides a lot of benefits for selling fractions of a whole.
Half / third / quarter / sixth are easy to work out even for those without much math skills (and in medieval times few people had great maths skills).
Being 61 I am kind of caught in the middle of this argument but for fractions it is quite hard to beat 10ths (even although I have seen staff getting out their phones so they can calculate what a 10% tip is).
There have been problems with medication with nurses, doctors etc getting dose’s wrong by multiples of 10. I still have nightmares about the time I was phoned at 2am by an doctor to argue about the strength of a pre-filled syringe sent up from pharmacy late the previous afternoon.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
I agree with the general principle that if the full bill was genuinely impossible for whatever reason, prioritise the big ones where doing business can be genuinely made easier, for repeal. If you read Redwood's passage, that's exactly what she *hasn't* done. The 600 due to be scrapped are fluff, and the genuinely irksome laws remain. That is poor by any measure, and it has nothing to do with being a Brexiteer - any good Trade Secretary, recognising the fact that we're out of the EU would seek to remove those laws that made doing business more difficult.
Can you be more specific. What rules should she have repealed that she has left alone? What, in your view, is the best example?
VAT - Reform of our VAT laws to allow greater flexibility or even abolition of VAT in some instances. This is written into UK law but the primacy of EU law in this area needs to be repealed to allow that law to change, and by Redwood's account, this has not happened.
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R “I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.” (Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/ The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
The government abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021. So far, the UK market for such products has not collapsed.
The arguments about dredging and its impact on flooding are complicated but again, once we decide what we are going to do, we can do it. The need for reservoirs etc is a quite bizarre thing to fix on a continental scale. I think the problem here is that there is no clear policy of what we want.
We discuss railways endlessly on here. Once again I am not sure we have a clear way forward when a Conservative government is nationalising private companies.
I think that all of these examples simply show we don't have a government that is focused on governing and doesn't have clear policies, particularly in areas where we have not been able to set the rules over time. I don't think these are examples of deregulation, they are examples of indecision.
I am not going to die in a ditch on the return of imperial units. But if people want to sell in either system, I don't see how the consumer loses out.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
There are still 16 ounces in a pound and 14 pounds in a stone. A mile is still 1,760 yards long.
I don't think there's any great evidence the British had better mental arithmetic than other Europeans before decimalisation, is there?
So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.
Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.
The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.
I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
What about marry?
Then you should have been more specific.
It was ambiguous whether someone being old to drive *or* marry meant either or both. Indeed, unless you used the word "and", you were very much open to misinterpretation.
My point is we seem to be tightening up rules on various things sixteen and seventeen year olds can do, and simultaneously slacking off in others, for no discernible rhyme or reason.
It looks stupid, because it is stupid.
It would be better to have a serious think about what is or isn't appropriate and at what age. And then stick to it.
I'm strongly in favour of votes for 16/17 year olds because voting is learned behavior and far too few young people are learning that behaviour, to the detriment of democracy. Having elections while young people are at school is an opportunity. It can be seen as an apprenticeship, if you will.
This is the case in Scotland. It's supported almost by everyone. Ruth Davidson was a big proponent.
If that is a good idea - and I can see why it is - then how does it fit with the Scottish view that the young are too immature to be held responsible for their actions, cannot be sent to prison and so on?
Teens are the transition to adulthood and different milestones kick in at different ages. Criminal responsibility in Scotland I think is at 12 and you can be detained, but not in an adult prison, from 16. None of this is relevant to the optimal voting age. I think setting it at 16 rather than 18 has advantages in encouraging young people to vote and keep voting during their adulthood, which is a good thing. But either age is arbitrary, as are all these age limits.
To a degree they are arbitrary. But surely we already encourage people to vote at 18 and it doesn't work fantastically well, why would setting it at 16 encourage them any further?
I don't find the encouragement argument to be very convincing, which is why I tend to fall back on the transition to adulthood point, which as you note people will disagree on depending on the milestone. But I think assessing it that way, whichever age we settle on, has the advantage of setting the social expectation of adulthood, rather than some nebulous idea that it encourages voting if you get them doing it earlier, since by the same logic why not encourage even lower.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
I don't disagree, landbanking is also a problem the government needs to discourage
Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all?
I would have thought a lawyer might have some inkling about laws governing trading standards...
Government regulation of weights and measures just tiresome interference, introduced only as recently as late-medieval times. Let's get back to the Dark Ages with the Tory right!
