Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
Actually, having read some of the retro "desires" posted here this morning, I believe the header is wrong. Instead of "The tories are becoming a byword for ungovernable" it should read "The tories are becoming a danger for democracy" because that is what happens when you substitute fantasy for reason.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
True, but I am not saying it is a bad thing. It just is what it is.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
I’ve worked out the solution! Let’s replace FPTP with STV: an ordinal voting system will exercise people’s mental capacities AND deliver a more democratic result! Win, win.
Maybe we could also have more higher rate tax bands, to really up people’s mental arithmetic skills.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
If anyone from the EU Commission is reading, they might want to take a look into Microsoft (and probably others) when it comes to cloud storage and consumer protection.
My mother-in-law has had her access to her email account locked out for the past week because her hotmail account was linked to OneDrive, and her laptop was also linked to OneDrive, and so when she had put ~5GB of photos into the photo directory of the capacious hard drive on her laptop these were backed up to OneDrive, filled it up, and stopped her hotmail from working - except for shakedown emails from Microsoft telling her to pay up for more OneDrive storage.
Supposedly hotmail itself has a 15GB storage limit for attachments, but when it is linked to OneDrive (and there doesn't appear to be a setting to unlink them) the lower 5GB limit for OneDrive applies, and Microsoft holds your email functionality hostage - which you can't regain simply by pruning a few attachments from you email inbox, because most of the space is taken up by files you have on your computer hard drive.
It's incredibly opaque, it seems to be hard to choose what not to back-up to OneDrive, and it seems to be a way to coerce people into signing up for a storage subscription they don't need or want just to get their email to work in the way it would have worked more simply 10 years ago.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Kemi's failure on the EU retained law bill looks worse than I thought - I thought she had prioritised the 600 laws she eas ditching to include the most important ones, but it would appear not:
"We are offered a list claiming to be 600 measures which will go. Most of the items on the list have already time expired or relate to EU international agreements which clearly no longer affect the UK as we are not members covered by them. There are items relating to 1990s agricultural settlements long gone, to Olympics special measures for the London games, and a range of temporary controls for things like BSE which have passed. It is tidy to clear them up but makes no difference to the costs of doing business or the freedoms in our daily lives.
For this policy to work there needs to clear areas where unhelpful rules and charges disappear, so people and businesses can do more more easily. So Kemi should include getting rid of the carbon taxes and emission trading, the complex product specifications, many of the VAT impositions, simplify the data regime, abolish the Ports Directive, and many others often mentioned on this site. She should revisit Iain Duncan Smith’s Report on repealing EU laws which sits unimplemented." https://johnredwoodsdiary.com
I think she's wrecked her career. It's very sad.
Or alternatively, given the polls, taken the first steps in rehabilitating her career and the Tory party fortunes.
When you cite John Redwood in support of your argument you know you are on the wrong side
What a pathetic argument. Anyone can read the content and decide for themselves whether it has merit.
That is my point. It has no merit. Schoolchildren can see that.
There's a delicious irony in Badenoch potentially ruining her political chances by doing something that's obviously sensible.
The focus of this is absurd and frankly juvenile. The importance is not where a law or regulation came from but its utility and disutility in that it is interfering with useful activities.
The only difference Brexit makes in this context is that it is now possible to repeal some regulations that were previously EU law and untouchable by the UK Parliament. But we have plenty of daft regulations of our own. It seems to me that Kemi is recognising that reality and I personally would give her credit for that rather than bemoaning her Brexiteer credentials which are now irrelevant.
I agree with the general principle that if the full bill was genuinely impossible for whatever reason, prioritise the big ones where doing business can be genuinely made easier, for repeal. If you read Redwood's passage, that's exactly what she *hasn't* done. The 600 due to be scrapped are fluff, and the genuinely irksome laws remain. That is poor by any measure, and it has nothing to do with being a Brexiteer - any good Trade Secretary, recognising the fact that we're out of the EU would seek to remove those laws that made doing business more difficult.
Can you be more specific. What rules should she have repealed that she has left alone? What, in your view, is the best example?
VAT - Reform of our VAT laws to allow greater flexibility or even abolition of VAT in some instances. This is written into UK law but the primacy of EU law in this area needs to be repealed to allow that law to change, and by Redwood's account, this has not happened.
Water framework, habitats and birds directive - these laws combined have made adding new reservoirs and other water infrastructure (crucial to cope with a rising population) near impossible, deliberately mandate high water bills, and make dredging near impossible. This has contributed to flooding events. We need a sensible and fit for purpose plan on water. Again, this is UK law, but the repeal of the UK law depends on unwinding the EU law which it stems from. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.php?blogno=84737
Single European Railways directive - this prevents rolling stock and track being owned by the same company, largely responsible for the failings of privatisation.
EU product specifications - why should products not for EU export comply with often very complicated and arduous product specifications? A simpler set of rules would allow smaller companies to compete.
https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-ports-idINL8N1A146R “I am reassured that if there is one benefit (from Brexit) ... the EU directive that was coming our way will fall away,” said Mark Whitworth, chief executive of Peel Ports, Britain’s second-biggest operator in terms of cargo handled.
“At the moment, we have a level playing field and no interference from government.” (Bad luck Mark)
Droit de Suite tax https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/britain-fears-new-art-tax-will-chase-away-sales-2019/ The new tax, set to take effect in Britain early next year, has auction houses and art dealers concerned that the increased costs will drive business out of the country. The EU directive was passed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, voting on Oct. 13, 2001, as part of the “harmonization” of tax laws among EU member states. But far from promoting harmony, the Brussels directive is striking a discordant note among those lobbying to protect London’s status as the preeminent center of the international art trade.
The government abolished VAT on sanitary products in 2021. So far, the UK market for such products has not collapsed.
The arguments about dredging and its impact on flooding are complicated but again, once we decide what we are going to do, we can do it. The need for reservoirs etc is a quite bizarre thing to fix on a continental scale. I think the problem here is that there is no clear policy of what we want.
