politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With ballot packs just about go out Davey is the clear favouri
Comments
-
I have no feel for the pool from which the civil service is drawn (ie Oxbridge or Hartlepool Poly) but according to my friend this issue has been pervasive for many years.ydoethur said:
Some years ago, I had a long and rather acid correspondence with the Student Loan Company, which went right the way to board level.TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
All of the letters I received contained at least one error. Some of them actually changed the meaning of the words.
I advised Mr Kevin O’Connor that if his staff were that incompetent he should enrol them on the WEA’s excellent adult literacy courses.
He didn’t like that very much, especially as I had copied the letter to Vince Cable.0 -
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
0 -
@Morris_Dancer As usual I'm afraid I don't have a clue what you're responding to. Is quoting really that hard, it's one button press.0
-
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.0 -
That is pretty bad. I did have a colleague who used my nickname when talking about me with a pupil as she thought that was my actual name, but we had only been introduced the previous day and that was in the pub...ydoethur said:
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care.0 -
The only man who can lead you out of the Clegg pit is the one who led you into it.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Give Nick another chance. He's wasted as a PR man for Facebook. You know you want to.0 -
Fewer commitments. Grrrr !state_go_away said:
Whilst that 25K to £31K may be right pensioners have less commitments than working age on average (rent/mortgage/student loans/kids/national insurance contributions) .The one collective commitment pensioners have that working age do not is care costs -and they are collectively trying to pass that on!IanB2 said:
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.MattW said:
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.IanB2 said:
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.MattW said:
Cheers, Horse.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878009/pensioners-incomes-series-2018-19-report.pdf
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
Are those numbers household or individual?
31k is the number for disposable household income for working age in FY 2019 ie after taxes and benefits. My first numbers were for imdividuals I think.
"In financial year ending (FYE) 2020, the period leading up to the implementation of measures against the coronavirus (COVID-19), average household disposable income (after taxes and benefits) was £30,800 – up 2.3% (£700) compared with FYE 2019, after accounting for inflation."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional0 -
Losing her own seat may be considered a disaster.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
There is a wonderfully dry comment on Henry VI in the ODNB, before pointing out he did have multiple achievements:
‘No king who loses the crown twice, who dies in prison, and whose reign ends in civil war, can be counted a success.’0 -
I don't think you can describe it as momentum. It was a precipitous fall from the ratings when the election was called; comparing it with the even worse results of the immediate coalition aftermath isn't really any consolation.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
The bottom line is that the party's fortunes depend heavily on there being a batch of voters pissed off with the Tories, coupled with its campaigning ability to capitalise on these in the wards and seats where it matters. My worry would be the hollowing out of both activity and expertise for ten years now.0 -
My personal bugbear is the misuse of the word "refute"Chris said:
The one that does involve a lack of clarity is the distinction between "may" and "might". But that battle seems to have been completely lost. At least judging by BBC journalists, who regularly write things like "Germany may not have lost the Second World War."Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.0 -
@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.0 -
Black Lives Matter jumping the shark again?
Oxford BLM demanding a Black Militia. With a Cuban (?) flag behind. The speaker is one Sasha Johnson, who seems to be an Old Harrovian.
It's gone the full Charlie Gilmour.
https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/12875337740167413780 -
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
0 -
@MattW my god, Oxford students are the worst.0
-
It might be forgivable if my name were Llywelyn, or Rhidian, or Rhisiart, or Gwalchmai.Fysics_Teacher said:
That is pretty bad. I did have a colleague who used my nickname when talking about me with a pupil as she thought that was my actual name, but we had only been introduced the previous day and that was in the pub...ydoethur said:
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care.
But how difficult is it to spell ‘Huw?’0 -
Can you count commitments? How many commitments is owning a house?MattW said:
Fewer commitments. Grrrr !state_go_away said:
Whilst that 25K to £31K may be right pensioners have less commitments than working age on average (rent/mortgage/student loans/kids/national insurance contributions) .The one collective commitment pensioners have that working age do not is care costs -and they are collectively trying to pass that on!IanB2 said:
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.MattW said:
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.IanB2 said:
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.MattW said:
Cheers, Horse.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878009/pensioners-incomes-series-2018-19-report.pdf
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
Are those numbers household or individual?
31k is the number for disposable household income for working age in FY 2019 ie after taxes and benefits. My first numbers were for imdividuals I think.
"In financial year ending (FYE) 2020, the period leading up to the implementation of measures against the coronavirus (COVID-19), average household disposable income (after taxes and benefits) was £30,800 – up 2.3% (£700) compared with FYE 2019, after accounting for inflation."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional
AIUI the figures are individual (and gross.
0 -
It must have been 30 years ago that a university student said 'times this with that' in a presentation and I thought the poor lad was being facetious, only to learn later that that was how multiplication was taught in schools. My abhorrence was intensified by that knowledge.0
-
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.0 -
Now be fair. They’re making progress. They’ve found some actual black people to speak for them this time.MattW said:Black Lives Matter jumping the shark again?
Oxford BLM demanding a Black Militia. With a Cuban (?) flag behind. The speaker is one Sasha Johnson, who seems to be an Old Harrovian.