More like 3rd-4th millennium BCE. Let’s get back to the Neolithic with the Tory right! Who needs all those European innovations, like settled agriculture?
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
That is true, NIMBYs should not get all the blame for the horrendous state of things. The situation where if development (particularly larger ones) is slow leading to a lack of housing supply leading to less weight given to local plans leading to building in places not allocated for housing but more attractive for developers, is pretty ridiculous - I'm sure developers claim they do not game that system, but I do not believe them, there is too much incentive for them to do so.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
I don't disagree, landbanking is also a problem the government needs to discourage
How? Taxing land ownership would seem the most obvious answer. Or why not compulsory purchase?
Why does the government need to regulate what weights and measures are put on packaging at all?
I would have thought a lawyer might have some inkling about laws governing trading standards...
Government regulation of weights and measures just tiresome interference, introduced only as recently as late-medieval times. Let's get back to the Dark Ages with the Tory right!
More like 3rd-4th millennium BCE. Let’s get back to the Neolithic with the Tory right! Who needs all those European innovations, like settled agriculture?
That's more of a Green Party policy - have you seen how destructive agriculture is to biodiversity?
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
It's not the 13 years that has caused the Tory decline it is this...
* Prices are still rising with double digits. * Taxes are higher than they've ever been
*You cannot get a doctor's appointment. *You cannot signup to a dentist. *The hospitals are on strike
*The roads have potholes that would make the third world blush. *The trains do not run.
*You cannot easily come and go, due to Brexit bureaucracy *Somehow illegal trafficking allows millions to come here.
*The greenbelt is a building site, *but people cannot afford a place of their own
*The water companies pollute our rivers at will, * but cannot (here for 12 hours) get clean water in the taps.
You must live in the England's worst shithole.
Can you recount your miseries more often - it always brings amusement to northerners to hear of southern suffering.
Not sure where you live, but going off the big swing away from the Tories in the red wall the other week it seems clear that most northerners recognise what Jonathan has listed...
I think there's a general and genuine anger about the greed and sleaze and lies and 'one rule for us and another rule for you' mentality of the Conservatives.
But last week the Conservatives did well in Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Walsall, Thurrock, Peterborough, Hyndburn - life isn't so bad in all the 'grim' places.
And indeed for many millions it's never been better - full employment, pay rises, affordable housing, a better environment and now interest getting paid on savings accounts.
The rest of your list I will accept. But pay rises? Who exactly are these people with real terms pay increases? We keep hearing about them. But all the data suggests it is only those on bonuses who are anywhere near standing still. And there aren't many of them in the places you list.
Well I got 16.6% this year then another 2.5% added 6 months later....no bonuses so I am one
Well then. You are an outlier. The vast, vast majority haven't got half that.
My stepbrother went from 11£ an hour to 18£ an hour in a completely different industry so that is 2 of us, perhaps more common than you think therefore and three friends out of my close friends group of 5, also in different industries no longer earn min wage but 13 to 15 an hour.
No maybe I am just amazingly unusual but I doubt it
So why does the ONS not notice this land of milk and honey for you and your mates? And. More pertinently, why is the government straining every sinew to prevent it spreading?
What the ONS is measuring is the average spread across the population. Within that group there will always be significant numbers who have done better than average and significant numbers who have done worse. I, for example, have reduced my income by roughly 30% in the short term and will probably have my income fall by nearer 50% over the next 2 years.
The average increase is meaningful in that it gives us a macro grip of where demand is likely to go. It is surprising that it has managed to be sustained so far. Either the average is not capturing all additional income or we are collectively dipping into our almost non existent savings. But it doesn't tell us much about how individuals are faring and it is misleading to assume that it does.
Is your income reduction your personal choice or forced on you.
Personal choice. I chose to become a full time Advocate Depute. It pays roughly half what I was earning before as junior counsel but it is an important and worthwhile job that gives me great job satisfaction.
Thanks David, I knew yours was personal choice , I read it wrong and thought it was Dixie saying it. Well done to you for thinking that way.
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.
What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.
To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
Also - 1992 was pre-devolution. A big difference. SKS is effectively trying to win two elections at once at Westminster - UK and England. So are the Tories.
On the local election results England is most likely to see a hung parliament with the LDs having the balance of power.
If Starmer wins a majority it will now very likely be the SNP implosion and Labour expanding its dominance in Wales that delivers it.
