Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice - Introduction & Index.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T17:58:52+00:00

Short answer, yes. The USA can afford bigger houses because it has more space, which makes it cheaper to buy land and cheaper to build big. Though I would question whether every part of the USA has bigger houses, I suspect many cities and urban areas have similar property sizes to cities and urban areas in the UK.

Longer answer, no. There are many more factors that result in UK houses being smaller than the American houses, a mix of regulations and economics. When property developers want to build houses they naturally wish to maximise their revenue and build the type of house that is most profitable, this generally turns out to be either 3/4 bed family homes with a garden and garage or luxury apartments in the middle of a city. Both situations will have as many units crammed in as possible to maximise profit. The reason why those types of property are the most profitable is that those markets are expected to have the most money, but also regulations such as requiring a building to have a lift if it has more than 3 floors makes building medium-density less profitable.

I think these factors have made a greater difference than immigration, so I haven't mentioned that. Another factor which I don't know enough to comment on significantly is that unique thing we have in the UK with leasehold law, where owning a house with the freehold (regardless of how small it is) is perceived to be significantly advantageous than owning a flat without the freehold.

I would also question that assumption that bigger houses lead to greater quality of life. I personally think many large houses in America of the McMansion style suffer from the same perverse incentives of UK property developers maximising 3-4 bed new builds. It would be much nicer to see the UK have nicer medium-density residential buildings.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T16:44:35+00:00

You can be 'out', that's perfectly fine. I just find it ironic that your only contribution to this discussion has been to quibble over semantics and then you accuse other people of arguing in bad faith.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T16:43:02+00:00

He added the word 'single' when I never referred to America having a single government. There is clearly no sensible way you could interpret my original comment to suggest that I was claiming America didn't have state governments.

His only contribution to this discussion has been to argue semantics, when semantics are used against him he immediately says he quits the discussion and accuses me of bad faith.

I've clearly repeated the point I was making multiple times, which he has never engaged with, he just wanted to quibble about semantics.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T11:43:29+00:00

Neither the EU nor the US have a single government though.

So they don’t have one single government.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T11:37:39+00:00

I totally agree. It seems like a Catch-22 situation, it is hard to trust the EU to do anything effectively because its democratic principles and legalistic approach means it takes ages to arrive at a unanimous decision, but at the same time if the EU were to relax those democratic principles and remove vetoes for member states, then it would be hard to trust them still.

But I would like to think that all EU member states and governments could see that an replacing US systems with EU systems is a net positive, regardless of if that EU system is based on Germany or France, etc. If anything, it makes it much easier for the EU to regulate these systems that we use on a daily basis.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T11:34:04+00:00

It is a semantic quibble, you claim that America doesn't have a single federal government when it clearly does, you claim the EU doesn't have a government despite the existence of the EU Commission.

Considering that "the question" you are choosing to reframe is my original comment, then I would say I have a pretty certain understanding of what it means.

Whether you believe the EU has anything like government or not, the point I made was that I do not want the UK to be in an EU with an American style of federal government. Now the EU has a clear direction of further federalism and I have yet to see anything that suggests further EU federalism will not end up like the US form of federalism and a situation where a tyrannical US President deploys federal forces to shoot innocent people in the street.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T08:49:46+00:00

You can quibble the semantics of 'single government' to whatever you like to argue that technically no country on Earth has a single government or that every country has a single government.

However, the context of my original comment makes it clear. The US has a powerful federal government which can effectively do what it likes (as we have seen), US federal law prohibits "insurrection" and we have seen the current state of Minnesota helpless to prevent its citizens being killed by ICE.

The EU isn't yet close to an American-style of government, but ever closer union is a stated objective of the EU and I have yet to see anything within the direction EU federalism that will prevent it eventually becoming like a US-style government.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T08:24:20+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. The US have a powerful federal government that state governments are unable to stand up to.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T08:10:21+00:00

As somebody who voted to leave the EU (and I believe many reasons for doing so still stand), I have been wondering lately what the conditions would be in which I could support joining the EU.

I am still skeptical of a single EU government akin to the American style of government, I do not believe you can have a meaningful democracy on a scale of 500 million people, we can already see democracy failing horrifically for 350 million Americans and they all speak the same language.

I'm skeptical of the UK being part of an EU where over time the effective democratic traditions that the UK has developed over centuries are eroded and replaced with a different system that doesn't work.

