[USMA:34445] Re: Wolf in sheeps clothing

[Pat Naughtin]

Title: Re: [USMA:34260] Re: Wolf in sheeps clothing

Dear Stephen,

To the best of my knowledge (and memory) there was little, if any, political resistance to metrication in Australia. I understand that a small group was formed but after they expressed their anti-metric views to the Metric Conversion Board (MCB) they were invited to meet with board members and other MCB staff to discuss their views at length. Following a day or twos discussions, at the MCB's expense, the metric resisters went their way and were not heard of again; apparently the board members were able to explain to them why each of the major decisions had been made and this satisfied the protesters. I was not personally involved with these talks; my source was one of the participants.

The political decision to 'Go metric' from 1970 was largely made on the basis of the success of decimal currency in 1966. All political parties voted for the legislation and from then on it was regarded as a 'done deal' and since the metrication process was well managed by the Australian Metric Board there was no back sliding later.

As an outsider, it seems to me that the metrication process in England is not about the decision to 'Go metric' but about some poor decisions on how to go about the metrication process. For example, instead of rethinking the 'pints in pubs issue' and reforming the cheating due to sales of froth as liquid that had been going on (since say 1824 at least) the metric authorities chose to continue to perpetrate the deceit by simply redefining the pint capacity as 568 millilitres and that, as you know, continues the debate and the endless discussion (with its high emotional content) of this topic to this day.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.metricationmatters.com

This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.

on 2005-09-05 22.42, Stephen Gallagher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
> --- Philip S Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Why can't the methods used in Australia, New
>> Zealand, South Africa, etc.,
>>> be used here?  They worked fine and everyone was
>> still friends afterwards.
>>
>> The Australian programme of conversion is regarded
>> by pro-metrics in the UK
>> as a good model.
>
> It would be interested to know if, in Australia, did
> any political parties or politicians attempt to turn
> metrication into a political issue, with promises to
> cancel the effort.
>
> I'm virtually certain that if the US government were
> to attempt to push through a highly visible
> metrication effort (like the metrication of road
> signs, for example), a significant number of
> politicians, and political hopefuls, would run
> campaigns on a promise to cancel the metrication.  
>