Blair in 1997 would therefore remain the only Labour leader since Attlee in 1945 to win a majority in England as incoming PM (Wilson did win a majority in 1966 in England but was already incumbent PM). If Starmer wins, like Wilson in 1964 and 1974, he will probably win a UK wide majority but fail to win a majority in England
On local election voting patterns, Labour wins a comfortable majority. The results show that in most areas voters went for the party best placed to beat the Tory candidate. In a general election that is going to be the Labour candidate in all but a few dozen English and Welsh constituencies.
If Labour was on course for a clear majority in England they would have won councils like Harlow, Dartford, Basildon, Braintree, Dudley, Walsall, Wyre Forest, Forest of Dean, Great Yarmouth, Rugby, Hartlepool etc on May 4th ie all areas where Blair won seats in 1997. Yet Labour failed to do so.
Even if the Tories also lost control of some of the above there was no huge surge to Starmer Labour last week as there was to Blair's New Labour pre 1997
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
Absolutely. It wouldn’t take much of a tweak to council tax and business rates to break the cycle rapidly.
Lib Dem manifesto is going to have various proposals on this which hopefully Labour will nick.
The way back for the Tories is quite simple: build houses.
Longer term in terms of winning voters 30-50 maybe. Shorter term however the Tories are already losing large numbers of councillors in the Home Counties and southern England to the LDs and Independents and Greens as Middle England revolts at any proposals from Tory councils for more homes in greenfields near them. Hence since May 4th fewer councils are Tory controlled than at any time since the mid 1990s
You make a good point and just how do you overturn NIBZYS if the locals refuse to allow it and the lib dem and others feed into this narrative
Also a good point, if Tory councils proposing new developments are replaced by LD and/or Independent/Residents Association or Green councils opposing any new development then you can't overturn NIMBYs at local level. Whether Sunak or Starmer win the next general election Labour or the Tories would have to ensure new housing targets are met via Local Plans by imposing the targets from central government, which Gove has been rowing back from
There is a vast amount land owned by developers that they have planning permission to build on already. They deliberately slow or stop development to keep the supply low and the price high. If this practise were to be disincentised via the tax system, it would bring in more revenue to councils, and/or get a lot more houses built. Sunak won't do it to developers (and frankly I doubt Boris, Truss, or Starmer would either).
I don't disagree, landbanking is also a problem the government needs to discourage
How? Taxing land ownership would seem the most obvious answer. Or why not compulsory purchase?
Charge companies council tax on the land with planning permission they hold from 1 year after they purchase it. Base the council tax on the rateable value of the houses they plan to build.
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
I agree with the general principle that if the full bill was genuinely impossible for whatever reason, prioritise the big ones where doing business can be genuinely made easier, for repeal. If you read Redwood's passage, that's exactly what she *hasn't* done. The 600 due to be scrapped are fluff, and the genuinely irksome laws remain. That is poor by any measure, and it has nothing to do with being a Brexiteer - any good Trade Secretary, recognising the fact that we're out of the EU would seek to remove those laws that made doing business more difficult.
Can you be more specific. What rules should she have repealed that she has left alone? What, in your view, is the best example?
VAT - Reform of our VAT laws to allow greater flexibility or even abolition of VAT in some instances. This is written into UK law but the primacy of EU law in this area needs to be repealed to allow that law to change, and by Redwood's account, this has not happened.
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R “I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.” (Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/ The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
The government abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021. So far, the UK market for such products has not collapsed.
The arguments about dredging and its impact on flooding are complicated but again, once we decide what we are going to do, we can do it. The need for reservoirs etc is a quite bizarre thing to fix on a continental scale. I think the problem here is that there is no clear policy of what we want.
We discuss railways endlessly on here. Once again I am not sure we have a clear way forward when a Conservative government is nationalising private companies.
I think that all of these examples simply show we don't have a government that is focused on governing and doesn't have clear policies, particularly in areas where we have not been able to set the rules over time. I don't think these are examples of deregulation, they are examples of indecision.
I would have agreed with you, before I realised that legally, EU law still has primacy over UK law. When you are dealing with Sir Humphey, these things matter. If the CS tells you that your whizzbang new reservoir law is illegal, that is effectively it.
Whoever the Conservative leader is wouldn't make much difference now, Sunak has at least steadied the ship and bought some competence after the Truss calamity. Even Boris might win back a few white working class voters from RefUK or DK but would still lose.
The fact is after 13 years in power as per the usual electoral pendulum the mood is for change and changing the leader won't help that. The one comfort for Sunak is Starmer still does not enthuse swing voters like Blair did and he could still be John Major 1992 to Starmer's Kinnock as opposed to the John Major 1997 he currently looks like.