We discuss railways endlessly on here. Once again I am not sure we have a clear way forward when a Conservative government is nationalising private companies.
I think that all of these examples simply show we don't have a government that is focused on governing and doesn't have clear policies, particularly in areas where we have not been able to set the rules over time. I don't think these are examples of deregulation, they are examples of indecision.
I would have agreed with you, before I realised that legally, EU law still has primacy over UK law. When you are dealing with Sir Humphey, these things matter. If the CS tells you that your whizzbang new reservoir law is illegal, that is effectively it.
It is not true that EU law now has primacy over UK law. Primacy arose from the European Communities Act 1972 which was repealed by the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. That Act left EU law which had been adopted into UK law in force but it no longer has any special status.
However, most EU law will have been introduced by primary legislation implementing a framework directive and primary legislation does override secondary legislation such as statutory instruments. This legislation all too often went further than the EU directive actually required. Of course, a lot of the current guidance was written when EU policy was dominant but again, it is up to us change this once we have worked out what we want.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Bozo stated that we wanted to be a third party country for reasons and didn't grasp what that actual meant until it was pointed out to him bit by bit when it was too late for it to change.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Or when the current generation of boomers were born and gained power.....
If anyone from the EU Commission is reading, they might want to take a look into Microsoft (and probably others) when it comes to cloud storage and consumer protection.
My mother-in-law has had her access to her email account locked out for the past week because her hotmail account was linked to OneDrive, and her laptop was also linked to OneDrive, and so when she had put ~5GB of photos into the photo directory of the capacious hard drive on her laptop these were backed up to OneDrive, filled it up, and stopped her hotmail from working - except for shakedown emails from Microsoft telling her to pay up for more OneDrive storage.
Supposedly hotmail itself has a 15GB storage limit for attachments, but when it is linked to OneDrive (and there doesn't appear to be a setting to unlink them) the lower 5GB limit for OneDrive applies, and Microsoft holds your email functionality hostage - which you can't regain simply by pruning a few attachments from you email inbox, because most of the space is taken up by files you have on your computer hard drive.
It's incredibly opaque, it seems to be hard to choose what not to back-up to OneDrive, and it seems to be a way to coerce people into signing up for a storage subscription they don't need or want just to get their email to work in the way it would have worked more simply 10 years ago.
If you are using the free version of a product you best be prepared to pay for the paid version or find a different free version.
Because that issue was always going to occur especially once photos (which you continually take so will over time require more and more space) are involved.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Like the Canadians we are bilingual on the two systems. Although that’s probably taking up space in our brains that could be put to other uses.
The next flight to me at the c gates is Pegasus to Istanbul. The passengers all look very much KK voters. Few headscarves, lots of iPhones and one of them just smiled as she made space for a Hasidic Jew to pass in the corridor. I very much hope they’ll get back home in enough time to cast their votes to kick out Erdogan later.
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?
The bill you're probably referring to still provides for secure accommodation and restriction of liberty.
there are areas where we can have better regulations that are different.
In theory, maybe?
In practise, not really.
One obvious area is financial services. London is by far the most sophisticated financial services in Europe and has highly respected regulators (although their failure to jail some bankers for the practices that contributed to the GFC is a black mark). London used to have considerable influence over the ECB's regulations for these reasons but now they can simply get on with it rather than moving at the slower pace that EU regulation inevitably goes at given the need to bring at least a majority along with it. I think that this is an area where the ECB will often choose to follow us rather than the other way around.
But I personally would not dispute that this was oversold. Like most areas both the advantages and disadvantages of EU membership were hugely distorted and exaggerated by both sides of the debate. It really is time to move on from this.
It is time to grasp the advantages offered by leaving says man who voted Leave.
Nation in shock...
We can only grasp the advantages once we have a Labour government delivering a Labour Brexit.
Only when Starmer et al have had a chance to deliver will I be able to judge the success or otherwise of leaving.
Can I ask - what is a labour Brexit. ?
Genuine question
It seems to be the same as a Tory Brexit but with the ability to really blame the other Party...
I think a Labour Brexit will differ from a Tory one in terms of tone. I know this may sound a bit fanciful and evasive but I think it is important. Brexit to date has, politically, all been about opposition to the EU and conflict with them. Starmer seems to have the rather sensible idea that the best way to make things work is to be resonable about them. It is a lesson Sunak seems to understand as well but it is too late for him and too many of his party are still on the Brexit purity drug so will never accept that doing things by mutual agreement, in a sensible timeframe, is the best way forward.
Of course my view has always been that we are better off outside the EU but also better off inside the EEA. I am not sure Starmer and Labour are ready for that but it has a better chance of success under a likely Labour administration than it does under the current Tory administration.
The Windsor agreement seems to have been a very positive step in terms of relationships by Sunak. I hope he can continue to follow through on it. He faced down the fanatics all too easily when it came to it.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Just watch your neck when you go round Hartlepool market suggesting they adopt the avoirdupois system of weights and measures.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
I never actually advocated a return to the teaching of imperial units. I just said that learning them made children better at arithmetic. I don’t have any evidence for this other than my experience - and it just seems logical that being forced to learn in bases other than ten would make it necessarily so
I rather enjoy having the ability to convert between metric and imperial with ease. I especially like being able to use the divisions of imperial distances, like furlongs and chains, when I’m walking. I don’t know why I prefer to count down the last mile in furlongs, I just do. I like guessing the size of a field in acres, then roughly calculating it when I’ve walked around two sides of it
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Bozo stated that we wanted to be a third party country for reasons and didn't grasp what that actual meant until it was pointed out to him bit by bit when it was too late for it to change.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
But the effing ridiculous thing is this is Switzerland. Not in the EU. Not in the single market. No free movement even before Brexit, so we still couldn’t just move there without a visa. But we didn’t need to stamp passports because of a negotiated EU arrangement.
It should have been the simplest thing to agree to rollover. No change, but we weren’t even competent at that.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Like the Canadians we are bilingual on the two systems. Although that’s probably taking up space in our brains that could be put to other uses.
