Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Tories are becoming a byword for ungovernable – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    ...

    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.
    This already happens.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,016

    The fundamental question that voters will ask is: do I feel better off after 13 years of the Tories.

    In 2019 this was neutralised by Corbyn. But this is no longer a problem so voters will say “no” and go with the Red team.

    Many have but many haven't.

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,219
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    "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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794

    ...

    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,446

    ...

    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!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,794
    DavidL said:

    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...
  • TresTres Posts: 2,194
    DavidL said:

    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.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,016
    edited May 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/13/the-observer-view-on-brexit-tories-are-paying-the-price-for-their-dishonesty

    Eight minutes previously you were complaining about labour shortages from restricting immigration.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,042
    Scott_xP said:

    WTAF??????

    @SkyNews

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,524
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    We have fully embraced metric units.

    That's why a jar of jam or honey still contains 454 grams.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,524

    The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are

    Do you drink half litres down the pub then?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,883
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    WTAF??????

    @SkyNews

    Brexit stopped Ukraine invasion from succeeding, Jacob Rees-Mogg says

    Bonkers. Relieving JRM of the burden of office was one of the things Rishi got right. There are few more where he should have made similar choices.
    Stiil, Tories all the way up to Big Dog have been coming out with similar crap.

    'Brexit allowed UK to ‘do things differently’ in supporting Ukraine, says Johnson'

    https://tinyurl.com/3amcmm6r

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,016

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    We have fully embraced metric units.

    That's why a jar of jam or honey still contains 454 grams.
    I've often wondered what distances European football pitches are marked out at.

    Do they have 18 yard penalty areas or 16.4592 meter penalty areas ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    WTAF??????

    @SkyNews

    Brexit stopped Ukraine invasion from succeeding, Jacob Rees-Mogg says

    Bonkers. Relieving JRM of the burden of office was one of the things Rishi got right. There are few more where he should have made similar choices.
    Stiil, Tories all the way up to Big Dog have been coming out with similar crap.

    'Brexit allowed UK to ‘do things differently’ in supporting Ukraine, says Johnson'

    https://tinyurl.com/3amcmm6r

    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    We have fully embraced metric units.

    That's why a jar of jam or honey still contains 454 grams.
    The Imperial System has now gone metric and Imperial measures are now defined by reference to the metric system.

    For example, the inch is now defined as precisely 25.4mm

    The future's bright. The future is metric! :smile:
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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... :open_mouth:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    Tres said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,149
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,280
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,042
    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...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,645
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    The return of imperial measurements ROFL. Nobody young even understands what they are

    Do you drink half litres down the pub then?
    That is a rare exception - I concede.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,181
    Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,149

    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.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,876
    Scott_xP said:

    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'.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,068
    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,066
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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!
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,876

    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.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    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!
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,181
    edited May 2023

    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
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    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
  • eekeek Posts: 24,875
    ohnotnow said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Scott_xP said:

    WTAF??????

    @SkyNews

    Brexit stopped Ukraine invasion from succeeding, Jacob Rees-Mogg says

    I think Mogg's priest didn't put enough water in the communion wine this morning.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,875
    edited May 2023

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,068
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    WTAF??????

    @SkyNews

    Brexit stopped Ukraine invasion from succeeding, Jacob Rees-Mogg says

    Bonkers. Relieving JRM of the burden of office was one of the things Rishi got right. There are few more where he should have made similar choices.
    Stiil, Tories all the way up to Big Dog have been coming out with similar crap.

    'Brexit allowed UK to ‘do things differently’ in supporting Ukraine, says Johnson'

    https://tinyurl.com/3amcmm6r

    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.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    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.
    You don't drink at all?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Durham are going to find a way to lose this, aren't they?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,881
    Chris said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,016
    ohnotnow said:

    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.
    If the profit margin is higher on the standard range then making the basic range harder to open is a nudge factor.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,875

    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).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,050
    Well. What a match. And what a brave show from Brydon Carse.

    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?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,793

    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.
    Especially with my throwing.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,181
    Bev’s watch


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,149

    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.
    You don't drink at all?
    Only water, fruit juices, and some fizzy drinks like Pepsi.

    I’m a really good Muslim I’ll have you know.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,986
    Scott_xP said:

    @soniasodha

    The Observer view on Brexit: Tories are paying the price for their dishonesty | Observer editorial

    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1657687488058605569

    If you pick a fight with reality you can gain a short term advantage but in the end you will lose.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    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.
    You don't drink at all?
    Only water, fruit juices, and some fizzy drinks like Pepsi.

    I’m a really good Muslim I’ll have you know.
    Ah, of course.

    I drink too much.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,137
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,138

    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!
    TIL
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,524

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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... :open_mouth:
    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,161
    eek said:

    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).
    In 1971 I owned a large newsagents and grocery store and had the pleasure, if you want to see as that, of decimilsation of our business

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915

    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
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,161
    HYUFD said:

    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
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,883
    edited May 2023

    Bev’s watch


    Brexiteers’ hands?


  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,161

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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... :open_mouth:
    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
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988
    eek said:

    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).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915
    edited May 2023
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,883
    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,219
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.

    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.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,426
    DavidL said:

    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.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?

    Genuine question

    Good morning.

    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.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    https://www.ft.com/content/d18fff3f-d396-43c1-bffa-43aee03a6477

    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,951

    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?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,883

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,526

    ...

    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.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,645
    ..
    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    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”

    https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1657675775057747970
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,904
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,866
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,219
    edited May 2023
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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).
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,446

    Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals

    Do you have any evidence for this? I looked in Google Scholar and couldn’t find anything.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,988

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,904

    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?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,526
    FF43 said:

    ..

    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,219

    Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals

    Do you have any evidence for this? I looked in Google Scholar and couldn’t find anything.
    Clearly you didn't grow up pre-decimalisation or you'd have managed to work it out in your head.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,161

    Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?

    Genuine question

    Good morning.

    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.
    Labour are heading into government so it is a legitimate question and one they need to answer
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,446
    Chris said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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?
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?

    Genuine question

    Good morning.

    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.
    Labour are heading into government so it is a legitimate question and one they need to answer
    I just wondered if you knew or not, no worries if not, I didn't think the Tories did.

    Good day
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,526
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,044
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,526
    edited May 2023

    Chris said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Pagan2 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,986
    It felt so good to vote in a European election again last night.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,915
    edited May 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,310

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,219
    edited May 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.

    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.
    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,526
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    Remember Starmer Labour only got 35% NEV in the local elections, in 1995 at the equivalent cycle Blair's Labour got 47%.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections

    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
    Cling to that 28 grams of hope.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,446
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    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.

    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.
    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 thought this was interesting in abolishing VAT on sanitary products: https://taxpolicy.org.uk/assets/tampon_tax_report.pdf

    Basically, nice idea, but all that’s happened is that consumers paid the same and the retailers made more money.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    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... :open_mouth:
    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...
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    Bev’s watch


    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.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,645
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    Cyclefree said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,194

    Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?

    Genuine question

    Good morning.

    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.
    more dogs breakfast than oven ready at least
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,540

    Learning imperial measurements makes children far better at arithmetic, especially fractions - which are more accurate than rounded decimals

    It makes them worse. Adding 5/7ths and 3/13ths to get 86/91ths is far more difficult than adding 0.7143 to 0.2308 to get 0.9451.
This discussion has been closed.