Yes the Tories lost over 1,000 council seats but then so did Major' Tories in May 1991, with Labour gaining over 500 and the LDs over 400 an almost identical result to the local elections of May 2023. Yet Major's Tories defied most pollsters to win a narrow re election the following year despite also being in power for 13 years. Yes the Tory NEV was worse this May than in 1991 but then there are plenty of DKs and RefUK voters for Rishi to squeeze
There is a monumental difference between the 1991 scenario you cite and today: Major was competent. Major led a government which was making the country better. Major was delivering.
What you and the other obsessives will not face up to is the reality that you have broken this country. the public can see it. Even your hard right can see it. But loyalists? No.
To pull off a Major 92 you need to actually be competent.
Also - 1992 was pre-devolution. A big difference. SKS is effectively trying to win two elections at once at Westminster - UK and England. So are the Tories.
On the local election results England is most likely to see a hung parliament with the LDs having the balance of power.
If Starmer wins a majority it will now very likely be the SNP implosion and Labour expanding its dominance in Wales that delivers it.
Blair in 1997 would therefore remain the only Labour leader since Attlee in 1945 to win a majority in England as incoming PM (Wilson did win a majority in 1966 in England but was already incumbent PM). If Starmer wins, like Wilson in 1964 and 1974, he will probably win a UK wide majority but fail to win a majority in England
On local election voting patterns, Labour wins a comfortable majority. The results show that in most areas voters went for the party best placed to beat the Tory candidate. In a general election that is going to be the Labour candidate in all but a few dozen English and Welsh constituencies.
If Labour was on course for a clear majority in England they would have won councils like Harlow, Dartford, Basildon, Dudley, Walsall, Wyre Forest, Forest of Dean, Rugby, Hartlepool etc ie all areas where Blair won seats in 1997. Yet Labour failed to do so.
Even if the Tories also lost control of some of the above there was no huge surge to Starmer Labour last week as there was to Blair's New Labour pre 1997
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
I agree with the general principle that if the full bill was genuinely impossible for whatever reason, prioritise the big ones where doing business can be genuinely made easier, for repeal. If you read Redwood's passage, that's exactly what she *hasn't* done. The 600 due to be scrapped are fluff, and the genuinely irksome laws remain. That is poor by any measure, and it has nothing to do with being a Brexiteer - any good Trade Secretary, recognising the fact that we're out of the EU would seek to remove those laws that made doing business more difficult.
Can you be more specific. What rules should she have repealed that she has left alone? What, in your view, is the best example?
VAT - Reform of our VAT laws to allow greater flexibility or even abolition of VAT in some instances. This is written into UK law but the primacy of EU law in this area needs to be repealed to allow that law to change, and by Redwood's account, this has not happened.
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R “I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.” (Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/ The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
The government abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021. So far, the UK market for such products has not collapsed.
The arguments about dredging and its impact on flooding are complicated but again, once we decide what we are going to do, we can do it. The need for reservoirs etc is a quite bizarre thing to fix on a continental scale. I think the problem here is that there is no clear policy of what we want.
We discuss railways endlessly on here. Once again I am not sure we have a clear way forward when a Conservative government is nationalising private companies.
I think that all of these examples simply show we don't have a government that is focused on governing and doesn't have clear policies, particularly in areas where we have not been able to set the rules over time. I don't think these are examples of deregulation, they are examples of indecision.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
Nation in shock...
We can only grasp the advantages once we have a Labour government delivering a Labour Brexit.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?
Genuine question
It seems to be the same as a Tory Brexit but with the ability to really blame the other Party...
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So I presume all the people complaining about voter registration as a Tory plot will also criticise labour for proposing to give votes to 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.
Well, I am. I don't think non-citizens should have the vote. If they have settled status and want to vote they should take out naturalisation.
The Commonwealth is a legacy arrangement and frankly an anachronism. Ireland of course is a special case.
I'm also not sold on votes for 16 year olds. If we say they're not of sufficient capacity to drive or marry why should they be deemed ready to vote?
So, if they pass their driving license at 17 they should be able to vote then?
What about marry?
Then you should have been more specific.
It was ambiguous whether someone being old to drive *or* marry meant either or both. Indeed, unless you used the word "and", you were very much open to misinterpretation.
My point is we seem to be tightening up rules on various things sixteen and seventeen year olds can do, and simultaneously slacking off in others, for no discernible rhyme or reason.