The next flight to me at the c gates is Pegasus to Istanbul. The passengers all look very much KK voters. Few headscarves, lots of iPhones and one of them just smiled as she made space for a Hasidic Jew to pass in the corridor. I very much hope they’ll get back home in enough time to cast their votes to kick out Erdogan later.
Unlikely - voting stations close at 5pm IST (so in less than 2 hours time) with the results starting from 7pm our time (9pm in Turkey).
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
This is a strong argument for deliberately creating more inconveniences so that we train ourselves to deal with them with more skill.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Or when the current generation of boomers were born and gained power.....
Practically none of those who have been making decisions over the last few years are boomers. I was born in 1965 and miss being a boomer by a year. And I am older than practially every single member of the cabinet with the exception of the Leader of the Lords and the Minister of State for Development.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Or when the current generation of boomers were born and gained power.....
And thank goodness for that. Heavens, we are extremely poor at governing ourselves, the idea that we should be responsible for millions of others as well is completely daft.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
If Ukraine is free in a year’s time it’ll be thanks almost entirely to arms from the USA. And Ukrainians themselves. Brexit is irrelevant.
Attend the coronation though, that's fine. Something about York.
The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation.
Lord Sentamu has already rejected the report's findings which said he failed to act on a claim made by a victim.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
This is a strong argument for deliberately creating more inconveniences so that we train ourselves to deal with them with more skill.
The brain has a fixed capacity though. The more space we create by convenience, the more we can use it for useful stuff like debating on PB.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Bozo stated that we wanted to be a third party country for reasons and didn't grasp what that actual meant until it was pointed out to him bit by bit when it was too late for it to change.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
But the effing ridiculous thing is this is Switzerland. Not in the EU. Not in the single market. No free movement even before Brexit, so we still couldn’t just move there without a visa. But we didn’t need to stamp passports because of a negotiated EU arrangement.
It should have been the simplest thing to agree to rollover. No change, but we weren’t even competent at that.
We did have freedom of movement with Switzerland, as does the rest of the EU now.
We asked the EU to guarantee e-gate usage in the negotiations - they were insistent it was a national competence.
Some countries allow it - but they must stamp the passport after the gate.
There is no way to avoid the stamping without a return to FoM, until the EU introduces proper electronic borders - which they are planning to do soon.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Like the Canadians we are bilingual on the two systems. Although that’s probably taking up space in our brains that could be put to other uses.
The next flight to me at the c gates is Pegasus to Istanbul. The passengers all look very much KK voters. Few headscarves, lots of iPhones and one of them just smiled as she made space for a Hasidic Jew to pass in the corridor. I very much hope they’ll get back home in enough time to cast their votes to kick out Erdogan later.
Unlikely - voting stations close at 5pm IST (so in less than 2 hours time) with the results starting from 7pm our time (9pm in Turkey).
That’s crazy. Well there’s an A319s worth of KK votes just lost.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Bozo stated that we wanted to be a third party country for reasons and didn't grasp what that actual meant until it was pointed out to him bit by bit when it was too late for it to change.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
Boris wanted to be free of obligations, same as usual.
Whether that's because he weighed the benefits resulting from those obligations and thought them insufficient, or just assumed that there was no connection, you would have to ask him.
I think his assumption was that divorce would be followed by friendship-with-benefits, so to speak.
Attend the coronation though, that's fine. Something about York.
The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation.
Lord Sentamu has already rejected the report's findings which said he failed to act on a claim made by a victim.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
This is a strong argument for deliberately creating more inconveniences so that we train ourselves to deal with them with more skill.
The brain has a fixed capacity though. The more space we create by convenience, the more we can use it for useful stuff like debating on PB.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Or when the current generation of boomers were born and gained power.....
Practically none of those who have been making decisions over the last few years are boomers. I was born in 1965 and miss being a boomer by a year. And I am older than practially every single member of the cabinet with the exception of the Leader of the Lords and the Minister of State for Development.
Those in power at the moment are Generation X
The "decline of Empire" that the nostalgic are moaning about happened long before the current lot made their own mess of things.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
If Ukraine is free in a year’s time it’ll be thanks almost entirely to arms from the USA. And Ukrainians themselves. Brexit is irrelevant.
They were given our arms that smashed the Russian advance onto Kyiv.
Without that, they were gone as an independent nation. Germany especially has now come round to the business opportunities within Ukraine - having secured its energy supplies. But the foot-dragging in Berlin and cheese-eating surrender monkey in Paris can claim no credit for the early efforts to preserve Ukrainian freedom.
There would be a lot less of Ukraine that needs rebuilding if there had been a similar alacrity in getting their anti-missile systems sent within a month.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
This is a strong argument for deliberately creating more inconveniences so that we train ourselves to deal with them with more skill.
The brain has a fixed capacity though. The more space we create by convenience, the more we can use it for useful stuff like debating on PB.
I don't think that's how brains work.
Ok cleverclogs. I feared I’d get that reply as soon as I pressed post. It’s how hours in the day and the average person’s attention span work.
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?
We had an Empire on which the sun never set, thanks to our world-beating Imperial units.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Or when the current generation of boomers were born and gained power.....
Practically none of those who have been making decisions over the last few years are boomers. I was born in 1965 and miss being a boomer by a year. And I am older than practially every single member of the cabinet with the exception of the Leader of the Lords and the Minister of State for Development.
Those in power at the moment are Generation X
They are boomer nostalgists. It's like how you find a lot of young Tories and young Labour people really into the politics of the early 80s and bang on about Thatcher or Benn all the time.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
Essentially you are saying that something the EU didn't do proves that they are evil, which at least confirms that Leavers were often motivated by unprovable conspiracies about hateful foreigners.
If anyone from the EU Commission is reading, they might want to take a look into Microsoft (and probably others) when it comes to cloud storage and consumer protection.
My mother-in-law has had her access to her email account locked out for the past week because her hotmail account was linked to OneDrive, and her laptop was also linked to OneDrive, and so when she had put ~5GB of photos into the photo directory of the capacious hard drive on her laptop these were backed up to OneDrive, filled it up, and stopped her hotmail from working - except for shakedown emails from Microsoft telling her to pay up for more OneDrive storage.
Supposedly hotmail itself has a 15GB storage limit for attachments, but when it is linked to OneDrive (and there doesn't appear to be a setting to unlink them) the lower 5GB limit for OneDrive applies, and Microsoft holds your email functionality hostage - which you can't regain simply by pruning a few attachments from you email inbox, because most of the space is taken up by files you have on your computer hard drive.
It's incredibly opaque, it seems to be hard to choose what not to back-up to OneDrive, and it seems to be a way to coerce people into signing up for a storage subscription they don't need or want just to get their email to work in the way it would have worked more simply 10 years ago.
If you are using the free version of a product you best be prepared to pay for the paid version or find a different free version.
Because that issue was always going to occur especially once photos (which you continually take so will over time require more and more space) are involved.
My mother-in-law has never chosen to bank up her files in cloud storage - this is just how the computer has worked for her by default when she bought it. It shouldn't be made so difficult for her not to use the cloud option.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
If Ukraine is free in a year’s time it’ll be thanks almost entirely to arms from the USA. And Ukrainians themselves. Brexit is irrelevant.
They were given our arms that smashed the Russian advance onto Kyiv.
Without that, they were gone as an independent nation. Germany especially has now come round to the business opportunities within Ukraine - having secured its energy supplies. But the foot-dragging in Berlin and cheese-eating surrender monkey in Paris can claim no credit for the early efforts to preserve Ukrainian freedom.
There would be a lot less of Ukraine that needs rebuilding if there had been a similar alacrity in getting their anti-missile systems sent within a month.
Javelins - US supply: 5,000 used so far. NLAWS 2,000. We’ve been helpful, but they could t do it without the US. And there is zero we wouldn’t have done if we’d not Brexited. We’ve been equipping and training them since 2014, way before the referendum. Look at Poland. Or the Baltics. Brexit is irrelevant.
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.
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but for most of us, it’s a truly risible argument from Mogg.
You want an example of the EU mindset, look at the vaccines debacle. They were prepared to put a hard border down the island of Ireland to prove they were always right. For half an hour at least. Until the reality of their position finally dawned.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
Essentially you are saying that something the EU didn't do proves that they are evil, which at least confirms that Leavers were often motivated by unprovable conspiracies about hateful foreigners.
Well, that's a Beamon-beating leap in your logic...
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
Edit and btw 16 is the age of legal capacity in Scotland so they can sign binding contracts. They cannot sign credit agreements but they can buy and sell things. They have some rights to have unfair contracts put aside but this almost never happens in practice.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
Possibly not, though the difficulty of finding someone completely incapable, or how it theoretically could be abused by declaring someone incapable, may explain whey it is not a barrier. Though the distinction would also be adults assumed to be of adult character, obviously, and undiminished capacity, unless proven otherwise, whereas assuming a child, though of undiminished capacity, not of adult character.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
So you consider voting on the future of your country less important than all those other things?
Conservative MPs have complained to Simon Hart, the chief whip, about Braverman and her competence. Senior backbenchers have raised concerns about her tone and style. Some requested that she not be deployed to campaign in their constituencies.
At a meeting between Hart and Brexiteer MPs last week, one grandee complained about Sunak’s five pledges and raised concerns that he may miss all of them. A source said: “After that it was open season on Suella Braverman and everyone was attacking her small boats bill. Many think it’s undeliverable and . . . it will just be another example of the party lying to voters.”
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
Possibly not, though the difficulty of finding someone completely incapable, or how it theoretically could be abused by declaring someone incapable, may explain whey it is not a barrier. Though the distinction would also be adults assumed to be of adult character, obviously, and undiminished capacity, unless proven otherwise, whereas assuming a child, though of undiminished capacity, not of adult character.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
Well it is very likely there are far more voters with dementia voting than there are of impersonation at polling booths. So maybe it is time for anyone over a certain age to have to get a certificate from a doctor, with a photo of course, before they are allowed to cast their vote. Just procedural of course, nothing to do with the right to vote.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
So you consider voting on the future of your country less important than all those other things?
No but I do respect their right to have a say in that future, just as many very stupid people who are a bit older do. Indeed, you can make the argument that they have more vested in the future of the country than the retired on the basis it will affect them for longer.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
Complete consistency is overrated, but some level of consistency is not - there are lots of things which, if we believe people can vote at a certain age, then they absolutely should be able to do as well.
If we do go down the route of 16 year olds voting I would hope it would be accompanied by an assessment and loosening of restrictions elsewhere, since it seems irrational to maintain certain distinctions as being beyond them in that case.
My worry is that we instead just do the one, rather than have a debate and discussion about what we think becoming an adult, even in a growing sense rather than a single cut off, actually means.
That's why I see it largely as pandering, as we're not thinking about how people grow into adulthood in a serious way - we're maintaining limits or even increasing them, then going 'Oh, but voting is an exception', like some kind of casual, trendy afterthought.
Conservative MPs have complained to Simon Hart, the chief whip, about Braverman and her competence. Senior backbenchers have raised concerns about her tone and style. Some requested that she not be deployed to campaign in their constituencies.
Is there any possibility she could be deployed against Luhansk?
As a last, shorter word on the subject - if we trust young people to be grown up we should demonstrate we trust them. There will be some exceptions but the default would be permission of many activities and choices at a younger age.
If we do not trust young people to be grown up in that way there will be some exceptions but the default would be restricting permission.
In both cases strong reasons would be needed for why exception, and not just change the default.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
So you consider voting on the future of your country less important than all those other things?
No but I do respect their right to have a say in that future, just as many very stupid people who are a bit older do. Indeed, you can make the argument that they have more vested in the future of the country than the retired on the basis it will affect them for longer.
Immaterial. By that logic then no one with a terminal disease should be able to vote as they will not be around to see the consequence of their actions. You see where you get to when you start to go down this route.
And again. If you were up in court would you be content that the jury consisted entirely of 16 year olds?
Or take another example. It is well known that girls mature mentally faster than boys. Since we are now making these qualitative decisions should we say girls can vote at 16 but boys not until 18? Just think what THAT would do to the Trans debate.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
So you consider voting on the future of your country less important than all those other things?
No but I do respect their right to have a say in that future, just as many very stupid people who are a bit older do. Indeed, you can make the argument that they have more vested in the future of the country than the retired on the basis it will affect them for longer.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
Possibly not, though the difficulty of finding someone completely incapable, or how it theoretically could be abused by declaring someone incapable, may explain whey it is not a barrier. Though the distinction would also be adults assumed to be of adult character, obviously, and undiminished capacity, unless proven otherwise, whereas assuming a child, though of undiminished capacity, not of adult character.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
Well it is very likely there are far more voters with dementia voting than there are of impersonation at polling booths. So maybe it is time for anyone over a certain age to have to get a certificate from a doctor, with a photo of course, before they are allowed to cast their vote. Just procedural of course, nothing to do with the right to vote.
Or you just impose a retirement age of 75 for voters, the same as we do for judges.
There certainly ought to be a mandatory retirement age for motorists. Ancient drivers might not be gaga (for the most part - I dare say there are quite a lot of people in the early stages of dementia still happily pootling around the nation's roads,) but their reaction times will almost certainly be shot.
EDIT: the first paragraph is offered in jest. The second isn't.
I never actually advocated a return to the teaching of imperial units. I just said that learning them made children better at arithmetic. I don’t have any evidence for this other than my experience - and it just seems logical that being forced to learn in bases other than ten would make it necessarily so
I rather enjoy having the ability to convert between metric and imperial with ease. I especially like being able to use the divisions of imperial distances, like furlongs and chains, when I’m walking. I don’t know why I prefer to count down the last mile in furlongs, I just do. I like guessing the size of a field in acres, then roughly calculating it when I’ve walked around two sides of it
We should simply use both systems.
With the old imperial system essentially what happened is that whenever you had a new situation that required a standard weight or measure a new unit was created that was a suitable scale for that system. So you have large numbers of units, with sometimes quite strange relations between them, but for any specific purpose you will tend to have a unit that is the right size so that you can measure to the appropriate accuracy for that purpose.
So I tend to think that, for lots of everyday purposes, Imperial units are more friendly and convenient to use.
The metric system though was designed as a cohesive whole and so it has some really quite lovely relationships between different quantities and units that are very useful. So, for example, 1mm of rain is equal to 1kg of water per square metre or 1 litre. Whereas, in Imperial, 1 inch of rain is equal to a bit less than 5 lb 3 1/4 oz per square foot, or a bit more than 4 pints and 3 floz (UK).
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
Complete consistency is overrated, but some level of consistency is not - there are lots of things which, if we believe people can vote at a certain age, then they absolutely should be able to do as well.
If we do go down the route of 16 year olds voting I would hope it would be accompanied by an assessment and loosening of restrictions elsewhere, since it seems irrational to maintain certain distinctions as being beyond them in that case.
My worry is that we instead just do the one, rather than have a debate and discussion about what we think becoming an adult, even in a growing sense rather than a single cut off, actually means.
That's why I see it largely as pandering, as we're not thinking about how people grow into adulthood in a serious way - we're maintaining limits or even increasing them, then going 'Oh, but voting is an exception', like some kind of casual, trendy afterthought.
I am happy to look on it on a case by case basis.
Some countries are using an increasing age limit to ban the sale of tobacco so that it will be phased out. So those below the qualifying age will never be able to buy tobacco legally no matter how old they become. I am ok with this too. And, as I pointed out in my edit 16 year olds in Scotland can enter binding contracts. It doesn't seem to cause any problems. I have only once in my career sought to have a contract set aside because it was plainly unfair and the age argument was only 1 of several arguments that were applicable.
They can also appear in the High Court and be sentenced to detention leading on to imprisonment when they get older for crimes they committed over the age of 8 (in theory, more like 12 in practice).
If anyone from the EU Commission is reading, they might want to take a look into Microsoft (and probably others) when it comes to cloud storage and consumer protection.
My mother-in-law has had her access to her email account locked out for the past week because her hotmail account was linked to OneDrive, and her laptop was also linked to OneDrive, and so when she had put ~5GB of photos into the photo directory of the capacious hard drive on her laptop these were backed up to OneDrive, filled it up, and stopped her hotmail from working - except for shakedown emails from Microsoft telling her to pay up for more OneDrive storage.
Supposedly hotmail itself has a 15GB storage limit for attachments, but when it is linked to OneDrive (and there doesn't appear to be a setting to unlink them) the lower 5GB limit for OneDrive applies, and Microsoft holds your email functionality hostage - which you can't regain simply by pruning a few attachments from you email inbox, because most of the space is taken up by files you have on your computer hard drive.
It's incredibly opaque, it seems to be hard to choose what not to back-up to OneDrive, and it seems to be a way to coerce people into signing up for a storage subscription they don't need or want just to get their email to work in the way it would have worked more simply 10 years ago.
If you are using the free version of a product you best be prepared to pay for the paid version or find a different free version.
Because that issue was always going to occur especially once photos (which you continually take so will over time require more and more space) are involved.
My mother-in-law has never chosen to bank up her files in cloud storage - this is just how the computer has worked for her by default when she bought it. It shouldn't be made so difficult for her not to use the cloud option.
I guess my real annoyance is that the failure mode should have been to disable the cloud backups, and it shouldn't have disabled her email, but I'm sure they get more people to pay for the cloud storage by breaking the email than by breaking the cloud backups - because people actually want the email functionality, but don't really care about the cloud backup.
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
I never actually advocated a return to the teaching of imperial units. I just said that learning them made children better at arithmetic. I don’t have any evidence for this other than my experience - and it just seems logical that being forced to learn in bases other than ten would make it necessarily so
I rather enjoy having the ability to convert between metric and imperial with ease. I especially like being able to use the divisions of imperial distances, like furlongs and chains, when I’m walking. I don’t know why I prefer to count down the last mile in furlongs, I just do. I like guessing the size of a field in acres, then roughly calculating it when I’ve walked around two sides of it
We should simply use both systems.
With the old imperial system essentially what happened is that whenever you had a new situation that required a standard weight or measure a new unit was created that was a suitable scale for that system. So you have large numbers of units, with sometimes quite strange relations between them, but for any specific purpose you will tend to have a unit that is the right size so that you can measure to the appropriate accuracy for that purpose.
So I tend to think that, for lots of everyday purposes, Imperial units are more friendly and convenient to use.
The metric system though was designed as a cohesive whole and so it has some really quite lovely relationships between different quantities and units that are very useful. So, for example, 1mm of rain is equal to 1kg of water per square metre or 1 litre. Whereas, in Imperial, 1 inch of rain is equal to a bit less than 5 lb 3 1/4 oz per square foot, or a bit more than 4 pints and 3 floz (UK).
So just use both.
Exactly what we do in my industry. Many of the day to day measurements are done in API (basically American Imperial) with some done in metric. Mixing and matching is no problem.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
So you are confirming you would be happy to see 16 year olds with the right to sign binding contracts, sit on juries and die for their country? Also drive, smoke and drink?
No, but I am happy enough for them to vote.
So you consider voting on the future of your country less important than all those other things?
No but I do respect their right to have a say in that future, just as many very stupid people who are a bit older do. Indeed, you can make the argument that they have more vested in the future of the country than the retired on the basis it will affect them for longer.
Agree with you here. I can see only upside to extending the franchise to 16. And I don't think it needs to be consistent with age limits on other activities. Just look at each area on its merits. Some things 16, others 18, fine.
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
Perhaps more to the point, do Jacob Rees-Mogg and people like him (if there are any) think more than one person in a hundred is still fixated by Brexit?
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
It’s absolute gibberish. But it’s all Rees-Mogg, Marquee Mark, and the rest of the loons have left.
Conservative MPs have complained to Simon Hart, the chief whip, about Braverman and her competence. Senior backbenchers have raised concerns about her tone and style. Some requested that she not be deployed to campaign in their constituencies.
At a meeting between Hart and Brexiteer MPs last week, one grandee complained about Sunak’s five pledges and raised concerns that he may miss all of them. A source said: “After that it was open season on Suella Braverman and everyone was attacking her small boats bill. Many think it’s undeliverable and . . . it will just be another example of the party lying to voters.”
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
Aren't NLAWs a UK-Sweden collaboration? Outside the fevered imaginings of Brexiteer paranoiacs I don't remember there being any suggestion that EU member Sweden would withdraw cooperation over supplying Ukraine or pressure being put on them by the rest of the EU to do so.
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
Perhaps more to the point, do Jacob Rees-Mogg and people like him (if there are any) think more than one person in a hundred is still fixated by Brexit?
Gavin Shapps certainly isn’t, he appears to be distancing himself from it in interviews today.
Actually many younger people cannot read an analogue clock and the concept of time like "25 to 5" baffles them and they prefer "16:35". They are so used to digital clocks that for many the skill has been lost.
So you could probably put whatever you like on a clock face.
So far this today we've had "young people are idiots because they don't have to deal with shillings and galleons" and now we have "cannot read clocks".
On the understanding clocks and shillings point, it’s become clear to me over time that people (and nations) are good at things they are forced to do in their daily lives, and bad at things they don’t have to do unless they want to.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
Bozo stated that we wanted to be a third party country for reasons and didn't grasp what that actual meant until it was pointed out to him bit by bit when it was too late for it to change.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
Boris wanted to be free of obligations, same as usual.
Whether that's because he weighed the benefits resulting from those obligations and thought them insufficient, or just assumed that there was no connection, you would have to ask him.
I think his assumption was that divorce would be followed by friendship-with-benefits, so to speak.
Well Marina (until the last time- by which time Brexit was already conceived) always took him back after she'd chucked him out of house and home for affairs he had not thought through. So I suppose in his mind this separation would work in much the same way.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
Possibly not, though the difficulty of finding someone completely incapable, or how it theoretically could be abused by declaring someone incapable, may explain whey it is not a barrier. Though the distinction would also be adults assumed to be of adult character, obviously, and undiminished capacity, unless proven otherwise, whereas assuming a child, though of undiminished capacity, not of adult character.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
Well it is very likely there are far more voters with dementia voting than there are of impersonation at polling booths. So maybe it is time for anyone over a certain age to have to get a certificate from a doctor, with a photo of course, before they are allowed to cast their vote. Just procedural of course, nothing to do with the right to vote.
Or you just impose a retirement age of 75 for voters, the same as we do for judges.
There certainly ought to be a mandatory retirement age for motorists. Ancient drivers might not be gaga (for the most part - I dare say there are quite a lot of people in the early stages of dementia still happily pootling around the nation's roads,) but their reaction times will almost certainly be shot.
EDIT: the first paragraph is offered in jest. The second isn't.
Hilarious joke about people with dementia. People who've had to cope with it will be splitting their sides.
We invaded Iraq when we were in the EU, despite the French and Germans being against it. The idea that being in the EU would have prevented us sending NLAWs to Ukraine is nonsense.
Pity the EU wasn’t able to prevent us being involved in that daft American adventure.
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
On that basis should those with dementia be able to do jury service and vote?
Possibly not, though the difficulty of finding someone completely incapable, or how it theoretically could be abused by declaring someone incapable, may explain whey it is not a barrier. Though the distinction would also be adults assumed to be of adult character, obviously, and undiminished capacity, unless proven otherwise, whereas assuming a child, though of undiminished capacity, not of adult character.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
Well it is very likely there are far more voters with dementia voting than there are of impersonation at polling booths. So maybe it is time for anyone over a certain age to have to get a certificate from a doctor, with a photo of course, before they are allowed to cast their vote. Just procedural of course, nothing to do with the right to vote.
Or you just impose a retirement age of 75 for voters, the same as we do for judges.
There certainly ought to be a mandatory retirement age for motorists. Ancient drivers might not be gaga (for the most part - I dare say there are quite a lot of people in the early stages of dementia still happily pootling around the nation's roads,) but their reaction times will almost certainly be shot.
EDIT: the first paragraph is offered in jest. The second isn't.
Hilarious joke about people with dementia. People who've had to cope with it will be splitting their sides.
I was being completely serious about the limited reflexes of the very old, and outright mentally incompetent motorists are an extreme danger to themselves and others.
I have a close friend who's going spare at the moment, dealing with a parent who is obviously losing their marbles but continues to get in his car and drive - and nobody has any power to stop him until he gets a clinical diagnosis of dementia. The question now is what happens first: whether the diagnosis comes and she can assume power of attorney and swipe his keys, or he has a serious accident and likely ends up slaughtering people.
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.
There's no shame in not understanding financial services. Just that you needn't postage that ignorance on a public internet forum
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.
I don't know why you find it baffling, people will and do disagree but have been pretty clear where and why they oppose or do not oppose - I don't think children should vote, and I think on the whole we treat 16 year olds as children (or 'not adults' if people prefer to think about adolescents) and not capable of making most adult decisions or undertaking most adult activities under their own authority.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
I think the clearest argument for me on this has been regarding contracts and juries. How many of those advocating voting at 16 would be comfortable signing a binding contract with a 16 year old or having them sit on a jury to decide their guilt?
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
I used to think that way until the Indyref. I saw lots of 16 year olds on both sides of the argument there fully informed and engaged, including my 16 year old daughter who was a very effective canvasser for Better Together (she is now a trainee court lawyer, funnily enough).
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
David, what are your thoughts on getting rid of juries and Not Proven. Seems to me just more meddling by SNP nutjobs.
Comments
Maybe we could also have more higher rate tax bands, to really up people’s mental arithmetic skills.
My mother-in-law has had her access to her email account locked out for the past week because her hotmail account was linked to OneDrive, and her laptop was also linked to OneDrive, and so when she had put ~5GB of photos into the photo directory of the capacious hard drive on her laptop these were backed up to OneDrive, filled it up, and stopped her hotmail from working - except for shakedown emails from Microsoft telling her to pay up for more OneDrive storage.
Supposedly hotmail itself has a 15GB storage limit for attachments, but when it is linked to OneDrive (and there doesn't appear to be a setting to unlink them) the lower 5GB limit for OneDrive applies, and Microsoft holds your email functionality hostage - which you can't regain simply by pruning a few attachments from you email inbox, because most of the space is taken up by files you have on your computer hard drive.
It's incredibly opaque, it seems to be hard to choose what not to back-up to OneDrive, and it seems to be a way to coerce people into signing up for a storage subscription they don't need or want just to get their email to work in the way it would have worked more simply 10 years ago.
Hence we as a nation are shit at foreign languages. No need. Also pretty crap at repairing a car, say, compared with some poorer countries where that’s still an essential skill. Rubbish at referendums, unlike the Swiss.
But we are excellent at driving on the wrong side of the road, because we have to do so almost every time we go abroad. And we’re world beating at translating from metric to imperial and back again. I’ll often be on a call with US colleagues and say something like “it’s quite warm here - about 25C which is what, around 77F.”
And finally we are hopeless at negotiating basic trade and travel deals. I mean wtf is this? Switzerland, not a member of the EU. Yet we couldn’t even manage to negotiate continued use of the EU and e-gates. That empty zone on the right of the picture. Starmer could kick start his “Labour Brexit” by sorting out some basics like this.
However, most EU law will have been introduced by primary legislation implementing a framework directive and primary legislation does override secondary legislation such as statutory instruments. This legislation all too often went further than the EU directive actually required. Of course, a lot of the current guidance was written when EU policy was dominant but again, it is up to us change this once we have worked out what we want.
Those countries with metrication could only dream of such a thing....
Only fell apart once we started teaching metres and kilograms to our kids.
Remember we can't use gates at the moment because they need to stamp our passports.
Because that issue was always going to occur especially once photos (which you continually take so will over time require more and more space) are involved.
It's not 100% consistent, some things are permitted and some are not but very few argue for total consistency. If we are looking for consistency, I would argue that given we mostly treat 16 years as kids, discouraging them from working and the like, then we should increase the age limit of other things, not rather randomly, to my mind, decide they are not children for voting purposes but are for educational and other purposes.
For me voting, choosing who governs us, is a very clear marker for adulthood, far more than when you can buy alcohol or the like. If we don't trust them to do the latter, it seems absurd to me to claim they are ready for the former. And if anything we are getting worse about trusting young people to do things. If we trust them to act like adults we need to treat them that way more, not just for voting.
I felt that way when I was 16 and still do. But I think since 16 year olds have been permitted to vote in some elections it will be too late to stop.
The next flight to me at the c gates is Pegasus to Istanbul. The passengers all look very much KK voters. Few headscarves, lots of iPhones and one of them just smiled as she made space for a Hasidic Jew to pass in the corridor. I very much hope they’ll get back home in enough time to cast their votes to kick
out Erdogan later.
An EU with the UK still a member would have taken every measure possible to protect their members' investment in Nordstream pipelines and their cosy relationship with Putin. That would have meant being as obstructive as possible to our initiatives to help Ukraine.
I can see how Remainers will hate the idea, but when the history of the past 20 years is written, it will have a free Ukraine as a top benefit of Brexit. The preservation of the democratic will was never an EU priority, but in this instance, it will have been instrumental in galvanising countries to powerfully support the right thing to do. Which in itself, will have dismantled twenty years of Putin influence peddling - and made Brexit absolutely the right thing to have done.
Quite ironic when you keep being told by those supporting the status quo of our relationship with the EU that Putin engineered Brexit.
I rather enjoy having the ability to convert between metric and imperial with ease. I especially like being able to use the divisions of imperial distances, like furlongs and chains, when I’m walking. I don’t know why I prefer to count down the last mile in furlongs, I just do. I like guessing the size of a field in acres, then roughly calculating it when I’ve walked around two sides of it
It should have been the simplest thing to agree to rollover. No change, but we weren’t even competent at that.
Those in power at the moment are Generation X
The former Archbishop of York has been forced to step down from his Church of England role after a review into how he handled a child sex abuse allegation.
Lord Sentamu has already rejected the report's findings which said he failed to act on a claim made by a victim.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65588621
We asked the EU to guarantee e-gate usage in the negotiations - they were insistent it was a national competence.
Some countries allow it - but they must stamp the passport after the gate.
There is no way to avoid the stamping without a return to FoM, until the EU introduces proper electronic borders - which they are planning to do soon.
Well there’s an A319s worth of KK votes just lost.
Whether that's because he weighed the benefits resulting from those obligations and thought them insufficient, or just assumed that there was no connection, you would have to ask him.
I think his assumption was that divorce would be followed by friendship-with-benefits, so to speak.
Without that, they were gone as an independent nation. Germany especially has now come round to the business opportunities within Ukraine - having secured its energy supplies. But the foot-dragging in Berlin and cheese-eating surrender monkey in Paris can claim no credit for the early efforts to preserve Ukrainian freedom.
There would be a lot less of Ukraine that needs rebuilding if there had been a similar alacrity in getting their anti-missile systems sent within a month.
Taking it further, how many would be conformatable with sending a 16 year old off to fight on the front line in a war. In most of the world that is considered a war crime. If you are not absolutely cool with these examples then you really shouldn't be advocating votes at 16.
Poland. Or the Baltics. Brexit is irrelevant.
Are you at altitude?
I find the argument that voting is a practice you need to learn as you grow into adulthood if you are going to remain engaged quite compelling so I now support it. I think complete consistency on these things is overrated but 16 and 17 year olds voting has been tested and not found wanting.
Edit and btw 16 is the age of legal capacity in Scotland so they can sign binding contracts. They cannot sign credit agreements but they can buy and sell things. They have some rights to have unfair contracts put aside but this almost never happens in practice.
(Yes, what is adult character, but that's just back to the debate around with a variety of different age limitations, where do you broadly draw the line).
Conservative MPs have complained to Simon Hart, the chief whip, about Braverman and her competence. Senior backbenchers have raised concerns about her tone and style. Some requested that she not be deployed to campaign in their constituencies.
At a meeting between Hart and Brexiteer MPs last week, one grandee complained about Sunak’s five pledges and raised concerns that he may miss all of them. A source said: “After that it was open season on Suella Braverman and everyone was attacking her small boats bill. Many think it’s undeliverable and . . . it will just be another example of the party lying to voters.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-faces-divide-in-cabinet-as-figures-show-net-migration-may-hit-one-million-7wjrjg5bl
If we do go down the route of 16 year olds voting I would hope it would be accompanied by an assessment and loosening of restrictions elsewhere, since it seems irrational to maintain certain distinctions as being beyond them in that case.
My worry is that we instead just do the one, rather than have a debate and discussion about what we think becoming an adult, even in a growing sense rather than a single cut off, actually means.
That's why I see it largely as pandering, as we're not thinking about how people grow into adulthood in a serious way - we're maintaining limits or even increasing them, then going 'Oh, but voting is an exception', like some kind of casual, trendy afterthought.
If we do not trust young people to be grown up in that way there will be some exceptions but the default would be restricting permission.
In both cases strong reasons would be needed for why exception, and not just change the default.
And again. If you were up in court would you be content that the jury consisted entirely of 16 year olds?
Or take another example. It is well known that girls mature mentally faster than boys. Since we are now making these qualitative decisions should we say girls can vote at 16 but boys not until 18? Just think what THAT would do to the Trans debate.
There certainly ought to be a mandatory retirement age for motorists. Ancient drivers might not be gaga (for the most part - I dare say there are quite a lot of people in the early stages of dementia still happily pootling around the nation's roads,) but their reaction times will almost certainly be shot.
EDIT: the first paragraph is offered in jest. The second isn't.
With the old imperial system essentially what happened is that whenever you had a new situation that required a standard weight or measure a new unit was created that was a suitable scale for that system. So you have large numbers of units, with sometimes quite strange relations between them, but for any specific purpose you will tend to have a unit that is the right size so that you can measure to the appropriate accuracy for that purpose.
So I tend to think that, for lots of everyday purposes, Imperial units are more friendly and convenient to use.
The metric system though was designed as a cohesive whole and so it has some really quite lovely relationships between different quantities and units that are very useful. So, for example, 1mm of rain is equal to 1kg of water per square metre or 1 litre. Whereas, in Imperial, 1 inch of rain is equal to a bit less than 5 lb 3 1/4 oz per square foot, or a bit more than 4 pints and 3 floz (UK).
So just use both.
Some countries are using an increasing age limit to ban the sale of tobacco so that it will be phased out. So those below the qualifying age will never be able to buy tobacco legally no matter how old they become. I am ok with this too. And, as I pointed out in my edit 16 year olds in Scotland can enter binding contracts. It doesn't seem to cause any problems. I have only once in my career sought to have a contract set aside because it was plainly unfair and the age argument was only 1 of several arguments that were applicable.
They can also appear in the High Court and be sentenced to detention leading on to imprisonment when they get older for crimes they committed over the age of 8 (in theory, more like 12 in practice).
But it’s all Rees-Mogg, Marquee Mark, and the rest of the loons have left.
NEW THREAD
I have a close friend who's going spare at the moment, dealing with a parent who is obviously losing their marbles but continues to get in his car and drive - and nobody has any power to stop him until he gets a clinical diagnosis of dementia. The question now is what happens first: whether the diagnosis comes and she can assume power of attorney and swipe his keys, or he has a serious accident and likely ends up slaughtering people.