HMRC loses case regarding duty on red diesel for boats

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Tanglewood said:

This is probably a truism.  Person X voted for apples,  Person C voted for pears sadly what is available is mixed fruit  and only mixed fruit - that is the reason no agreement can be reached.

Very true but it would have helped if people had been told it was mixed fruit that was all that was available.

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Is that really the case?

 

I know there was an education split in the referendum with people holding a degree more likely to have voted remain than those without, but my own observations suggest younger peeps tended to vote stay and older voted leave. Would be interesting if anyone can cite some statistics on this. 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Is that really the case?

 

I know there was an education split in the referendum with people holding a degree more likely to have voted remain than those without, but my own observations suggest younger peeps tended to vote stay and older voted leave. Would be interesting if anyone can cite some statistics on this. 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Is that really the case?

 

I know there was an education split in the referendum with people holding a degree more likely to have voted remain than those without, but my own observations suggest younger peeps tended to vote stay and older voted leave. Would be interesting if anyone can cite some statistics on this. 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Is that really the case?

 

I know there was an education split in the referendum with people holding a degree more likely to have voted remain than those without, but my own observations suggest younger peeps tended to vote stay and older voted leave. Would be interesting if anyone can cite some statistics on this. 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

So very true but you only needed to say it once lol. Degrees now come in lucky bags ( remember those? )  3 of our 5 kids have degrees and the only reason the other 2 havnt is simply because they didnt want one. A degree used to mean something but in many cases now it simply means donking it off at uni for 3 years rather than getting a job.

[TheBiscuits]

Damned mobile signal! (x 4) 

[Gareth E]

I'm not sure what value there is in comparing who voted for what depending on age, education etc. The only reason I could see someone taking an interest in this would be if they propose an end to our one person one vote democracy system. Maybe someone with a degree's vote could be weighted 1.5 to 1 to a thicko. Or maybe a young person's vote could be weighted 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to a coffin dodger, on the basis that the latter doesn't have long to live with the aftermath of the decision voted on. 

 

Is this the way we want to go, really? It sounds more like an ideal of the third Reich than that of a supposed modern, inclusive progressive society, to me. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Gareth E

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

Do you go out of your way to be rude and obnoxious, or does it come naturally to you?

You made an incorrect statement; I corrected you.
You have made numerous accusatons about what you call the "elite" but fail to answer who they are supposed to be.
There was no rudeness or obnoxious comment.
So yes, it does appear that you have a chip on your shoulder about this so called "elite".

Still your attacking me because I disagree with you is nothing new, is it?

[Graham Davis]

24 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I'm not sure what value there is in comparing who voted for what depending on age, education etc. The only reason I could see someone taking an interest in this would be if they propose an end to our one person one vote democracy system. Maybe someone with a degree's vote could be weighted 1.5 to 1 to a thicko. Or maybe a young person's vote could be weighted 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 to a coffin dodger, on the basis that the latter doesn't have long to live with the aftermath of the decision voted on. 

 

Is this the way we want to go, really? It sounds more like an ideal of the third Reich than that of a supposed modern, inclusive progressive society, to me. 

No one here has suggested such as scheme.

[Gareth E]

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

You made an incorrect statement; I corrected you.
You have made numerous accusatons about what you call the "elite" but fail to answer who they are supposed to be.
There was no rudeness or obnoxious comment.
So yes, it does appear that you have a chip on your shoulder about this so called "elite".

Still your attacking me because I disagree with you is nothing new, is it?

Starting a reply with "rubbish" is bad manners, it's rude. I'm surprised you didn't learn that when you were growing up. If you disagree with things that I say why not take part in the debate, put your own view forward instead, just like others do? You'll notice that I'm pretty well on my own in this part of this thread, most disagree with me but it's only you that's been rude. If you can't take part in debates with people who have differing or opposing views then maybe internet forums aren't for you.

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

No one here has suggested such as scheme.

Then, what is the point of looking at the data?

[rusty69]

38 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Damned mobile signal! (x 4) 

Wot you need is free wifi! 

Edited October 19, 2018 by rusty69

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Wot you need is free wifi! 

Is that the same as :

 

[furnessvale]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

So very true but you only needed to say it once lol. Degrees now come in lucky bags ( remember those? )  3 of our 5 kids have degrees and the only reason the other 2 havnt is simply because they didnt want one. A degree used to mean something but in many cases now it simply means donking it off at uni for 3 years rather than getting a job.