It looks stupid, because it is stupid.
It would be better to have a serious think about what is or isn't appropriate and at what age. And then stick to it.
I'm strongly in favour of votes for 16/17 year olds because voting is learned behavior and far too few young people are learning that behaviour, to the detriment of democracy. Having elections while young people are at school is an opportunity. It can be seen as an apprenticeship, if you will.
This is the case in Scotland. It's supported almost by everyone. Ruth Davidson was a big proponent.
If that is a good idea - and I can see why it is - then how does it fit with the Scottish view that the young are too immature to be held responsible for their actions, cannot be sent to prison and so on?
Teens are the transition to adulthood and different milestones kick in at different ages. Criminal responsibility in Scotland I think is at 12 and you can be detained, but not in an adult prison, from 16. None of this is relevant to the optimal voting age. I think setting it at 16 rather than 18 has advantages in encouraging young people to vote and keep voting during their adulthood, which is a good thing. But either age is arbitrary, as are all these age limits.
To a degree they are arbitrary. But surely we already encourage people to vote at 18 and it doesn't work fantastically well, why would setting it at 16 encourage them any further?
I don't find the encouragement argument to be very convincing, which is why I tend to fall back on the transition to adulthood point, which as you note people will disagree on depending on the milestone. But I think assessing it that way, whichever age we settle on, has the advantage of setting the social expectation of adulthood, rather than some nebulous idea that it encourages voting if you get them doing it earlier, since by the same logic why not encourage even lower.
It links a person's first votable election with classroom activities that discuss politics and government. It may be a marginal benefit but I genuinely don't see a counter argument for delaying. There is clearly a very strong animus on here against votes for 16 year olds, also on previous threads, that I find completely baffling.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
Nation in shock...
We can only grasp the advantages once we have a Labour government delivering a Labour Brexit.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?
Genuine question
It seems to be the same as a Tory Brexit but with the ability to really blame the other Party...
I think a Labour Brexit will differ from a Tory one in terms of tone. I know this may sound a bit fanciful and evasive but I think it is important. Brexit to date has, politically, all been about opposition to the EU and conflict with them. Starmer seems to have the rather sensible idea that the best way to make things work is to be resonable about them. It is a lesson Sunak seems to understand as well but it is too late for him and too many of his party are still on the Brexit purity drug so will never accept that doing things by mutual agreement, in a sensible timeframe, is the best way forward.
Of course my view has always been that we are better off outside the EU but also better off inside the EEA. I am not sure Starmer and Labour are ready for that but it has a better chance of success under a likely Labour administration than it does under the current Tory administration.
Comments
A problem the Conservatives have is that they seem to think that property owners should be the only ones to get richer and that workers shouldn't.
There are some laws that specify weights and measures.
Drafting and enforcing those laws in 2 different measurement systems, "a Brexit Freedom" (sic), makes life harder, not easier.
A UK outside the EU meant that Germany and France were dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing.
I note that the EU is now to ban the import of Russian gas, thereby completing the full 180 degree turn on Merkel's strategy of fitting snugly in Putin's lower colon.
That's why a jar of jam or honey still contains 454 grams.
'Brexit allowed UK to ‘do things differently’ in supporting Ukraine, says Johnson'
https://tinyurl.com/3amcmm6r
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
Do they have 18 yard penalty areas or 16.4592 meter penalty areas ?
Membership of the EU is almost completely irrelevant to it. I say almost because I think we might have been able to push the EU to a firmer sanctions regime quicker from the inside. But that is just speculation.
For example, the inch is now defined as precisely 25.4mm
The future's bright. The future is metric!
Nation in shock...
I shall never forget this government and which Rishi was Chancellor spent more time and energy on fishing than they did on financial services in the withdrawal agreement.
Can you tell me when this sector will see a Brexit benefit?
Yes, inspectors could carry round two sets of standards, metric and imperial, but that's extra hassle which someone (Mr and Mrs Taxpayer) has to pay for.
This isn't necessarily about refighting 2016 either. Within the constraint of "not being in the EU", or even "not being in the single market", there is still a wideish spectrum of options of alignment to divergence.
The question is whether, looked at case-by-case, many of the possible divergences actually make sense. I suspect that they don't, and the 52 percent of 2016 was made of lots of minorities animated by a single issue but otherwise pretty chilled about Euroalignment.
Hence the difficulty in coming up with a genuinely popular model for our post-EU future.