It's gone the full Charlie Gilmour.
https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/12875337740167413780 -
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.1 -
It appears that PB could care fewer about the LD leadership election.0
-
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.0 -
True, but it can happen. In a similar vein, I was rather startled to find out that Bristol University runs a summer school for its music freshers.Fysics_Teacher said:
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
The subject being ‘basic harmony.’0 -
I think a Labour/Lib Dem Government would be very good.0
-
Has he got BORIS written on his sleeve?MattW said:Black Lives Matter jumping the shark again?
Oxford BLM demanding a Black Militia. With a Cuban (?) flag behind. The speaker is one Sasha Johnson, who seems to be an Old Harrovian.
It's gone the full Charlie Gilmour.
https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/12875337740167413780 -
-
What is that strange-looking object to the left of your typewriter?Benpointer said:
My 1932 Imperial Model 50 typewriter has no exclamation mark key!DecrepiterJohnL said:
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.Gallowgate said:
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .Philip_Thompson said:
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?MattW said:
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.Gallowgate said:
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.Alistair said:
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.Gallowgate said:
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.Alistair said:Very important FTPT
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.ClippP said:
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.SandyRentool said:
Far FEWERCorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.ydoethur said:
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...HYUFD said:
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to universityMaxPB said:
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.Philip_Thompson said:
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!TheScreamingEagles said:UK ministers looking at plans to raise taxes for over-40s to pay for social care
Exclusive: Matt Hancock advocate of plan to raise tax as solution to social care crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
That would be very odd .
1 -
No, because it’s a she.logical_song said:
Has he got BORIS written on his sleeve?MattW said:Black Lives Matter jumping the shark again?
Oxford BLM demanding a Black Militia. With a Cuban (?) flag behind. The speaker is one Sasha Johnson, who seems to be an Old Harrovian.
It's gone the full Charlie Gilmour.
https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/12875337740167413780 -
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.0 -
It's flying (or more correctly being inside an aircraft with lots of others) that is the real risk, though.Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
I am just back from a few days in the Cotswolds and Cornwall, staying in hotels. I was conscious that being away from home and in busier places was exposing me to greater risk than had I stayed at home, but the proximity to people was mostly outside, and my travel was all by car. So it was a calculated risk, objectively tiny if current infection data can be believed, and so far one with no evidence to suggest didn't pay off.
I have a Germany/Italy trip upcoming in September, partly arranged before the virus crisis broke. It'll be the same - self drive and hotels, with days spent mostly outside. I don't see that the risk is any greater - indeed the likelihood of bumping into an infectious person in those countries is (probably) currently lower.0 -
Looks like Garmin is back now0
-
Download a new font pack.Benpointer said:
My 1932 Imperial Model 50 typewriter has no exclamation mark key!DecrepiterJohnL said:
A space before question and exclamation marks used to be common, and imo should be again.Gallowgate said:
Got to encapsulate that punctuation with blank space , to really help the readability .Philip_Thompson said:
Who would do double spaces before a full stop ?MattW said:
Suspect there will be a different result for sans-serif and serif typefaces too.Gallowgate said:
What research? All research I’ve read suggests that is only true for mono-space typefaces and not for modern typefaces where the software already increases the gap for a space after a full-stop.Alistair said:
Research has shown that two spaces after the full stop increases reading speed of the text. I write for the reader so I use two spaces. Even in tweets.Gallowgate said:
The worst kind of people are people who put two spaces after a full stop because “they were taught that way”. So what? It’s crap and unnecessary in a digital age. Thank god HTML removes it by default.Alistair said:Very important FTPT
Yes, that's literally the point. The idea that there is a distinction between less and fewer applying to countable and uncountable nouns was invented by a style guide writer out of thin air - they wrote that they found it nicer to themselves.ClippP said:
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.SandyRentool said:
Far FEWERCorrectHorseBattery said:
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.ydoethur said:
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...HYUFD said:
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to universityMaxPB said:
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.Philip_Thompson said:
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!TheScreamingEagles said:UK ministers looking at plans to raise taxes for over-40s to pay for social care
Exclusive: Matt Hancock advocate of plan to raise tax as solution to social care crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
If you look at textual analysis of the English language as actually used across centuries there is no such split, people use less and fewer interchangeably.
Anyone pushing prescriptivist bollocks on this is being a total smug utterly wrong wanker.
Personally double spaces before a full stop don't happen in my circle; if it did they would be shot.
That would be very odd .0 -
@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.3 -
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats1 -
Subjectively - that's not objectively true.Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
Stagnating can be overachieving if you were already overachieving or should have done worse. Stagnating can be good, it depends upon your starting point. For something to be objectively true you need to have some objective measurements to go with.
Hypothetically if next season Liverpool finish as Premier League Champions and 97 points then I'd think they'd have had a very good season despite "stagnating" and it being their worst points haul in three seasons.0 -
Are you sure that's how they identify?ydoethur said:
No, because it’s a she.logical_song said:
Has he got BORIS written on his sleeve?MattW said:Black Lives Matter jumping the shark again?
Oxford BLM demanding a Black Militia. With a Cuban (?) flag behind. The speaker is one Sasha Johnson, who seems to be an Old Harrovian.
It's gone the full Charlie Gilmour.
https://twitter.com/jfwduffield/status/12875337740167413780 -
If UK holiday makers have observed the all the rules regarding avoiding infection whilst out in Spain the chance of them returning infected is negligible. There again maybe many haven’t.alex_ said:
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
0 -
My physics teacher used to tell us that we were the future leadership of the countryFysics_Teacher said:
That is pretty bad. I did have a colleague who used my nickname when talking about me with a pupil as she thought that was my actual name, but we had only been introduced the previous day and that was in the pub...ydoethur said:
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care.
.
Who was in the class? Er ... one Edward J Davey.
That particular Physics Teacher did not have a nickname.0 -
I love debates about grammar. According to my research, people who insist that fewer should be used for countable nouns tend to earn fewer than twenty thousand pounds a year, and are fewer than 160 centimetres tall.1
-
The objective measurement is that our points total, and overall achievements, was essentially the same....Philip_Thompson said:
Subjectively - that's not objectively true.Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
Stagnating can be overachieving if you were already overachieving or should have done worse. Stagnating can be good, it depends upon your starting point. For something to be objectively true you need to have some objective measurements to go with.
Hypothetically if next season Liverpool finish as Premier League Champions and 97 points then I'd think they'd have had a very good season despite "stagnating" and it being their worst points haul in three seasons.0 -
He possibly has achieved more than anyone else in that class thoughMattW said:
My physics teacher used to tell us that we were the future leadership of the countryFysics_Teacher said:
That is pretty bad. I did have a colleague who used my nickname when talking about me with a pupil as she thought that was my actual name, but we had only been introduced the previous day and that was in the pub...ydoethur said:
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care. .
Who was in the class? Er ... one Edward J Davey.0 -
Indeed it was the same . . . and given the negativity around the club at the start of the season I'd have thought your points total would have gone down, not stayed the same. Staying the same is overachieving if the benchmark expectation is you'd have gotten less.Gallowgate said:
The objective measurement is that our points total, and overall achievements, was essentially the same....Philip_Thompson said:
Subjectively - that's not objectively true.Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
Stagnating can be overachieving if you were already overachieving or should have done worse. Stagnating can be good, it depends upon your starting point. For something to be objectively true you need to have some objective measurements to go with.
Hypothetically if next season Liverpool finish as Premier League Champions and 97 points then I'd think they'd have had a very good season despite "stagnating" and it being their worst points haul in three seasons.0 -
I think nowadays the assumption is that whatever device you are writing on will flag errors and/or make corrections automatically.Fysics_Teacher said:
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.0 -
I almost never have such problems when typing quickly. And as you say if any occur they are near-instantly corrected.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
These people are working for MPs helping to draft documents often for public consumption of some form or another. If they are not up to it and/or do it deliberately then the sooner they are booted out by Dom the better.0 -
Sir Keir has to prepare Labour for such an eventually.HYUFD said:
It might be relevant though if we have a hung parliament in 2024 and either Davey or Moran have 30 odd MPs and the balance of power as Clegg did in 2010Jonathan said:It appears that PB could care fewer about the LD leadership election.
1 -
The Lib-Dems are still a thing? Who knew?
0 -
How much higher than Sunderland did you finish?Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
My brother is, for complicated reasons, a Sunderland fan. For the last two years that means I’ve been able to take him to see them play Wycombe, my local team. Next year I won’t be able to as Wycombe are now in the next league up.
2 -
They can just use a tool like Grammarly and never have to worry about spelling, or grammar, ever again.TOPPING said:
I almost never have such problems when typing quickly. And as you say if any occur they are near-instantly corrected.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
These people are working for MPs helping to draft documents often for public consumption of some form or another. If they are not up to it and/or do it deliberately then the sooner they are booted out by Dom the better.0 -
Such documents as I have received from Mr Cummings - and there have been a few - do not reflect well on the English department of Durham Cathedral School.TOPPING said:
I almost never have such problems when typing quickly. And as you say if any occur they are near-instantly corrected.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
These people are working for MPs helping to draft documents often for public consumption of some form or another. If they are not up to it and/or do it deliberately then the sooner they are booted out by Dom the better.
Indeed, on one occasion his grammar was so bad I actually commented on it, noting that it was ironic he had confused his tenses in a document calling for a more rigorous approach to teaching English.1 -
Are Sunderland that small club from County Durham? I forget.Fysics_Teacher said:
How much higher than Sunderland did you finish?Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
My brother is, for complicated reasons, a Sunderland fan. For the last two years that means I’ve been able to take him to see them play Wycombe, my local team. Next year I won’t be able to as Wycombe are now in the next league up.0 -
Actually no, it's the flight home, as I said below.nichomar said:
If UK holiday makers have observed the all the rules regarding avoiding infection whilst out in Spain the chance of them returning infected is negligible. There again maybe many haven’t.alex_ said:
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
When this crisis first broke, infection rates in Spain and Italy were pretty low, and there is no way that all those infected returnees just happened to bump into an infected local. How much 'closer than a metre and longer than fifteen minutes' interaction do tourists have with locals anyway? (edit/SeanT in Thailand excepted)
There will have been one infected person on the plane and the rest of them caught it while they were enjoying their inflight meal.0 -
eventualitylogical_song said:
Sir Keir has to prepare Labour for such an eventually.HYUFD said:
It might be relevant though if we have a hung parliament in 2024 and either Davey or Moran have 30 odd MPs and the balance of power as Clegg did in 2010Jonathan said:It appears that PB could care fewer about the LD leadership election.
1 -
Grammarly is shit. It’s dreadful. It’s a very expensive way of making most of your written English grammatically incorrect.Gallowgate said:
They can just use a tool like Grammarly and never have to worry about spelling, or grammar, ever again.TOPPING said:
I almost never have such problems when typing quickly. And as you say if any occur they are near-instantly corrected.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
These people are working for MPs helping to draft documents often for public consumption of some form or another. If they are not up to it and/or do it deliberately then the sooner they are booted out by Dom the better.0 -
I believe they are along with uncomfortable questions for Sturgeon re her meetings with Salmondalex_ said:
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk0 -
Well, I bow to your superior knowledge on the matter.ydoethur said:
Grammarly is shit. It’s dreadful. It’s a very expensive way of making most of your written English grammatically incorrect.Gallowgate said:
They can just use a tool like Grammarly and never have to worry about spelling, or grammar, ever again.TOPPING said:
I almost never have such problems when typing quickly. And as you say if any occur they are near-instantly corrected.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
These people are working for MPs helping to draft documents often for public consumption of some form or another. If they are not up to it and/or do it deliberately then the sooner they are booted out by Dom the better.0 -
True, and it’s a very dangerous assumption.IanB2 said:
I think nowadays the assumption is that whatever device you are writing on will flag errors and/or make corrections automatically.Fysics_Teacher said:
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.0 -
Not the voters....GIN1138 said:The Lib-Dems are still a thing? Who knew?
1 -
Off I go to write a personal statement for my September University application. I’ve been putting it off for weeks. My current writing tool, IA Writer, has a built in “style check” to remove fillers, redundancies, and cliches, amongst other things. Hopefully it works.0
-
😀Gallowgate said:
Are Sunderland that small club from County Durham? I forget.Fysics_Teacher said:
How much higher than Sunderland did you finish?Gallowgate said:
Of course it could have been worse, but that’s not what we’re discussing. The comment was that we “overachieved”. Objectively we did not, we stagnated.Philip_Thompson said:
Considering how the club's supporters were so unhappy to have lost Rafa and how much negativity there was around the club at the start of the season . . . finishing "only" 1 point down, it could have been worse! It could have been much worse.Gallowgate said:@dixiedean in reply to your comment yesterday about why, as a Newcastle fan, I would be unhappy with season just gone:
Well we finished on 44 points, with a goal difference of -20, 11 wins, and 16 losses.
Last season under Rafa we finished on 45 points, with a goal difference of -6, 12 wins, and 17 losses.
So I’m not sure how you can consider us “over achieving” when if anything we’ve done exactly the same as last year, but with significant more “🤢”. Oh and we spent a ton of money in the summer too.
Season after season of dross unfortunately.
Remember we smashed our transfer record in the summer.
My brother is, for complicated reasons, a Sunderland fan. For the last two years that means I’ve been able to take him to see them play Wycombe, my local team. Next year I won’t be able to as Wycombe are now in the next league up.0 -
That would be quite an interesting question to investigate.nichomar said:
He possibly has achieved more than anyone else in that class thoughMattW said:
My physics teacher used to tell us that we were the future leadership of the countryFysics_Teacher said:
That is pretty bad. I did have a colleague who used my nickname when talking about me with a pupil as she thought that was my actual name, but we had only been introduced the previous day and that was in the pub...ydoethur said:
It’s the misuse of apostrophes that infuriates me, especially in shared resources. Although that said, even autocorrect gets that wrong. It keeps adding apostrophes to ‘Democrats,’ for example.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
But my new line manager can’t even spell my name correctly, and more annoyingly, doesn’t seem to care. .
Who was in the class? Er ... one Edward J Davey.
I've had more first comments on PB, though.
0 -
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.0 -
During a long and depressing correspondence with a Government Department recently I reached the conclusion that the main reason for the incoherence of the letters it was sending was the numbers game. They were 'rewarded' for processing as many cases as possible regardless of content or quality.alex_ said:
But how much of that do you think is weakness in basic literacy standards, and how much is the sheer volume of work that civil servants have to churn out, yesterday, of little or no value?TOPPING said:
While we all have our, ahem, views on Big Bad Dom and his proposed reform of the civil service, I can say that there has long been disquiet with the civil service in terms of basic literacy. An MP of my acquaintance said they spent 40% of their time correcting basic errors of the your welcome type.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.
When typing quickly i often have an issue with things like "your welcome" or "there/their". That's not because i have any deficiencies in my literacy (and i will usually notice and correct) but just instinctive.
Wouldn't be surprised if over time your MP's staff started doing it on purpose just to annoy him.
The inefficiency of this fatuous approach resulted in a wholly unnecessary appearance before a Judge at a Tribunal in London (I live in Gloucestershire) where finally we got some sense. But what a waste of time.0 -
Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.0 -
Where are their new target seats? Given that both N Devon and N Cornwall now have majorities near 15,000....GarethoftheVale2 said:
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats0 -
Have you missed raising taxes for 40 plus for care widely discussed on here yesterdayHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.1 -
Get a human to check it as well if you can.Gallowgate said:Off I go to write a personal statement for my September University application. I’ve been putting it off for weeks. My current writing tool, IA Writer, has a built in “style check” to remove fillers, redundancies, and cliches, amongst other things. Hopefully it works.
0 -
You sound like Ed Miliband. Interesting.HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.2 -
b.TOPPING said:
Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
Its the right thing to do.0 -
You don't think some at least of such would fall back upon consumers?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.0 -
How is taxing online retailers going to help the high street?
Yes, costs will rise for consumers. But there'll still be the structural problems. Visiting town means time and travel cost. Running a business there means paying for the privilege by renting space. And that space will still be insufficient to compete with an online retailer's out of town warehouses.
There may be ways to revitalise high streets. Perhaps local currencies/vouchers, and an emphasis on things that can only be done in person (for example, a bowling alley gives a small voucher with every spend, that voucher can then be used, but only in person, for a small discount at a local clothing store), and that sort of thing.
The internet isn't going anywhere. Trying to make it less appealing won't work. The high street should focus on what it can do better.0 -
And get tagged with that loser badge?Gallowgate said:
Maybe super Rory could stand as a Lib Dem?DavidL said:
Why bother?Gallowgate said:
Interesting. Any favourites to replace her?Barnesian said:Siobhan Benita has stood down as LibDem candidate for mayor of London.
Tbh, Sadiq is the only person who wil win even though he has been rubbish.0 -
Of course. Especially given their dominant, near-monopolistic position.Philip_Thompson said:
b.TOPPING said:
Do you think that after a tax rise on Amazon, their prices will a) stay the same; or b) rise to reflect the tax rise?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
Its the right thing to do.
= a tax rise of the type that @HYUFD said would not occur under the Cons.0 -
It can lead to you wanting to kick her puppy...Fysics_Teacher said:
True, and it’s a very dangerous assumption.IanB2 said:
I think nowadays the assumption is that whatever device you are writing on will flag errors and/or make corrections automatically.Fysics_Teacher said:
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.0 -
Given the current demography of its support, I'd suggest those will be in areas with significant educated middle class working age populations where the party hasn't in the past built much of a campaigning infrastructure. Which steers you away from the South West, as you say, and toward the Home Counties and University towns.MarqueeMark said:
Where are their new target seats? Given that both N Devon and N Cornwall now have majorities near 15,000....GarethoftheVale2 said:
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats0 -
I will do, but thank you for the advice. I’m happy to say that my writing has improved a lot in the past year since I started studying law, with thanks in no small part to the help of @AlastairMeeks proof-reading many of my cover letters!Fysics_Teacher said:
Get a human to check it as well if you can.Gallowgate said:Off I go to write a personal statement for my September University application. I’ve been putting it off for weeks. My current writing tool, IA Writer, has a built in “style check” to remove fillers, redundancies, and cliches, amongst other things. Hopefully it works.
0 -
How do you actually prove that thoughIanB2 said:
Actually no, it's the flight home, as I said below.nichomar said:
If UK holiday makers have observed the all the rules regarding avoiding infection whilst out in Spain the chance of them returning infected is negligible. There again maybe many haven’t.alex_ said:
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
When this crisis first broke, infection rates in Spain and Italy were pretty low, and there is no way that all those infected returnees just happened to bump into an infected local. How much 'closer than a metre and longer than fifteen minutes' interaction do tourists have with locals anyway? (edit/SeanT in Thailand excepted)
There will have been one infected person on the plane and the rest of them caught it while they were enjoying their inflight meal.0 -
COMMUNISTGallowgate said:
You sound like Ed Miliband. Interesting.HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.0 -
Mansfield.MarqueeMark said:
Where are their new target seats? Given that both N Devon and N Cornwall now have majorities near 15,000....GarethoftheVale2 said:
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats
Ono that has a majority of 16,000.
More seriously, it's going to be University Towns, bits of the South, and nooks and corners.0 -
....and into competition with Labour.IanB2 said:
Given the current demography of its support, I'd suggest those will be in areas with significant educated middle class working age populations where the party hasn't in the past built much of a campaigning infrastructure. Which steers you away from the South West, as you say, and toward the Home Counties and University towns.MarqueeMark said:
Where are their new target seats? Given that both N Devon and N Cornwall now have majorities near 15,000....GarethoftheVale2 said:
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats0 -
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).0 -
Of course it will but why shouldn't it?IanB2 said:
You don't think some at least of such would fall back upon consumers?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
Do you have any idea how much in tax "the High Street" has to pay HMRC via NNDR (Business Rates)? And how much that then gets passed on to consumers? Amazon is essentially exempt from that tax so there is a tax incentive for consumers to spend on Amazon rather than in the High Street.
Why should HMRC be incentivising sales via the tax system the likes of Amazon instead of the High Street? Putting a tax on online sales would not penalise online sales, it would bring it in line with bricks and mortar that is already taxed more.1 -
If you are going to be rude about my English then at least spell individuals correctly.MattW said:
Fewer commitments. Grrrr !state_go_away said:
Whilst that 25K to £31K may be right pensioners have less commitments than working age on average (rent/mortgage/student loans/kids/national insurance contributions) .The one collective commitment pensioners have that working age do not is care costs -and they are collectively trying to pass that on!IanB2 said:
You're right - median income for pensioners is still below that for people of working age (the last figures seem to be about £25k to £31k), although the gap is narrower than it used to be.MattW said:
I think your first para is off, unless you don't mean "earnings" (does that include eg the State Pension?). I think the one you are thinking of is that one report in 2017 (Resolution Foundation) said that pensioner households were £1000 a year better off *after housing costs*. No idea whether that was before housing benefit or not.IanB2 said:
Of course. But there is no denying their favourable position viewed in aggregate (I believe average earnings in retirement now exceed those in work?), and there are numerous ways in which they (soon to be we) are treated more favourably than working age people in a similar financial position.MattW said:
Cheers, Horse.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would like to apologise for my recent outbursts and I hope all users will accept my full and unreserved apology
Reading last night's thread almost all of it seemed to be outbursts from a number of us about pensioners; can't remember if I commented.
There seems to be a perception that pensioners all live in castles with gold plated vegetable patches and sometimes relocate to cruise ships.
That's only some of them. There are plenty who only have the state pension plus a small occupational, and spend their holidays looking after grandchildren and in guesthouses, or at home.
No-one is suggesting devising measures that hit the poorest pensioners, but the fact of poor pensioners is a poor argument for seeking unreasonably to protect the benefits of the richer ones.
(Obvs more pensioners own homes outright, but Housing Benefit would perhaps skew to younger groups).
The stats are a black art as we all know, as you can make them say whatever you want depending on your adjustments (eg people wanting to talk about UK as unequal often take GINI numbers on pre-benefit system figures - which is designed to make it more equal), but the average pensioner household income after housing costs is around £320 a week and has not increased since 2010. Hardly rolling in gold dust.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878009/pensioners-incomes-series-2018-19-report.pdf
I'd certainly agree on very high pension incomes, which I may not reach - I am of the generation that had my pension arrangements significantly damaged in the Gordon Brown period, so I am partly in property now.
But I don't think there is anything like as much money there to raid as people imagine.
The data I was thinking of was on disposable income after housing costs, which are clearly much lower for the many pensioners who own their homes outright. A study on this suggests that pensioners are about £1000 per year better off than those of working age, whereas twenty years ago working age people were about £3500 better off.
The same study did find a big skew in pensioner earnings, with the top 20% of households receiving 74% of pensioner employment income, 66% of pensioner investment income, and 52% of pension income. Whereas the bottom 20% are almost entirely dependent on benefits.
It also found that the dramatic increase in disposable income is being driven by the arrival of a 'new cohort' of wealthier pensioners, with those already of retirement age (i.e. current older pensioners) having only marginal increases in income.
Are those numbers household or individual?
31k is the number for disposable household income for working age in FY 2019 ie after taxes and benefits. My first numbers were for imdividuals I think.
"In financial year ending (FYE) 2020, the period leading up to the implementation of measures against the coronavirus (COVID-19), average household disposable income (after taxes and benefits) was £30,800 – up 2.3% (£700) compared with FYE 2019, after accounting for inflation."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional0 -
Which do you think pays more Business Rates - Amazon, or their High Street competitors?eek said:
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).0 -
Given the length of the incubation and asymptomatic period, very difficult. If I get the virus next week, who is to say how, and whether my short UK holiday was to blame?nichomar said:
How do you actually prove that thoughIanB2 said:
Actually no, it's the flight home, as I said below.nichomar said:
If UK holiday makers have observed the all the rules regarding avoiding infection whilst out in Spain the chance of them returning infected is negligible. There again maybe many haven’t.alex_ said:
Any questions being asked in Scotland about why they lifted quarantine rules for Spain only a few days ago, only to do a massive reverse ferret on Friday?Big_G_NorthWales said:
A you gov poll on the 2nd July showed only 11% of Brits intended holidaying abroad and the possibility of quarantine post their holiday would have played a part in their decisionRochdalePioneers said:On the LibDems it hasto be Ed, it will be Ed.
On Spain, yes there is some internet sneering about the kind of people off on their holidays and thats fine. Its the absurdity of it that makes me laugh - the head of the Valencian regional government pointing out that people travelling in and out of Alicante airport enter a region that is as bereft of the virus as much of the UK. Nobody would have quarantined me had I been to Rochdale or Rotherham to visit family where there is more of the virus.
Anyway, I get it. Public health. So when Mrs RP and the kids get back they have to Not Go Out as they might Spread the Virus. OK. So I get Mrs RP to infect me on night 1 of her lockdown. I'm then free to go to the gym and sweat in the AC - no mask needed as thats safe - and go to the office and then the pub again without masks as safe. I would of course wear one in the pizza shack afterwards as being inside there without one is Not Safe.
Combine the above nonsense with the zero police resources that are used to enforce said lockdowns and its no surprise that people don't take them seriously. Because they aren't intended to be serious. This is a classic dead cat from the government. Look how STRONG we were in reacting to a THREAT. Don't worry about the 20k we killed in care homes.
HMG is attacked for being too slow and now we have the media and others attacking HMG for acting too quickly.
It is clear the scientists told the UK to act immediately on Saturday and that is what they did. It is said Spain's infection rate had risen to 3
The idea this is a dead cat is nonsense. The swift act was co-ordinated across the UK including by Sturgeon and Drakeford in Scotland and Wales
And of course should anyone now travel to mainland Spain it is against FCO advice and uninsurable
I can understand the anger, but foreign travel in this very serious worldwide pandemic was always going to carry risk
When this crisis first broke, infection rates in Spain and Italy were pretty low, and there is no way that all those infected returnees just happened to bump into an infected local. How much 'closer than a metre and longer than fifteen minutes' interaction do tourists have with locals anyway? (edit/SeanT in Thailand excepted)
There will have been one infected person on the plane and the rest of them caught it while they were enjoying their inflight meal.
There have been a few genetic studies of individual samples to throw a bit of light on how the virus spreads. In the US there has been a major study that combined contact tracing and genetic mapping of virus mutations to build a picture of how the virus spread across the states (there's an animated map on NYT), which shows that internal flights within the US were key. Indeed that things are so bad in the US is probably partly down to the air above the states having remained full of aircraft while in Europe flights were mostly shut down, back in April-May.0 -
It's going to be a vote winner in 2021Philip_Thompson said:"fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.
0 -
But rubbish enough to one day lead the Conservative Party and become PM?MaxPB said:
And get tagged with that loser badge?Gallowgate said:
Maybe super Rory could stand as a Lib Dem?DavidL said:
Why bother?Gallowgate said:
Interesting. Any favourites to replace her?Barnesian said:Siobhan Benita has stood down as LibDem candidate for mayor of London.
Tbh, Sadiq is the only person who wil win even though he has been rubbish.0 -
-
The Met Office site could quite easily be re-purposed as a betting exchange. But don't forget that poor Admiral FitzRoy was driven to suicide by the ribaldry that greeted his frequently wayward forecasts. Tread softly for you tread upon his grave.Peter_the_Punter said:
Forecasts have been all over the place. We are clearly in a very changeable pattern.moonshine said:
Nah. Windies to be polished off by lunchtime on day 5Philip_Thompson said:
Should we expect any play in Old Trafford today do we think?moonshine said:
Thanks!ydoethur said:
Congratulations on your news.moonshine said:I haven’t lurked for a few days (new born in the house!) so may have missed prior discussion. But what was the consensus on the NY Times UFO story and where the congressional process is headed?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html
On your story, with so many bigger stories going on including Brexit, a worldwide pandemic, an imploding government and the decisive Test, we haven’t really discussed that.
Other than Fox, no one else has picked up the story much. But there’s quite strong bipartisan language, perhaps the book might be opened soon and the insinuation is that there’s something to show. Puts rain at Old Trafford today into perspective in any case...
Alexa currently says we should expect thunderstorms and 13.9mm of rain in Manchester today.
For once, I have a little bit of sympathy with the forecasters, but not too much. They will continue to be the butt of jokes until they start publishing regular and easily accessible results, just like most other tipsters do.0 -
Being rubbish is already proven not to be a handicap for London mayors.MaxPB said:
And get tagged with that loser badge?Gallowgate said:
Maybe super Rory could stand as a Lib Dem?DavidL said:
Why bother?Gallowgate said:
Interesting. Any favourites to replace her?Barnesian said:Siobhan Benita has stood down as LibDem candidate for mayor of London.
Tbh, Sadiq is the only person who wil win even though he has been rubbish.0 -
M40 and Surrey. Even if Brexit has been and gone, Tory remainia won't be kind if it has been a rough few years of low competence government.IanB2 said:
Given the current demography of its support, I'd suggest those will be in areas with significant educated middle class working age populations where the party hasn't in the past built much of a campaigning infrastructure. Which steers you away from the South West, as you say, and toward the Home Counties and University towns.MarqueeMark said:
Where are their new target seats? Given that both N Devon and N Cornwall now have majorities near 15,000....GarethoftheVale2 said:
Essentially the Brexit policy attracted a lot of disaffected remainers without delivering much in the way of seats, while seeing the LDs go backwards in former targets like N Devon and N CornwallPhilip_Thompson said:
Is it though? Is it really? Because "fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.RochdalePioneers said:
Swinson written off as a disaster. Yet the LibDem vote increased by 56% in the 2019 election. Didn't translate into seats as national vote tally largely irrelevant on that basis, but its momentum and thats crucial for our recovery climb out of the Clegg pitChris said:Ed Davey must be the only choice to keep the LDs on their present course.
Key to winning seats is to pick an area that you are competitive in and fighting on that ground to win it. In 2017 the Lib Dems had 12 seats and were runners up in 37 so those were the seats to be targeting to make progress . . . but instead ended up with 11.
Increasing your share in seats from next-to-nothing to next-to-nothing+2 isn't great.
The only thing working for the Lib Dems is you're now runners up in 90 seats, but the party realistically needs to pick some of those and target the heck out of them. What should have been done when there were just 37 to target.
The LDs now need to double down to an extent by looking for new policies, which are socially liberal but economically centrist to appeal to their new target seats0 -
Amazon UK also pays exorbitant licence fees to the Luxembourg parent which happily means they make little to no profit in the UK (or France, Germany, Italy and Spain). Odd that they have a variable annual licence fee that just happens to be almost their entire operating margin.eek said:
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).0 -
Business Rates raise £29 billion a year in tax - all of which of course in the end has to be passed on to consumers. That is 4.5% of the entire UK tax take.
Amazon have essentially next to no Business Rates due unlike their competitors that they can undercut, in part because they're not taxed as heavily as their competitors!2 -
I get that, but what the hell is wrong with proof-reading? It actually saves time.Fysics_Teacher said:
Just because someone has been to university, even a good one, does not mean that they will have good grammar or spelling. The assumption is that you have been taught that sort of thing before getting there and it would look pretty bad to have remedial English lessons when you would rather be punting on the Cam.Peter_the_Punter said:
It sounds old-fogyish, but I am really shocked at the poor standard of spelling and grammar from Government officials. I can cope with this up to a point but evidently the habit of proof-reading is disappearing, and that's just laziness. It is also inefficient because it often means a subsequent clarification is necessary.Fysics_Teacher said:
“Should of” for “should have” (from the sound of “should’ve”) is one I think I am fighting a losing battle with.DecrepiterJohnL said:
It might. There was a recent report that people are losing the ability to spell as they rely on software handling it for them. Combine that trend with the descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) approach to language, and yes, loose/lose will be in the OED.alex_ said:
Do you think the OED will ever state:CorrectHorseBattery said:
I think that was the point the video I linked to previously, was making.Fysics_Teacher said:On the fewer v less debate: when you write something it is so that you can communicate your ideas as well as possible (unless you are a lawyer). “Eight items or less” conveys the same idea as “Eight items or fewer” and in one fewer character, so why the argument? Well for a significant fraction of your readership the first version will cause them to wince a little. They are now thinking about your grammar, not your ideas. This is not helpful.
Over time English evolves as it is used, and the distinction will become less (and here fewer is certainly wrong) important. Incidentally that is why quoting uses from the ninth century doesn’t really help here; it’s how people use it now that is important. But while there are still those of us around who will wince then you are more likely to get a sympathetic hearing by avoiding that construction.
Many of the things we say now were wrong a few hundred years ago (or more) but as you say language adapts and changes.
I don't know if it's a generational thing but I certainly don't wince when I see "less" instead of fewer and I don't know anyone else who does either.
"LOSE" - alt "LOOSE"...?
I’m conscious that I’m one of the few on here that can do anything at all about this by flagging up these points in my pupils’ work. Some would end up with more written by me than they did if I went for everything they got wrong.
Not just pupils either. We have a school policy of getting someone else to check our reports before they are sent out and I’ve had a few discussions about what I think are basic bits of grammar with some of my younger colleagues.0 -
And 2019. Oh wait, how did that work out again?Scott_xP said:
It's going to be a vote winner in 2021Philip_Thompson said:"fuck Brexit" is hardly going to be a vote winner in 2024.
Change the record, you lost. Again and again and again you have lost. Get over it.1 -
In aggregate? Or per High Street?Philip_Thompson said:
Which do you think pays more Business Rates - Amazon, or their High Street competitors?eek said:
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).0 -
I agree, absolutely. My comment was a challenge to HY's assumption that it wouldn't 'count' as a tax rise because somehow it would be paid by cheque from Amazon Towers.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course it will but why shouldn't it?IanB2 said:
You don't think some at least of such would fall back upon consumers?HYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
Do you have any idea how much in tax "the High Street" has to pay HMRC via NNDR (Business Rates)? And how much that then gets passed on to consumers? Amazon is essentially exempt from that tax so there is a tax incentive for consumers to spend on Amazon rather than in the High Street.
Why should HMRC be incentivising sales via the tax system the likes of Amazon instead of the High Street? Putting a tax on online sales would not penalise online sales, it would bring it in line with bricks and mortar that is already taxed more.0 -
One of life's great mysteries.MaxPB said:
Amazon UK also pays exorbitant licence fees to the Luxembourg parent which happily means they make little to no profit in the UK (or France, Germany, Italy and Spain). Odd that they have a variable annual licence fee that just happens to be almost their entire operating margin.eek said:
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).5 -
In aggregate. Since Amazon is itself an aggregate.TOPPING said:
In aggregate? Or per High Street?Philip_Thompson said:
Which do you think pays more Business Rates - Amazon, or their High Street competitors?eek said:
Um, Amazon probably pay their fair share of tax - they process VAT correctly and pay an awful lot of NIHYUFD said:
Ensuring the likes of Amazon pay their fair share of tax to protect the high street is hardly the same as raising income tax or imposing a wealth tax on the Home countiesGallowgate said:@HYUFD I remember the halcyon days when you were laughing at anyone who suggested that there might be tax rises.
Good times.
What Amazon are still doing is investing an awful lot which means their profits are being spent on jobs around this country (well paid engineering work in London plus lots of new warehouses around the UK).0