Which was precisely Tony Blair's intent when he introduced the policy.

 

George

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Which was precisely Tony Blair's intent when he introduced the policy.

 

George

Agreed. One reason of course being it kept them off the unemployed register thus making it look like youth unemployment had fallen!! A simple way to massage the figures.

[Graham Davis]

46 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Starting a reply with "rubbish" is bad manners, it's rude. I'm surprised you didn't learn that when you were growing up. If you disagree with things that I say why not take part in the debate, put your own view forward instead, just like others do? You'll notice that I'm pretty well on my own in this part of this thread, most disagree with me but it's only you that's been rude. If you can't take part in debates with people who have differing or opposing views then maybe internet forums aren't for you.

So now you insult me.
I will repeat myself:
You made an incorrect statement; I corrected you.
You have made numerous accusatons about what you call the "elite" but fail to answer who they are supposed to be.
There was no rudeness or obnoxious comment.
So yes, it does appear that you have a chip on your shoulder about this so called "elite".

Still your attacking me because I disagree with you is nothing new, is it?

 

46 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Then, what is the point of looking at the data?

Becaause someone asked if the information was available, which it was on the independent YouGov website.

Nothing more than that, but you have jumped in with some ridiculous suggestion.

[Gareth E]

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

So now you insult me.
I will repeat myself:
You made an incorrect statement; I corrected you.
You have made numerous accusatons about what you call the "elite" but fail to answer who they are supposed to be.
There was no rudeness or obnoxious comment.
So yes, it does appear that you have a chip on your shoulder about this so called "elite".

Still your attacking me because I disagree with you is nothing new, is it?

 

Becaause someone asked if the information was available, which it was on the independent YouGov website.

Nothing more than that, but you have jumped in with some ridiculous suggestion.

I'll ignore the first bit of your post, it's a repeat, but I'll give you my view on the second bit.

 

While nobody is openly admitting to favouring weighted voting depending on age, perceived intelligence by way of educational certificates obtained: What they are doing though, is forming their own Brexit result in their mind based on their own weighted voting system. Deny this? OK then, what possible interest could any of these statistics be to anyone? They are utterly meaningless. We life in a democracy where everyone above the age of 18 and still breathing is entitled to an equal vote. I'd suggest that any departure from this, either in practice or just in the mind, is rather sinister.

 

I look forward to your reasoned reply.  

[mayalld]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Don't forget that younger people are more likely to have a degree because more of them were encouraged to go to University than was the case in their parents or grandparents generations.   It used to be only the top 5% academically that studied for a degree, but the current target is 50%.

 

It does not mean the younger generations are any cleverer! 

 

They may know an awful lot about whatever they did, but common sense, not a bit of it!

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

So very true but you only needed to say it once lol. Degrees now come in lucky bags ( remember those? )  3 of our 5 kids have degrees and the only reason the other 2 havnt is simply because they didnt want one. A degree used to mean something but in many cases now it simply means donking it off at uni for 3 years rather than getting a job.

A couple of points (again).  First I am not sure where the 5% comes from, at my time in Grammar school 25% went to grammar school and the majority went on to university.  So even 50 + years ago it was well over the 5%

 

Secondly many of those who weren't studying for a degree were in polytechnics and the like studying for tertiary level qualifications.

 

Thirdly (sorry gone more  than my couple of points) have you studied for a degree in recent years?  Both my daughters have studied for degrees (3 different ones) I didn't see the work they had to produce as being out of a lucky bag.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

While nobody is openly admitting to favouring weighted voting depending on age, perceived intelligence by way of educational certificates obtained: What they are doing though, is forming their own Brexit result in their mind based on their own weighted voting system. Deny this? OK then, what possible interest could any of these statistics be to anyone? They are utterly meaningless. We life in a democracy where everyone above the age of 18 and still breathing is entitled to an equal vote. I'd suggest that any departure from this, either in practice or just in the mind, is rather sinister.

 

I look forward to your reasoned reply.  

Sinister?
You have to be joking?
Statistics on voting patterns, be they by age, gender, socio-economic standing, race and other ways have been done for years. I can remember my father, as a Candidates Political Agent doing exactly the same thing during elections in the 60's and 70's, using information from canvassers, exit polls and even street directories. The figures quoted earlier were taken from numerous polls raised by YouGov, which isn't even an official body. In my father's case they were used to sort out which areas needed to be canvassed in the future or whether certain leaflet drops should be made instead.

You should stop looking for conspiracies. There is nothing sinister here.
 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Graham Davis

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Agreed. One reason of course being it kept them off the unemployed register thus making it look like youth unemployment had fallen!! A simple way to massage the figures.

Not that I'm any sort of supporter for Blair, but when he came to Government unemployment was falling and continued to do so until about 2006 so massaging of unemployment figures was largely unnecessary. Compare that to the number of times Thatcher massaged the way in which the unemployed were counted with the deliberate intention of making the figures meaningless; but then she had to didn't she since she was elected on the strength of 'Labour isn't working' with an outrageous figure of 1 million unemployed, that she managed to boost to over 3 million by 1983 where it remained until 1987.

 

The difference between those attending university of our generation is that they weren't left with a debt of circa £30,000 hanging over their heads on graduation, so the degrees of our generation could be regarded as easy compared to today.

[Gareth E]

2 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Sinister?
You have to be joking?
Statistics on voting patterns, be they by age, gender, socio-economic standing, race and other ways have been done for years. I can remember my father, as a Candidates Political Agent doing exactly the same thing during elections in the 60's and 70's, using information from canvassers, exit polls and even street directories. The figures quoted earlier were taken from numerous polls raised by YouGov, which isn't even an official body. In my father's case they were used to sort out which areas needed to be canvassed in the future or whether certain leaflet drops should be made instead.

You should stop looking for conspiracies. There is nothing sinister here.
 

 

 

 

 

Yes of course, before an election it's important to pull out statistics. An effective targeting campaign can then be mounted, making the best use of available resources.

 

Quoting statistics after a one off referendum is a completely different matter. It's obvious that remainers who make the point that the majority of the young and the educated voted to remain do so to make a remain argument. They are on an internet discussion, arguing for remain. OK so far? So, we can deduce that these people, who are aware as anyone else that the result was 52 48 in favour of leave, feel this is altered (morally at least) by the fact that a disproportionate number of the young and the educated voted remain. We can therefore say that these people feel the votes of the young and the educated are more important than the votes of the uneducated and the elderly.

 

As I said earlier, hardly the kind of thinking you'd expect from the so called progressives, those who hold talk of inclusivity and equality dear to their hearts. Ironic really, given that this type of thinking is at the more extreme end of everything the so called progressives purport to loathe.     

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Yes of course, before an election it's important to pull out statistics. An effective targeting campaign can then be mounted, making the best use of available resources.

 

Quoting statistics after a one off referendum is a completely different matter. It's obvious that remainers who make the point that the majority of the young and the educated voted to remain do so to make a remain argument. They are on an internet discussion, arguing for remain. OK so far? So, we can deduce that these people, who are aware as anyone else that the result was 52 48 in favour of leave, feel this is altered (morally at least) by the fact that a disproportionate number of the young and the educated voted remain. We can therefore say that these people feel the votes of the young and the educated are more important than the votes of the uneducated and the elderly.

 

As I said earlier, hardly the kind of thinking you'd expect from the so called progressives, those who hold talk of inclusivity and equality dear to their hearts. Ironic really, given that this type of thinking is at the more extreme end of everything the so called progressives purport to loathe.     

Being elderly and a remainer I can't possibly agree with some of your rather wild assertions.

 

As far as I am concerned the statistic produced by the polling organisations is the nearest to facts we are going to get and so worthy of including in any discussion.

[Gareth E]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Being elderly and a remainer I can't possibly agree with some of your rather wild assertions.

 

As far as I am concerned the statistic produced by the polling organisations is the nearest to facts we are going to get and so worthy of including in any discussion.

OK....what is the point in discussing which group voted what in the referendum?

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

OK....what is the point in discussing which group voted what in the referendum?

Perhaps because it is interesting.   I find all discussion interesting.   I used to enjoy the debating society at school - strange I know.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

OK....what is the point in discussing which group voted what in the referendum?

What is the point of discussing anything?

[Gareth E]

Well it's been discussed at length in this thread, stats have been posted,  talk of a result skewed by prejudice and misunderstanding. Sounds like a bit more than idle chatter to me. 

[Jerra]

Farage was saying on TV tonight there are more people wanting to change their vote to leave than there are wanting to change to remain.  If this is correct I fail to understand why Brexiteers are so scared of a second referendum.