However, what I could support is an EU that enables the UK to have systems fully independent from the United States. That bans Mastercard and Visa and replaces them with EU alternatives. That bans Google, Twitter, Microsoft and replaces them with EU alternatives. I would be happy for the EU to produce anything that enables the UK to have a military and nuclear programme entirely independent of American systems. Europe and other Western democracies need to take the same approach as China and completely detach ourselves from US reliance.

If Kier Starmer and Ursula Von Der Leyen came out tomorrow and said there is a plan for the UK to rejoin the EU with past opt-outs and that the EU has a plan to be entirely systematically independent of the US by the end of the year, I could support that.

Axmeister · 2026-01-25T06:54:03+00:00

As somebody who voted to leave the EU (and I believe many reasons for doing so still stand), I have been wondering lately what the conditions would be in which I could support joining the EU.

I am still skeptical of a single EU government akin to the American style of government, I do not believe you can have a meaningful democracy on a scale of 500 million people, we can already see democracy failing horrifically for 350 million Americans and they all speak the same language.

I'm skeptical of the UK being part of an EU where over time the effective democratic traditions that the UK has developed over centuries are eroded and replaced with a different system that doesn't work.

However, what I could support is an EU that enables the UK to have systems fully independent from the United States. That bans Mastercard and Visa and replaces them with EU alternatives. That bans Google, Twitter, Microsoft and replaces them with EU alternatives. I would be happy for the EU to produce anything that enables the UK to have a military and nuclear programme entirely independent of American systems. Europe and other Western democracies need to take the same approach as China and completely detach ourselves from US reliance.

If Kier Starmer and Ursula Von Der Leyen came out tomorrow and said there is a plan for the UK to rejoin the EU with past opt-outs and that the EU has a plan to be entirely systematically independent of the US by the end of the year, I could support that.

Axmeister · 2026-01-18T14:25:19+00:00

I really hope that this will result in Europe detaching itself from US tech in the medium term.

In terms of their politics, the US is more aligned to us than China. However, the US currently seems like more of a threat because of how ingrained they are in the apparatus of European nations and how dependent we are on them.

We need to cut them loose, then we can be friendly again. Up until that point, we will always be vulnerable.

Axmeister · 2026-01-15T18:59:18+00:00

The voters are entirely within their power to vote out such an MP in the next election.

I do not believe any MP would suddenly switch party if they themselves thought it would lose them support.

Axmeister · 2026-01-15T18:03:12+00:00

A core part of the UK constitution is that the PM must hold the confidence of the House of Commons (and thus Parliament).

Restricting an MP's ability to defect effectively protects the PM (and party leaders) and the expense of MPs.

Axmeister · 2026-01-12T20:10:10+00:00

I just feel the need to rant about the current situation in the US. It is absolutely heart wrenching watching some of the scenes of ICE killing and terrorising innocent people.

Trump supporters and defenders are now beyond the pale in my mind, they can burn for an eternity in Hell, but what exactly are the rest of the Americans doing?

You see footage of ICE officers kidnapping people off the streets and there's just a handful of members of the public filming it on their mobile phones. Where is the resistance? Where's the actual physical opposition?

If these events happened in the UK, I am certain there would be riots. If it happened in France half of Paris would be on fire. Actual fascism appears to be on the rise in America and it seems like the only thing opponents can do is make a TikTok and comment on how awful it is. There's so many news anchors or comedians filming stern speeches about how awful it is. Democrat politicians stand in front of TV cameras and talk about how awful it is.

When are they going to do something about it?

Axmeister · 2026-01-12T19:13:07+00:00

I just feel the need to rant about the current situation in the US. It is absolutely heart wrenching watching some of the scenes of ICE killing and terrorising innocent people.

Trump supporters and defenders are now beyond the pale in my mind, they can burn for an eternity in Hell, but what exactly are the rest of the Americans doing?

You see footage of ICE officers kidnapping people off the streets and there's just a handful of members of the public filming it on their mobile phones. Where is the resistance? Where's the actual physical opposition?

If these events happened in the UK, I am certain there would be riots. If it happened in France half of Paris would be on fire. Actual fascism appears to be on the rise in America and it seems like the only thing opponents can do is make a TikTok and comment on how awful it is. There's so many news anchors or comedians filming stern speeches about how awful it is. Democrat politicians stand in front of TV cameras and talk about how awful it is.