Metric units are a wonder of dumbing down though. Our nation's mental arithmetic was much sharper when you had twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound - or sixteen ounces in a pound, fourteen pound in a stone...
In general I would say the UK's interest lies in staying close to the EU regulatory system but simplifying the rules in many cases. This would allow all EU products and services to flow to the UK and minimize the now unavoidable additional hurdles to place UK products and services in the EU.
Simplification more or less will happen anyway. Regulation is underpinned by law where the EU and UK will be diverging. The EU with some exceptions won't accept UK equivalence - it has to be its rules. Important markets (essentially the EU and the US) can be prescriptive in its regulation. Less important markets like the UK need to keep compliance costs down in order to keep its market somewhat attractive.
Half a litre of water.
In private sector high end white collar there have been inflation matching increase for some - seems tied to individual performance and capability. Especially for productivity.
And why not combine with the abolition of place notation as well? And we got by for thousands of years with any of those pesky zeros.
If we made counting and arithmetic much, much harder like they were in the past, think of how fantastically numerate everyone would become!!!
FFS!
Hard to say whether the pressure that was applied to the U.K. government to get in line would have been more or less effective if we were in the EU.
Half / third / quarter / sixth are easy to work out even for those without much math skills (and in medieval times few people had great maths skills).
When I said Yorkshire were not favourites to win the second division, I certainly didn't expect them to be plumb last halfway through.
Gloucestershire have had their season ruined by rain. What's Yorkshire's excuse for losing to Leicestershire and Durham from winning positions?
I’m a really good Muslim I’ll have you know.
I drink too much.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
It was a very complex task, long before computers, but it certainly allowed me to become conversant on both imperial and metric measurements
However, the idea of going back to pounds and ounces is absurd
I would like to go back to having the option of sandwich makers which actually cook and vacuum cleaners that actually suck though. And don't get me started about light bulbs.
Genuine question
If Starmer wins a majority it will now very likely be the SNP implosion and Labour expanding its dominance in Wales that delivers it.
Blair in 1997 would therefore remain the only Labour leader since Attlee in 1945 to win a majority in England as incoming PM (Wilson did win a majority in 1966 in England but was already incumbent PM). If Starmer wins, like Wilson in 1964 and 1974, he will probably win a UK wide majority but fail to win a majority in England
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
Ports directive - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/repealing-the-eu-port-services-legislation/repealing-the-eu-port-services-legislation
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R
“I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.”
(Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/
The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
Can you tell me what a Tory Brexit is? The Tories don't seem to have figured it out yet despite having overseen Brexit from the start.
Keir Starmer scales back plan to extend voting rights to EU citizens
Labour leader reins in pledge to enfranchise over 3mn EU citizens amid Tory accusations of ‘gerrymandering’
That didn't take long
What kind of Remainer Traitor talk is that?
https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1657675775057747970
I still have nightmares about the time I was phoned at 2am by an doctor to argue about the strength of a pre-filled syringe sent up from pharmacy late the previous afternoon.
The arguments about dredging and its impact on flooding are complicated but again, once we decide what we are going to do, we can do it. The need for reservoirs etc is a quite bizarre thing to fix on a continental scale. I think the problem here is that there is no clear policy of what we want.
We discuss railways endlessly on here. Once again I am not sure we have a clear way forward when a Conservative government is nationalising private companies.
I think that all of these examples simply show we don't have a government that is focused on governing and doesn't have clear policies, particularly in areas where we have not been able to set the rules over time. I don't think these are examples of deregulation, they are examples of indecision.
I don't think there's any great evidence the British had better mental arithmetic than other Europeans before decimalisation, is there?
I don't find the encouragement argument to be very convincing, which is why I tend to fall back on the transition to adulthood point, which as you note people will disagree on depending on the milestone. But I think assessing it that way, whichever age we settle on, has the advantage of setting the social expectation of adulthood, rather than some nebulous idea that it encourages voting if you get them doing it earlier, since by the same logic why not encourage even lower.
Good day
Even if the Tories also lost control of some of the above there was no huge surge to Starmer Labour last week as there was to Blair's New Labour pre 1997
Lib Dem manifesto is going to have various proposals on this which hopefully Labour will nick.
Basically, nice idea, but all that’s happened is that consumers paid the same and the retailers made more money.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
Of course my view has always been that we are better off outside the EU but also better off inside the EEA. I am not sure Starmer and Labour are ready for that but it has a better chance of success under a likely Labour administration than it does under the current Tory administration.