Graham Brady – the man to whom the VONC letters are sent – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

Aslan said:

kle4 said:

Farooq said:

Stuartinromford said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

.

Foxy said:

kjh said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

noneoftheabove said:

Casino_Royale said:

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

Taking back control-
Aviation chaos: We need to talk about Brexit | The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/airport-airline-chaos-flight-brexit-b2091300.html

“Brexit was a mistake which is causing harm but we shouldn’t do anything to reverse it” is a bizarre way of thinking. It’s like mishandling a knife and then resolving to let yourself bleed to death.
https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1532630897173962752

Not really. Some divorces are mistakes and people find out the grass is not greener. For that group it would still be the exception rather than the rule to get back together with the ex.

Perhaps we should try and tempt the EU with friends with benefits instead of a second marriage or bitter enemies bitching about each other?

I think that, in time, the UK and the EU will adopt a closer and more cooperative relationship with each other but we'll never go back to full EU membership. You can't ever put the genie wholly back in the box.

We had decades of friction over our membership for very good reasons and I think both sides recognise it was the wrong model for both the EU and the UK.

Agree with that although would replace wrong with imperfect. The Ukraine war may actually open up possibilities for different levels of involvement with the EU and a strong UK government would be exploring what possibilities an outside EU satellite group could develop.

Of course, if you look at the original Vote Leave manifesto (and I'm not trying to trigger anyone here) but 'create a new European institutional architecture' was in there.

It's certainly what I voted for, and would consider supporting today too.

I think that's a bit naïve, CR. Anything that puts the UK back in the EU's orbit is, IMO, unacceptable. I have no issue with co-operation with the EU as long as it's a very tightly defined set of rules with the basis of co-operation set out in separate agreements or treaties rather than one overall and undefined relationship based on "trust" or relying on the other partner to act favourably. No more freebies, no more favours.

I agree with that post. I am a remainer, but we have left and so what you describe is the way forward. I wish both sides would get on with it. In my opinion there are hundreds of trivial to complex agreements that have to be made to make all our lives better. Red tape on trade, and a particular bug bear of mine, is red tape on temporary exports, and then we trivial things, but which have significant real effects on people, like the pet passport fiasco and the 90 day in 180 day travel issue.

Lets get on with it.

However what we do re NI I have no idea.

I think that broadly will be the Labour, and LD, approach to Brexit at the next election To "do away with unnessecary Brexit red tape", the former tacitly, and the latter expicitly to ultimate Rejoin.

Red Wall Tory MPs would be over the moon if Labour takes that approach.

Recent polling on Brexit as a mistake and the 58% voting Lab/LD/Green suggests other wise.

Doubling down on Brexit culture wars is not the votewinner that you think.

Thinking it was a mistake but wanting to reverse it are two different questions

Furthermore, why are those who want to rejoin not standing fair and square and honestly saying so

Oh, I think the LD policy is honestly stated. To have a closer relationship inclusing rejoining the SM with the long term aim of Rejoin once opinion has moved.

Labours is less transparent, but clearly a move to closer alignment, which in practice means following EU regulations .

Absolutely not. Labour has no intention of joining the EU short or long term under Starmer. The issue is toxic

And for now, he's right to do so. Noise and toxicity beat raw numbers.

I stick by my calendar proposed on Brexit Day;

The 2024 rewrite of the TCA (which has to happen) will actually promote trade and co-operation at the expense of the UK giving up some of the more hypothetical freedoms.

2029 will be EEA in all but name.

2040ish will be the UK choosing to be in the room when decisions are taken.

A generation of withered trade and soured relationships. And all so Boomers with 3 O-Levels could get a different coloured passport and a vacuum cleaner that pumps out useless extra heat.

I suppose those with 3 O levels were to be respected previously when they voted the right way?

It's the contempt Remainers can't stop. "Anyone that disagrees with me is old and thick". They are completely unable to have a level headed conversation about it.

And in most discussions they can't even make a single concession in the argument. If you point out the predictions of the Remain campaign all turned out to be flat out lies, they will twist and turn trying to pretend otherwise. At best they will try to say the predictions were from evil Tories, rather ignoring the Labour leader of the Remain campaign repeating them everywhere.

Yes, they exude a fetid stench of sneering and snobbery, the Remainers: they cannot help themselves. The reek always escapes

It’s like Ken Livingstone trying to have a sensible conversation about Jews. Just wait a few minutes. Ah. There it is. Bingo

How long till you are fighting to get us back in EU

About five hours, when I am well into my 2nd bottle of Saperavi, and fancy a ruck

That's my boy

kjh said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
12m
It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.

It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.

Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought

St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!

It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.

The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents

Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.

It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central

Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central?
I guess you are.

Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.

They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.

stodge said:

France votes in the first round of its legislative elections next Sunday, June 12th.

The latest Cluster 17 poll has the following:

NUPES: 31% (+6)
Ensemble: 27% (-5)
National Rally: 19% (+6)
UDC: 10% (-9)
Reconquete: 5% (new)

To clarify, NUPES is the Nouvelle Union Populaire, Ecologique et Sociale which is basically Melenchon's party plus the Greens and Socialists. Ensemble is Macron's LREM plus a couple of others. National Rally is the Le Pen party while UDC (Union de droite et centre) is the alliance of centre-right and liberal parties led by Les Republicans. Reconquete is Zemmour's party.

Cluster 17 does tend to inflate the NUPES numbers more than other posters. Pollsters such as Elabe, Harris and Ifop have Ensemble just ahead of NUPES (27 to 25) with National Rally a close third on 21%.

It's of course a two-round poll and I suspect this will help Ensemble who may be able to pick up centre-right votes to overhaul NUPES on June 19th.

Are those big moves? They look big, but there’s no timescale.

I’d be surprised if Le Fiasco at Stade de France did not damage Macron’s party, via his hapless Interior Minister

gettingbetter said:

malcolmg said:

MattW said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.

Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.

True. I don't. But the direction of travel on measurement units should be consolidation not the other way. That's my point really.

Agree there.

I use metric when calculating BMI in my head, but then the calc in Imperial is slightly complex !

What's 5'10" squared, divided by 13 stone 12 lb.? There are limits.

Fat bastard

Pots and kettles

I am not 5'10", and am just well built.

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.

Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.

Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.

I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.

Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.

Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.

Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?

I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well

Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.

But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.

Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.

Average person loses about 1cm per decade from around 40. Office desk bod will be faster than that.

At 65 most men will be an inch shorter than they think they are and two inches shorter than they claim to be.

Carnyx said:

northern_monkey said:

Boom!

That's a Canadian flag, at halfmast (or being hoisted). I don't recognise the pieces as being UK ...

That's not the joke. Look at the shape of the flash.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Carnyx said:

northern_monkey said:

Boom!

That's a Canadian flag, at halfmast (or being hoisted). I don't recognise the pieces as being UK ...

That's not the joke. Look at the shape of the flash.

Quite, but I'm wonderiing what the connection with HMtQ is ...

Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France


💬 "Je n'ai jamais eu aussi peur de ma vie qu'en sortant du Stade de France samedi"

💥 Le combattant UFC Paddy Pimblett, venu au SDF en tant que fan de Liverpool raconte les incidents. Il résume tout en une phrase : "au moins dans une cage c'est un contre un".


https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.

I think we should pander to him if he wants to sell in pounds and ounces. I'm ok with it as long as Sainsbury's don't or stuff where measurements actually matters aren't. If you open an oldie worldie sweet shop it might be a good gimmick to sell a quarter of sweets (not sure about using old money though).

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

malcolmg said:

kjh said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
12m
It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.

It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.

Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought

St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!

It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.

The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents

Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.

It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central

Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central?
I guess you are.

Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.

They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.

I take it @malcolmg you don't approve of them.

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

I see the picture of the intro for the test match score has changed from a wicket to a grimace from Stokes - must mean a big partnership is growing

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
12m
It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.

It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.

Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought

St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!

It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.

The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents

Not these days. Labour stand candidates as Labour and have had a few elected, IIRC. There are some local groupings that have formed parties too. Although the majority of those elected are still independents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_City_of_London_Corporation_election

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

northern_monkey said:

Boom!

That looks like a penis!

The gun must be cocked.

I think that image might be an optical illusion. It's a phallus see.

Some cock and cannon ball Story behind it I bet.

kjh said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.

Point taken (from you and others) but that sort of guesstimate is rightly banned for commercial traders. We are dealing with a staple of life and he may be the only trader or the only one of two. Refusing to give the metric equivalent is outright subversion of the essential common units system for many people. Doesn't matter if he has a stall vs Sainsburys - it's impossible to compare properly.

This sort of subversion goes against the entire trend of modern history - and would not be tolerated by the great heroes of the so-called British Constitution. This shite about allowing people to deal in the units they want is straight out of 18th centiry custom and practice.

Leon said:

Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France


💬 "Je n'ai jamais eu aussi peur de ma vie qu'en sortant du Stade de France samedi"

💥 Le combattant UFC Paddy Pimblett, venu au SDF en tant que fan de Liverpool raconte les incidents. Il résume tout en une phrase : "au moins dans une cage c'est un contre un".


https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

I feel the same about scouse fans being told to wait for a bit at the champions league final as you do about Amber Heard

kjh said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.

I think we should pander to him if he wants to sell in pounds and ounces. I'm ok with it as long as Sainsbury's don't or stuff where measurements actually matters aren't. If you open an oldie worldie sweet shop it might be a good gimmick to sell a quarter of sweets (not sure about using old money though).

Maybe just discourage Steve rather than sanction him. But yes I see what you mean about a business with this as a USP. That's a bit different. No need to discourage that, quite the opposite. And maybe even old money could work too. You'd just have to implement some local voucher system whereby using real money you purchase shillings & pence which can only be spent in this olde shoppe you're running. I can see the point of that. Customers go in there, ask for (say) thrupence worth of liquorice and hand over the necessary. On a technical note, you would need to use 1973 exchange rates otherwise your thrupence won't buy anything.

kjh said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

I don't agree. If Sainsbury's did it, it would be confusing and they have an important market presence, but if Steve does it on his market stall you can go elsewhere, pick out spuds yourself or tell him you want about a dozen and ask him how much and pretty much judge the value. But going elsewhere to next stall holder is the obvious solution if you can't judge the value. If many do it he will change his ways. If they don't it shows what he is doing is popular.

I’m not particularly bothered by Steve either way. Steve does not seem like a legislative priority. The cost of living, the crisis in Ukraine, a monkeypox outbreak and a continuing COVID-19 pandemic, the collapse in UK exports after Brexit, the unaffordable cost of housing… y’know, everything else going on in the world seems rather more important. So why is the UK government focused on Steve? And vacuum cleaner power levels?

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

eristdoof said:

Andy_JS said:

kinabalu said:

Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.

Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.

Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.

I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.

Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.

Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.

Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?

I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well

Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.

But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.

Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.

Average person loses about 1cm per decade from around 40. Office desk bod will be faster than that.

At 65 most men will be an inch shorter than they think they are and two inches shorter than they claim to be.

I'm getting a jump on things and claiming to be shorter than I actually am now, so I will match up later.

Andy_JS said:

The fact that one of the main arguments of the days is over whether to use pounds or kilograms shows how unserious British politics is these days.

Well if we elect a journalist who specialises in non existent laws on bendy bananas as PM it seems quite appropriate?

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?

I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.

northern_monkey said:

This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.

(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)

https://twitter.com/jake_kanter/status/1532715805384884225?s=21&t=6anESHTUgceG_KjkAELCpQ

You shouldn't feel embarrassed for enjoying something. Sure, people who get really into it can be amusing, but that's the case for any kind of fanboy, be it monarchy, political party or anime. Don't let miserable gits make you doubt your own enjoyment.

kjh said:

malcolmg said:

kjh said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
12m
It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.

It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.

Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought

St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!

It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.

The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents

Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.

It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central

Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central?
I guess you are.

Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.

They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.

I take it @malcolmg you don't approve of them.

The only person in public life Malc approves of is Alex Salmond

carnforth said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.

I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.

So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?

I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.

bondegezou said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?

I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.

Or could it simply be that immigration is simply less visible to most people, which is a consequence of both Brexit and Covid. And if it's not visible, then - for most people - it's not a problem.

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.

I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.

So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?

I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.

So you have not yet met HYUFD?

carnforth said:

rcs1000 said:

carnforth said:

Taz said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.

I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.

So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?

I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.

Consciously, no. I just wonder if tribalism has led remain voters to hold being pro-immigration as a core belief, because it is part of the Remain canon.

Surely they should be unhappy, as there's no longer free movement?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.

I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.

It's 28.34 grams.

Which is not a lot of use, really.

An ounce is about a handful.

Ummm. How big are your hands and what are you measuring?

bondegezou said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OllyT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.

I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working

There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.

I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.

If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.

Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards

As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto

“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w

The other big change is that the right-wing press have stopped going on about immigration (because it’s difficult for them to do so now they’ve got Brexit). So are people happier with immigration because it’s under our control, or because they’re not being fed a torrent of vile propaganda by the Daily Mail etc.? Or maybe it’s because Remain won the argument and a lot of people have come to appreciate the benefits of immigration more?

I don’t know. The shift in opinion on immigration is noteworthy, but I’d like to see more research into what’s behind it.

So, this is interesting: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/

Leavers remain much more opposed to immigration than Remainers. Both groups, albeit in different ways, have become more positive about immigration since the referendum. I don’t think this supports a simplistic narrative that “taking back control” has made everyone happier and that explains the shift, but it does suggest that that may be part of the story for some people, while for other, the Brexit debate has made those opposed to Brexit appreciate immigration more.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.

I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.

It's 28.34 grams.

Which is not a lot of use, really.

An ounce is about a handful.

An ounce is a useful measure of freedom (give him an ounce of freedom and he bla bla)

I think i have heard courage measured in pints as well?

Maybe more modern concepts need to be in metric though - What should wokeness be measured in - metres , grammes , kelvin?

kjh said:

malcolmg said:

kjh said:

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
12m
It's not exactly Ceausescu on the balcony. But Tory MPs will have noticed the boos for Boris. London crowd yes, but a crowd primarily made up of royal watchers.

It was at St Paul's which is in City of London and Westminster constituency, which now has a Labour council in Westminster.

Exellent sermon by Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York I thought

St Paul's is in the City of London, NOT the City of Westminster. So it would NOT have a Labour council!

It is in the City of London AND Westminster parliamentary constituency, Westminster council is now Labour controlled.

The City of London corporation candidates only stand as independents

Er, yes, and? St Paul's is NOT under Labour-held Westminster City Council.

It will have a Labour MP though given the swing to Labour in Westminster in the local elections, the City of London was 75% Remain and Westminster was 69% Remain, it is Remainer and anti Boris central

Are you seriously arguing that a crowd who show up to Royal watch is Remainer central?
I guess you are.

Yep that is nonsense isn't. Also those there aren't from Westminster or the City, they will be from all over the South East with many, many from further afield in the UK. I mean yesterday they were interviewing people on the street from Australia, Canada and USA who had come specially.

They are all a bunch of stupid fannies, who cares where they come from. Sad vegetables with low IQ's wanting to cheer on a bunch of rich tossers who would not piss on them if they were on fire, pathetic.

I take it @malcolmg you don't approve of them.

Got it in one.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Sounds like a collection of redheaded cattle.

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

I’m sure you are sincere. So am I. I’ve spent too much of my life (about ten minutes) thinking about this ludicrous “trial” and now I can’t be arsed to spend a minute more

Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.

I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.

An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams.
Sign of a wasted youth, that.

kjh said:

northern_monkey said:

This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.

(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)

https://twitter.com/jake_kanter/status/1532715805384884225?s=21&t=6anESHTUgceG_KjkAELCpQ

That is excellent. I know an ex Royal Family Protection Officer. I won't say who he guarded but it was one of the firm. We asked him from any stories about Andrew, but there was nothing negative at all. Only story we got was one of him rescuing a cat.

Thats quite refreshing in the sense of somebody who does not spout his mouth off about his previous employment - Quite old school .

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JonWC said:

stodge said:

JonWC said:

I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.

Care to elaborate?

EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.

I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.

I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).

Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.

I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.

A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo

OK an ex Lib Dem, but still

Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy

I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now

"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.

Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit

Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.

On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"

What's her legal options for answering?

Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard

Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?

Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.

Bizarrely yes. So maybe Amber can go on Lorraine but not on Oprah.

This commentary, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration-is-public-opinion-changing/ , points out that positive views of immigration and free movement increased before the UK government committed to its no-free-movement, hard Brexit.

state_go_away said:

kjh said:

northern_monkey said:

This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.

(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)

https://twitter.com/jake_kanter/status/1532715805384884225?s=21&t=6anESHTUgceG_KjkAELCpQ

That is excellent. I know an ex Royal Family Protection Officer. I won't say who he guarded but it was one of the firm. We asked him from any stories about Andrew, but there was nothing negative at all. Only story we got was one of him rescuing a cat.

Thats quite refreshing in the sense of somebody who does not spout his mouth off about his previous employment - Quite old school .

He did tell us that leaving their guns in hotel safes, train loos, etc was a lot more common than reported, although he stressed he had never done it.

Leon said:

For the purposes of clarity, the graph on “immigration is one of UK’s most important problems”. Look at that drop. In 2016. Not worth over-thinking this

I don't think we could conclude from this that remainers are not angry about the end of freedom-of-movement.

I think most people, if asked to give the three most important issues facing the country implicitly add words. For example

(too much) immigration
(too little) health funding

I'm not sure someone who thinks the NHS spends too much money is likely to name "health funding" as one of their top concerns, for example.

In the same way, someone angry about the end of freedom of movement is unlikely to list "immigration" as one of their top concerns.

dixiedean said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

algarkirk said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory supermarket boss brands PM's imperial measures idea 'utter nonsense' https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20186079.tory-supermarket-boss-lord-rose-brands-boris-johnsons-imperial-measures-idea-utter-nonsense/?ref=twtrec

Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.

The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.

The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.

If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.

NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?

The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.

Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.

And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.

A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.

Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.

Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.

But he already has that slack!

Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...

Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.

The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.

But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.

My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.

I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.

An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams.
Sign of a wasted youth, that.

Wasted? Yep... sounds about right.

bondegezou said:

This commentary, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration-is-public-opinion-changing/ , points out that positive views of immigration and free movement increased before the UK government committed to its no-free-movement, hard Brexit.

One of the big problems the benefits of immigration has had is the dishonesty of politicians talking tough about it while actively enabling it. Both new labour and Cameron’s Tories did this. They were too spineless to make the case for their policy.

The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control