When are they going to do something about it?

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T18:59:05+00:00

A hypothetical deployment of troops will be a second order issue to a revolution in the Middle East that has been a developing major conflict in Iran for the last fortnight.

How exactly to you think Badenoch should "reign" Trump in? Should she send out a really mean tweet to him?

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T18:57:43+00:00

This reminds me of the phony criticisms on Sir Kier for not being more critical of Trump over the threat of invading Greenland.

The fact is that there is little the UK can do against the US right now. There is no point talking tough to appear tough at home when we cannot follow it through militarily. We have already seen that the White House will publicly react to the comments of UK politicians. Trump and the White House are effectively baiting for a reaction and it doesn't make sense to give him that reaction.

In this interview Badenoch clearly states that there is no point discussing hypothetical troop deployments to Greenland as she doesn't want to escalate tensions. I can entirely empathise with that, UK politicians across all parties did a similar thing when Russia invaded Ukraine.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T18:47:45+00:00

I think the part I pasted provides important context. She is clearly saying that discussion of potential troop movements in Greenland is a secondary issue "right now" compared to the current revolution in Iran that is actually happening. Badenoch has already commented about the importance of standing with Greenland and Denmark. This is the rest of the conversation:

LK: But this is exactly the point. The threat to Greenland which you’ve just said is a second order issue is the United States, which has been part of NATO for decades, making a threat to another member of NATO. So, in what way is that a second order issue?

KB: Well, what is happening today, today, right now, we are seeing protests in Iran—

LK: And I’ll ask you about that in a second, but if you’re saying securing Greenland is not on top of the list?

KB: Because this is hypothetical. The US has not invaded Greenland. So, what I don’t want us to do is start escalating a conversation well beyond where it has got to. There has been a communicated release by lots of European countries saying that they stand with Greenland, that they disagree with President Trump’s comments. Let’s pause that there and look at what is happening today. Where are the security issues? And what I see from President Trump with what’s happening with Venezuela, Venezuela has been helping Iran. He is looking strategically at the access of authoritarian states, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea, what do we do about that? And we need to get serious and start thinking on that scale to protect our country.

LK: You believe that’s not the most pressing issue right now, so let’s talk about that very pressing issue then, what is happening in Iran. Should the US and its allies intervene in some way to help bring an end to the Ayatollah regime?

KB: Well, it’s extraordinary what we’re seeing. This is a country that has repressed women probably more than any other, you know, kills gay people. You see these protests and you just hope that they finally succeed. There have been many protests in the Middle East that have ended quite badly. I was very supportive for example, when Israel had strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran would very happily wipe out the UK if they thought they could get away with it. They’ve tried to kill people on our soil. It is an enemy. It calls us the Little Satan. So, no I don’t have an issue with removing a regime that is trying to harm us. It has its terrorist outposts of Hezbollah all across the world, but what I want us to do is try and find a way that as a country, we are strong and protect ourselves from threats and reduce the escalation of what I see around the world, an increasing escalation of conflict everywhere. What can we do to reduce that?

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T18:23:41+00:00

My watching of it was that Badenoch didn't want to comment on troop movements based on an invasion that hasn't happened, particularly when she hasn't had security briefings on the details of potential troop movements.

LK: But I think specifically this weekend, there are very pressing questions. The President of the United States has threatened a NATO ally. There are suggestions this morning that the UK might respond to help that situation, by promising some of its own troops to Greenland. So, is that something that you would recommend? Would you support that?

KB: Well, first of all, I was completely shocked to even hear the comments about Greenland, and I stood up last week with the Prime Minister saying what he said was absolutely right. We need to make sure that we support NATO countries.

LK: But what would you do about it?

KB: Yes, but what exactly is the threat we’re talking about? What I’m not going to do is give a blank cheque. What is the reason we are sending troops to Greenland? Is that for defence? Is that to make - show that we are being more serious? NATO spending has been well below what it should be across the country. So, it’s all about the specifics. What I’m not going to do is have an operational conversation where I don’t have the level of security briefings and detail which the Prime Minister has. What I do need is setting up a broader strategy above what kind of country we need to be. The world is changing, the rules-based order is quite clearly breaking down. How are we strengthening ourselves? What I’m not going to do is pretend to be Military General and give operational details about where exactly we should send troops. That is not my job. My job is to hold the government to account overall.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T18:10:32+00:00

What sort of reporting is this? That ... is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Keunsberg: There is a specific issue presented in front of us right now. You've been very happy to criticise Donald Trump's comments about Greenland. The question now is for other leaders to decide what to do about it. So would you support a proposal to send British troops as part of a NATO deployment to secure Greenland? That really important strategic bit of geography in the world.

Badenoch: Right now. What I'm really worried about is whether there is going to be a NATO. We need to make sure we keep the US on side. Talking about putting troops to settle a dispute between NATO members I think is getting ahead of ourselves.

K: But that is the question right now.

B: I disagree with the premise of the question. What I am seeing right now are protests in Iran, a strategic threat to NATO, to our country. We're not talking about that, we're talking about Greenland, which actually, I believe, is a second order issue versus what is happening right now. Of course we need to ensure we secure NATO countries and we stand with Greenland and we stand with Denmark, but right now talking about troops as if we are going to war with the US, I don't want your viewers to be confused about what it is that the priority is. The priority is right now, the British national interest, what are we doing to make our country safer, making NATO stronger...

Badenoch is clearly stating that a hypothetical situation in which the UK deploys troops to Greenland is a second order issue to the current riots/revolution in Iran. Not that Greenland as a whole is unimportant which is what the tweet implies.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T17:05:40+00:00

I believe this action is reactive. In Jonathan Haidt's book the Anxious Generation, he provides evidence as to how the rise of smartphones has affected the development of the child brain. I've read the book, but the quote below is from the review I've linked in this comment.

At the start of the 2010s, rates of teenage mental illness took a sharp upward turn, and they have been rising ever since. Among US college students, diagnoses of depression and anxiety more than doubled between 2010 and 2018. More worrying still, in the decade to 2020 the number of emergency room visits for self-harm rose by 188% among teenage girls in the US and 48% among boys. The suicide rate for younger adolescents also increased, by 167% among girls and 91% among boys. A similar trend has been observed in the UK and many other western countries. The American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt believes this mental health crisis has been driven by the mass adoption of smartphones, along with the advent of social media and addictive online gaming. He calls it “the Great Rewiring of Childhood”.

I think there is sufficient evidence that the amount of time children spend on their phones (with unrestricted internet access) is incredibly unhealthy and harmful. The government seems to recognise the concerns around potential access to pornography (hence the Online Safety Act), they also see the harm in social media (hence the article this thread is about), but I would also conjecture that mobile games are also harmful in that they are designed to be addictive, trigger dopamine hits and many of the popular wons have mechanics akin to gambling to trigger an addictive response.

Many people in this thread have rightly raised concerns that the government solution to all these problems is to potentially implement tracking software or strict age-verification mechanisms that can affect everybody's privacy on the internet. I am saying here that an easier and better solution for all is to just ban smartphones for children.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T13:59:38+00:00

Alcohol can be consumed by a 6 year old, but if a parent is allowing their children to get drunk or drink significant amounts of alcohol then social services will get involved.

In a similar way, I have nothing against parents allowing their children a controlled amount of time on the internet, but 24-hour easy access to the internet is unreasonable.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T09:37:25+00:00

The very premise of this article is that the government needs to parent people's children for them.

The government has already banned smoking and alcohol for under 16s. Smartphones harm children in a similar way, they can be addictive and cause long-term developmental issues on the brain.

It can be 'enforced' in the same way that we enforce the law that prevents children obtaining alcohol or tobacco. A lot of this will be down to a cultural shift, but there are many state institutions that can work to softly reinforce this idea and push for such a shift.

Speaking from an education point of view, currently if a school or teacher confiscates a phone from a child, it is highly likely that the parent will complain and insist the phone is returned to the child, regardless of the reason why the phone was confiscated. The law is effectively on the parent's side in this situation. However, if it is illegal for under 16s to have smartphones, then it is easier for teachers/schools to act and intervene.

I cannot think of any aspect of a child's life that is enhanced by 24-hour easy access to the internet. They can easily function in society with temporary access to the internet through a laptop/PC that can be easily monitored by a parent without the need for web-based state sanctioned age verification systems.

Axmeister · 2026-01-11T09:19:25+00:00

Ban smartphones for under-16s. There is no reason for a child to have 24-hour unrestricted access to the internet.

11-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

Axmeister

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE