What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
As far as I can make out various people from various parties wanted to engage in some pointless posturing, by passing a motion, or motions, that would be totally ignored by the groups and states that they referenced. Hoyle appears to have upset the proposers of these motions and, therefore, needs to step down as speaker asap.
A truly astonishing Westminster circular firing squad.
I can think of another Westminster circular xxxx turn of phrase.
I've read nothing to suggest the LDs are putting any effort into winning the Rochdale by election or are garnering support. The only LD news I've read is of an LD councillor being suspended for campaigning for the suspended Labour candidate! Much to my surprise I have managed to cash out my £20 bet at 50.0 on the LDs winning Rochdale. £1.20 profit. More importantly £20 back that I thought I would never see again. Now if the LDs go on and win I will not be happy!
Never be embarrassed about taking a profit. The aim of the game is to win. There are many nursing a large loss who would envy you.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Depends what you believe the shenanigans were. Some are claiming Starmer threatened to boot him after the next election. Others claim he got a bunch of representation from MPs who were worried about their safety if they couldn’t vote for a motion that threaded the needle between the two positions.
Had the Tories not submitted what was effectively a wrecking amendment then the vote would have been between Labour and SNP versions of the motion. Normally (for some reason of ancient and silly precedent) only the government amendment would be selected. Hoyle chose to hear both amendments, his reasoning being it was a matter of conscience of some gravity. The SNP are upset because they didn’t get to vote on their motion (legit, although it was an obviously bad faith motion in the first place). The Tories are upset because they had procedural jujitsu pulled on them and they’re the only ones allowed to do that dammit.
The Tories withdrew their motion because there were enough Tory rebels to pass Labour’s amendment and then they and the SNP stormed out.
I get that the SNP motion was uncomfortable for Starmer who short months ago was saying it was legitimate for Israel to cut off food and water supplies to Gazan civilians (aka collective punishment), but if the Labour Scottish sub branch was passing motions last weekend that specifically mentioned collective punishment, how was sticking to the line they generally have for the last few months 'bad faith' on the part of the SNP?
Because it included language that was obviously designed to make it unpalatable to Labour MPs. It was a nice bit of clever drafting, but if they’d wanted genuine consensus and not a fight they’d have put up a clean “this house supports an immediate ceasefire” motion. But they didn’t, they included language on collective punishment that they knew Labour MPs would not accept. The motion was written in bad faith to cause Labour political problems. Labour figured out how to break the trap. Tough.
I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.
Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.
Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.
Worth it!
Amazing!
I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.
Expensive though.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
I’ve never had problems with French border staff. They’ve allowed me to use staff only lanes to ensure I reached flights and last time waited at the gate as I bordered plane 2 as the door was closing to stamp my passport and allow me on to the flight
I haven't flown to France for years. I do know that there is no more lengthy queue than an Air France queue. Or wasn't.
Flying Air France is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded pistol.
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
I was looking forward so much to a trip on the Rocky Mountaineer as part of a trip round the Rockies. Turned out to be well down the pecking order of memorable highlights of that last holiday before Mrs BJ became a paraplegic.
Banff Gondola, the Athabasca Glacier, Lake Louise, Vancouver, Victoria Island all rank above the Jasper to Vancouver train ride, so average.
Victoria Island ? That was adventurous! I take it you mean Victoria on Vancouver Island?
Aye thats it had some wonderful seafood meal in Victoria, did a seaplane trip, and visited Butchart Gardens which were amazing
I lived there and never went to Butchart Gardens. Nor did I ever do the seaplane. Though I frequently watched it land whilst drinking by the harbour.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Depends what you believe the shenanigans were. Some are claiming Starmer threatened to boot him after the next election. Others claim he got a bunch of representation from MPs who were worried about their safety if they couldn’t vote for a motion that threaded the needle between the two positions.
Had the Tories not submitted what was effectively a wrecking amendment then the vote would have been between Labour and SNP versions of the motion. Normally (for some reason of ancient and silly precedent) only the government amendment would be selected. Hoyle chose to hear both amendments, his reasoning being it was a matter of conscience of some gravity. The SNP are upset because they didn’t get to vote on their motion (legit, although it was an obviously bad faith motion in the first place). The Tories are upset because they had procedural jujitsu pulled on them and they’re the only ones allowed to do that dammit.
The Tories withdrew their motion because there were enough Tory rebels to pass Labour’s amendment and then they and the SNP stormed out.
I get that the SNP motion was uncomfortable for Starmer who short months ago was saying it was legitimate for Israel to cut off food and water supplies to Gazan civilians (aka collective punishment), but if the Labour Scottish sub branch was passing motions last weekend that specifically mentioned collective punishment, how was sticking to the line they generally have for the last few months 'bad faith' on the part of the SNP?
Because it included language that was obviously designed to make it unpalatable to Labour MPs. It was a nice bit of clever drafting, but if they’d wanted genuine consensus and not a fight they’d have put up a clean “this house supports an immediate ceasefire” motion. But they didn’t, they included language on collective punishment that they knew Labour MPs would not accept. The motion was written in bad faith to cause Labour political problems. Labour figured out how to break the trap. Tough.
Perhaps if Labour had had genuine consultations and discussions with the SNP rather than lying about it, 'genuine consensus' might have happened. Unlikely, but it definitely wasn't going to happen with all the bad faith smoke screens that Labour were pumping out.
If #TelAvivKeith did lean on the speaker to fuck up the SNP's cunning scheme then he's demonstrating quite impressive levels of guile and bastardry. Perhaps he's been misunderestimated once again. The fact that the tories are just baffled bystanders to all this with their thumbs rammed up their holes is a sign of the times. They are already irrelevant.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used. quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
But SKS is steadily moving more to the right as regards Scotland, and has been since before he became head of Labour HQ. He's almost at Cameroonian grade now. Attack SKS gets an attack on the Tories for free, so to speak. And the Tories are on the way out anyway.
I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.
Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.
Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.
Worth it!
Amazing!
I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.
Expensive though.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
I’ve never had problems with French border staff. They’ve allowed me to use staff only lanes to ensure I reached flights and last time waited at the gate as I bordered plane 2 as the door was closing to stamp my passport and allow me on to the flight
Yes, but you look German
Oh I really don’t - there are times I do a very good Mr Bean impression - I managed to lose my passport between the taxi and the hotel reception once in Germany that people still remind me about (left side inner jacket pocket not the right side (single pocket) if you want to know what went wrong).
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
True dat - it's rather crap. Also, what's happened to the food? Used to be not bad, now it's poor airline standard.
PS For what it's worth we just had three nights in Paris - in contrast to Eurostar, the dining was very good on each night. We tried a 'cheap' bistro, a mid-range restaurant, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. All great food within their class and surprisingly excellent service. Expensive though - London-level prices.
So Leon's sort of right from our quick sortie: France (Paris) is no longer providing outstanding food value imo - those days are gone - but solid fare and also dishes you rarely see in the UK. Spain and Italy well ahead these days though.
Thanks to whoever recommended Benoit btw.
I used to really enjoy the Eurostar (even when not cycling), but getting on and off is a bit like taking a plane these days and then when they stopped taking unfolded bikes I had no choice but to find another means. Even if they have started again (I have no idea if they have), I have no intention of going back to them. It is now train to the ferry, ferry (where bikers are treated like Gods for some reason) and TER the other end.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
Quite a few stories got buried yesterday by the parliamentary pisstake. If only we could weaponise that shithousery and use it in place of our totally working nuclear arsenal.
If #TelAvivKeith did lean on the speaker to fuck up the SNP's cunning scheme then he's demonstrating quite impressive levels of guile and bastardry. Perhaps he's been misunderestimated once again. The fact that the tories are just baffled bystanders to all this with their thumbs rammed up their holes is a sign of the times. They are already irrelevant.
I miss the days when some people called Starmer Gordon Brittas.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
True dat - it's rather crap. Also, what's happened to the food? Used to be not bad, now it's poor airline standard.
PS For what it's worth we just had three nights in Paris - in contrast to Eurostar, the dining was very good on each night. We tried a 'cheap' bistro, a mid-range restaurant, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. All great food within their class and surprisingly excellent service. Expensive though - London-level prices.
So Leon's sort of right from our quick sortie: France (Paris) is no longer providing outstanding food value imo - those days are gone - but solid fare and also dishes you rarely see in the UK. Spain and Italy well ahead these days though.
Thanks to whoever recommended Benoit btw.
I used to really enjoy the Eurostar (even when not cycling), but getting on and off is a bit like taking a plane these days and then when they stopped taking unfolded bikes I had no choice but to find another means. Even if they have started again (I have no idea if they have), I have no intention of going back to them. It is now train to the ferry, ferry (where bikers are treated like Gods for some reason) and TER the other end.
Lyon is excellent for food by the way. I had a five course lunch with my missus at a Michelin star restaurant with wine and some of the best food I’ve ever had for a shade over £100.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
The Police SNP investigation won't report this side of the election.
1) The do report - SNP angry, big bunfights with other parties if it partially lets the SNP off (as they see it) etc 2) They don't report, investigation ongoing - SNP happy(ier), other parties can't say anything.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Depends what you believe the shenanigans were. Some are claiming Starmer threatened to boot him after the next election. Others claim he got a bunch of representation from MPs who were worried about their safety if they couldn’t vote for a motion that threaded the needle between the two positions.
Had the Tories not submitted what was effectively a wrecking amendment then the vote would have been between Labour and SNP versions of the motion. Normally (for some reason of ancient and silly precedent) only the government amendment would be selected. Hoyle chose to hear both amendments, his reasoning being it was a matter of conscience of some gravity. The SNP are upset because they didn’t get to vote on their motion (legit, although it was an obviously bad faith motion in the first place). The Tories are upset because they had procedural jujitsu pulled on them and they’re the only ones allowed to do that dammit.
The Tories withdrew their motion because there were enough Tory rebels to pass Labour’s amendment and then they and the SNP stormed out.
I get that the SNP motion was uncomfortable for Starmer who short months ago was saying it was legitimate for Israel to cut off food and water supplies to Gazan civilians (aka collective punishment), but if the Labour Scottish sub branch was passing motions last weekend that specifically mentioned collective punishment, how was sticking to the line they generally have for the last few months 'bad faith' on the part of the SNP?
Because it included language that was obviously designed to make it unpalatable to Labour MPs. It was a nice bit of clever drafting, but if they’d wanted genuine consensus and not a fight they’d have put up a clean “this house supports an immediate ceasefire” motion. But they didn’t, they included language on collective punishment that they knew Labour MPs would not accept. The motion was written in bad faith to cause Labour political problems. Labour figured out how to break the trap. Tough.
Perhaps if Labour had had genuine consultations and discussions with the SNP rather than lying about it, 'genuine consensus' might have happened. Unlikely, but it definitely wasn't going to happen with all the bad faith smoke screens that Labour were pumping out.
Also I am struck by the notion that "Labour MPs" all just happen to agree (a) with each other and (b) with SKS on the intolerability of the SNP wording, conveniently for SKS. IANAE on the intestinal travails of the workers' party, but surely it's not that monolithic, even outwith Scotland (which isn't, as you noted)?
On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
Well, that's quite the point.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I agree with Southam. He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).
A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
This was the reason the Cameron government detested John Bercow. Governments of any stripe want a compliant Speaker.
Yeah. They wanted a speaker that could be leaned on, and now they're angry because someone else leaned on him first.
I've read nothing to suggest the LDs are putting any effort into winning the Rochdale by election or are garnering support. The only LD news I've read is of an LD councillor being suspended for campaigning for the suspended Labour candidate! Much to my surprise I have managed to cash out my £20 bet at 50.0 on the LDs winning Rochdale. £1.20 profit. More importantly £20 back that I thought I would never see again. Now if the LDs go on and win I will not be happy!
Never be embarrassed about taking a profit. The aim of the game is to win. There are many nursing a large loss who would envy you.
"No-one ever went broke taking a profit" should be on the curriculum from reception class onwards. (As should the difference between debt and deficit, the miracle of compound interest, what inflation means, why deflation is even worse, the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion, and why structural engineers are better project managers than architects).
On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
Well, that's quite the point.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I agree with Southam. He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).
A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
This was the reason the Cameron government detested John Bercow. Governments of any stripe want a compliant Speaker.
Yeah. They wanted a speaker that could be leaned on, and now they're angry because someone else leaned on him first.
That may be true (for all governments...), but rather ignores the utter shiteness and look-at-me! of Bercow as Speaker.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Why should they? They get 3 chances a year to propose Opposition motions, Labour get something like 17. And the Speaker basically ruled that Labour could hijack one of the SNPs motions if they wanted to. Which, if I were the SNP, I would bang on about because it kind of makes a huge point in favour of independence for them - if the Westminster system is going to allow other parties in opposition to hijack one of their few opportunities to put forward motions, then essentially this could keep happening to them on whatever motion they bring. And so the SNP, which can never have enough seats in Westminster to be the majority nor likely be the Official Opposition, can never expect to have a clean motion on their opposition motion days again.
I don't care about tradition or parliamentary minutia, but reducing the ability of minority parties to use one of the few levels of power they have in the system we have seems bad from the point of view of a pluralistic democracy. I don't really know how the speaker fixes this short of taking an opposition day away from Labour, giving it to the SNP, and then resigning.
I'm delighted that I missed all the Parliamentary kerfuffle yesterday by having something more important to do, but I gather it was about one word and "collective punishment of the Palestinians".
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
Well, that's quite the point.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I agree with Southam. He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).
A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
This was the reason the Cameron government detested John Bercow. Governments of any stripe want a compliant Speaker.
Yeah. They wanted a speaker that could be leaned on, and now they're angry because someone else leaned on him first.
That may be true (for all governments...), but rather ignores the utter shiteness and look-at-me! of Bercow as Speaker.
MPs should be careful what they wish for. From 2000-2019 they has Bercow and Martin. What more is there to say?
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
The Police SNP investigation won't report this side of the election.
1) The do report - SNP angry, big bunfights with other parties if it partially lets the SNP off (as they see it) etc 2) They don't report, investigation ongoing - SNP happy(ier), other parties can't say anything.
Hmm. You do realise the SNP is the victim here? It's its money that was stolen, after all. Which seems to be often forgotten. The question is who did it - but also who failed to spot it, which is another but different [edit] matter.
I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.
Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
The north coast of Britain is stunning. Make the trip.
Really tempting to take Friday off and just disappear tonight and catch the sleep train to Inverness. I'd be there by lunchtime tomorrow.
Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
When I was 17 my dad saved tokens from Sainsburys and bought cheap ba tickets from Gatwick to Inverness. We spent the weekend touring the north coast to Skye and flew back from Glasgow.
Worth it!
Amazing!
I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.
Expensive though.
Ha. I’ve just done it and several other lines. Took the Caledonian Sleeper to Inverness ten days ago and it was wonderful. Coming over the Drumochter Pass when there was still snow was magical.
Then last Friday I took the Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh line which is absolutely stunning. I was lucky with the weather. Just breathtakingly beautiful.
On Sunday I took the West Highland line from Fort William to Glasgow which … well the superlatives simply roll on and on.
I took the Caledonian Sleeper to FW not long ago too and if anything that was even lovelier, although FW doesn’t compare as a town to the city of Inverness.
Three of the world’s most scenic railway journeys right there, right here, on our doorstep.
Highly highly recommended.
xx
The Inverness to fort William line is stunning
Yet few people know of it. Mad
Incredibly the DK Guide to Scotland barely mentions that line or the other three I’ve mentioned. All of which would get a double page spread if they were anywhere else on the planet. Utterly bizarre.
The West Highland Line has several times been voted the most beautiful railway journey in the world.
Thoroughly recommend these routes. There’s something quite magical about sleeping out of Euston, or indeed hitting on board bar @Leon and waking up to sunrise in the Highlands.
One of my favourite things about the Inverness Kyle line is that there’s a station called “Muir of Ord”
I’ve been on that line a couple of times and I always faintly hope that the station - being so remote - is literally named after one guy, Muir, from Ord, who stands there in the middle of the forest and occasionally gets on the train
To those who complain about the Caledonian Sleeper being pricey, well … maybe … but ...
For c. £200 Club Class you're getting a night’s accommodation with breakfast + the travel itself in some style + the views
I had a solid 7 hours’ sleep with lovely sheets and duvet. Took my shower in my room. Was served my proper coffee and Scottish porridge and watched a snowy sunrise over the Cairngorms, to arrive in beautiful Inverness. A while back on the other side I woke in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in time for the climb up across stunning Rannoch Moor.
Worth every penny of £200 in my book.
I had to go to Aberdeen for the RSS Conference. I wanted to go by Caledonian Sleeper but it sold out the week I went to the travel agent. I went by plane instead. It wasn't as nice. The faff involved in front door to taxi to airport to flight to airport to taxi to hotel is not good. I hate trains but sleepers look much more fun and yes, 200 pounds would have been worth it.
How can anyone - especially a PBer - “hate trains”?
😶
I get that an early morning commute from Stockport to Walsall might not be as romantic as the trans Siberian but still - trains!
Agree. I find I get bored driving after about 100 miles, particularly if on a motorway and I hate the hassle of flying. I have done 2 trips around Italy by train and 1 across Portugal and my regular French cycle trip involves a lot of trains (10 for the last trip) to get to/from our start/end points. They are all really enjoyable and the European trains tend to be on time and very cheap.
French trains are great. They all gripe about the TER but compared to Northern Rail at its worst they’re almost flawless.
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
I’m on the Eurostar in april. Is it still suffering hideous queues at the termini?
They are better. STP is now ok (used to be queuing round the corner) and they stand there helpfully with the train number and time.
The absurdity of the two customs gates persists (WHICH YOU VOTED FOR, ahem) so it can be luck of the draw at Gare du Nord.
The French border playing silly buggers? You amaze me. Whenever major border problems with the EU are raised, it always seems to be with France. I'm not a massive European traveller, but both of my experiences of leaving/entering the EU since Britain left the EU have been no less seamless than they were when we were a member. But neither of these have involved France.
We're going to Europe in August - the plan is to get the ferry from Hull to Rotterdam, spend time in the low countries, then come back through the tunnel. I have some misgivings about including France in my itinerary because of the potential for silly buggers being played - but it will save us about £250 if we can suck up that risk.
I believe we asked them to take back control. So they did.
I’ve never had problems with French border staff. They’ve allowed me to use staff only lanes to ensure I reached flights and last time waited at the gate as I bordered plane 2 as the door was closing to stamp my passport and allow me on to the flight
Yes, but you look German
Was it you with the breakdown of PB members' earnings/net worth? Now this. I'm starting to think you have a dossier on all of us
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
Can someone please do something about the wifi on the Eurostar, while we are about it.
True dat - it's rather crap. Also, what's happened to the food? Used to be not bad, now it's poor airline standard.
PS For what it's worth we just had three nights in Paris - in contrast to Eurostar, the dining was very good on each night. We tried a 'cheap' bistro, a mid-range restaurant, and a Michelin-starred restaurant. All great food within their class and surprisingly excellent service. Expensive though - London-level prices.
So Leon's sort of right from our quick sortie: France (Paris) is no longer providing outstanding food value imo - those days are gone - but solid fare and also dishes you rarely see in the UK. Spain and Italy well ahead these days though.
Thanks to whoever recommended Benoit btw.
I used to really enjoy the Eurostar (even when not cycling), but getting on and off is a bit like taking a plane these days and then when they stopped taking unfolded bikes I had no choice but to find another means. Even if they have started again (I have no idea if they have), I have no intention of going back to them. It is now train to the ferry, ferry (where bikers are treated like Gods for some reason) and TER the other end.
Lyon is excellent for food by the way. I had a five course lunch with my missus at a Michelin star restaurant with wine and some of the best food I’ve ever had for a shade over £100.
France is odd regarding food. I tend to find in the UK you get what you pay for but in France I have had some awful meals and yet on at least 3 occasions I have had magnificent food for practically nothing. Once was a Routier stop where we were on benches and no choice. But it was magnificent. Only spoilt by the fact that we were stopping there for another restaurant in the evening, which was very good, but I struggled to enjoy it because I was so full.
I vaguely recall having this conversation with @Leon sometime ago and him saying he had similar experiences with French food.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
There is a phenomenon of Africans who are fans of Hitler. Wacky as that sounds.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
Judging by the way the eventual motion and amendment were nodded through when "Noe" could be clearly heard, certainly not Winterton. Laing hasn't put a foot wrong so far as I remember, though there is the issue that she is with the governing party - then again so was everyone's favourite most recent speaker.
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
I'm delighted that I missed all the Parliamentary kerfuffle yesterday by having something more important to do, but I gather it was about one word and "collective punishment of the Palestinians".
That was the inciting issue, yes. But it was really about SKS likely suffering a rebellion from loads of backbenchers and even a few frontbenchers, all because he decided to whip against the SNP motion, and then realising that would be bad for him in the long run and asking the Speaker to save him. This led to the Speaker essentially allowing Labour to amend the motion, and get a vote on that before the vote on the motion itself. So the effect was the SNP having one of their few opportunities for opposition day motions taken away and given to Labour instead. Which sets a precedent for allowing opposition motions to be spiked by majorities if dealing with the motion at hand is too embarrassing for them, by reducing the ability of opposition day motions going in clean.
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
All true I’m sure
And yet Dall-e and Midjourney and stable diffusion have NOT made these terrible errors in their image creation
And it’s not like this would be hard to spot. You could red team the model for an hour and you’d say “er, wait, it’s apparently racist and it’s anti white we can’t release this”
Did they not do that? Are they so woke they didn’t actually notice - or even care? They certainly care now and I’d say the main developer’s job might be gone
This is Google. They have virtually infinite money. How did they fuck up so badly?
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
The Police SNP investigation won't report this side of the election.
1) The do report - SNP angry, big bunfights with other parties if it partially lets the SNP off (as they see it) etc 2) They don't report, investigation ongoing - SNP happy(ier), other parties can't say anything.
Hmm. You do realise the SNP is the victim here? It's its money that was stolen, after all. Which seems to be often forgotten. The question is who did it - but also who failed to spot it, which is another but different [edit] matter.
Edit: I s\hould have said, perhaps stolen but at any rate AWOL.
On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
Well, that's quite the point.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I agree with Southam. He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).
A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
This was the reason the Cameron government detested John Bercow. Governments of any stripe want a compliant Speaker.
Yeah. They wanted a speaker that could be leaned on, and now they're angry because someone else leaned on him first.
That may be true (for all governments...), but rather ignores the utter shiteness and look-at-me! of Bercow as Speaker.
MPs should be careful what they wish for. From 2000-2019 they has Bercow and Martin. What more is there to say?
On other matters, Hoyle has been a poor speaker throughout. I won’t be sorry if this brings him down, as frankly it should.
Well, that's quite the point.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
He’s at least the best Speaker they’ve had since Boothroyd (though given the two intervening ones, that’s not saying much). I think he’s a decent man and I think he cares about the HoC so he clearly meets the job requirements. I think part of the problem is he has made playing by the rulebook his shtick (particularly in light of his predecessor’s… inventiveness) so when he didn’t the fall is more severe.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I must say that I barely notice him most of the time. Which is a massive step up from Bercow, of course.
Bercow was a symptom not the cause though . If May hadn’t blown the election and had a healthy majority there would have been little controversy around Bercow .
The controversy around Bercow started long before May's tenure as PM, didn't it?
The real drama started after the 2017 election. Which I admit was compulsive viewing with some of those dramatic votes with razor thin winning majorities .
Since then it’s all been a bit dull until last night .
Each has positives and negatives to them, but Bercow is a much bigger arse so any quibbles MPs had about individual matters with Hoyle never really blew up.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
The Police SNP investigation won't report this side of the election.
1) The do report - SNP angry, big bunfights with other parties if it partially lets the SNP off (as they see it) etc 2) They don't report, investigation ongoing - SNP happy(ier), other parties can't say anything.
Hmm. You do realise the SNP is the victim here? It's its money that was stolen, after all. Which seems to be often forgotten. The question is who did it - but also who failed to spot it, which is another but different [edit] matter.
The people who did.... something.... with the money are SNP members as well. As are the people who blocked auditing, reporting etc.
No party would want that kind of stuff being dragged through the courts in the run up to an election.
We won't know for some time who, if anyone, 'won' yesterday's hoo hah. Putting aside the increasing threat to politicians's safety for a moment (though this is an abomination), to win the GE, Labour need an awful lot of centrist votes to not vote Tory and to turn up and vote Labour.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
There's enough Tory bashing to go around, I am sure.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Depends what you believe the shenanigans were. Some are claiming Starmer threatened to boot him after the next election. Others claim he got a bunch of representation from MPs who were worried about their safety if they couldn’t vote for a motion that threaded the needle between the two positions.
Had the Tories not submitted what was effectively a wrecking amendment then the vote would have been between Labour and SNP versions of the motion. Normally (for some reason of ancient and silly precedent) only the government amendment would be selected. Hoyle chose to hear both amendments, his reasoning being it was a matter of conscience of some gravity. The SNP are upset because they didn’t get to vote on their motion (legit, although it was an obviously bad faith motion in the first place). The Tories are upset because they had procedural jujitsu pulled on them and they’re the only ones allowed to do that dammit.
The Tories withdrew their motion because there were enough Tory rebels to pass Labour’s amendment and then they and the SNP stormed out.
I get that the SNP motion was uncomfortable for Starmer who short months ago was saying it was legitimate for Israel to cut off food and water supplies to Gazan civilians (aka collective punishment), but if the Labour Scottish sub branch was passing motions last weekend that specifically mentioned collective punishment, how was sticking to the line they generally have for the last few months 'bad faith' on the part of the SNP?
Because it included language that was obviously designed to make it unpalatable to Labour MPs. It was a nice bit of clever drafting, but if they’d wanted genuine consensus and not a fight they’d have put up a clean “this house supports an immediate ceasefire” motion. But they didn’t, they included language on collective punishment that they knew Labour MPs would not accept. The motion was written in bad faith to cause Labour political problems. Labour figured out how to break the trap. Tough.
Perhaps if Labour had had genuine consultations and discussions with the SNP rather than lying about it, 'genuine consensus' might have happened. Unlikely, but it definitely wasn't going to happen with all the bad faith smoke screens that Labour were pumping out.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Wouldn't it be fantastic if Flynny scalps Hoyle, Starmer and Gray. He really is an impressive Bond-villain.
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
Rees-Mogg is not a stickler for precedent he is a radical revolutionary in an old timey suit and posh voice.
He thinks it's illegitimate for a PM to be forced out if the House of Commons no longer has confidence in them (not simply its a bad idea) and that winning a confidence vote is losing it if it is not large enough (unless its someone he likes).
We won't know for some time who, if anyone, 'won' yesterday's hoo hah. Putting aside the increasing threat to politicians's safety for a moment (though this is an abomination), to win the GE, Labour need an awful lot of centrist votes to not vote Tory and to turn up and vote Labour.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
I suspect most of those swing voters (if they cared about this student politics facade at all) were far happier with Labour’s motion than either of the SNP / Tory version both of which were designed to create problems with 1 community or another
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
In about 2000, we had a requirement to hire a Java dev. Because of seniority, HR marked the position as requiring a decade of experience.
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
In about 2000, we had a requirement to hire a Java dev. Because of seniority, HR marked the position as requiring a decade of experience.
Least it had been around 5 years by then.
I have a story about the writer of a tasting framework who was rejected because he didn’t have sufficient experience using said framework
Mr. Leon, while I find the black/white stuff interesting, it's not reverse racism. It's just racism.
Well yes. It is. Its pure racism
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
This is why content moderation is so error prone and laborious. Context is everything. A lot of campaigners — anti-racist, transphobia, self-harm, drugs — seem to think it must be easy to filter "bad" things from the internet but it is incredibly difficult, and it is all too easy to end up over censoring/filtering content, or flipping the bias the wrong way.
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
All true I’m sure
And yet Dall-e and Midjourney and stable diffusion have NOT made these terrible errors in their image creation
And it’s not like this would be hard to spot. You could red team the model for an hour and you’d say “er, wait, it’s apparently racist and it’s anti white we can’t release this”
Did they not do that? Are they so woke they didn’t actually notice - or even care? They certainly care now and I’d say the main developer’s job might be gone
This is Google. They have virtually infinite money. How did they fuck up so badly?
Google has been playing these silly games for a while though in their own search algorithms. You dont have to go all Paul Joseph Watson to know there's a lot of gaming and 'thumb on the scale' going on in what they put out.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
Politicians doing politics shocker. The Labour party are making gains at the expense of the SNP, so the SNP want to make Labours job more difficult. That is as much a legitimate use of Parliamentary time as anything else - that is essentially all QT has turned into, for example.
If SKS snookers himself with a bad political choice (whipping his party against a motion that many of his voters and MPs would happily vote for, and look like they will rebel against him to vote for) it should not be the job of the Speaker to save him from that. It's one thing to make these kinds of calls for real policy issues - but this was a motion where SKSs main issue was the fact the SNP were making it happen (and a bit of wording that a squish like SKS probably didn't like). If SKS allowed the motion to go through by supporting it - he shows that the SNP pushed him into this. If SKS suffers a rebellion on the issue, he looks weak, and headlines about Labour infighting happen again. SKS made the choices that led to that. He should have had to face the consequences. Instead, it sounds like, he bullied the Speaker into changing precedent to reduce the power of opposition parties in Parliament - something that will likely have future consequences. That not only weakens the ability of minority parties to do stuff, as well as reveals how the most likely person to be the next PM is going to act when he is PM.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
He's already apologises for events, that itself and the furore would I think make any Speaker including him cautious about doing it again.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
His bond to be able to appeal is 120% of the penalty, as it needs to also cover the compound interest which will apply during the appeal proceedings. That is now up to around $500 million. Plus more if he also wants to appeal the defamation suits. The civil fraud case prosecution has quite successfully managed out potential grounds for appeal, so it may not happen. He also had only 30 days to appeal.
No sympathy. Trump is a NY business man for many decades, and as such he should ne aware of business law which has been in place since the 1950s. It's all a smokescreen anyway, as we know.
Judge Cannon in Hazzard County, Florida may be about to be caught in a hammer / anvil situation. She has passed rulings which puts confidential witnesses at risk by demanding that their identities be made public by application of an inappropriate legal standard - so she will either have to reverse ferret or have it appealed to her superiors, with the risk of being swapped out. In that latter case the fairly basic Florida confidential-documents-theft case can get on track.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Wouldn't it be fantastic if Flynny scalps Hoyle, Starmer and Gray. He really is an impressive Bond-villain.
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
Actually my wife who is a Scot, said Flynn was the only mp who impressed her yesterday and she is implacable opposed to the SNP
The notion that the Conservatives are uncoaltionable was put to bed yesterday. Labour and the SNP are incompatible coalition partners. An SNP confidence and supply Tory Government after the next GE?
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
We once had a job ad that erroneously had under the 'desirables' experience with a non-existent dataset. One candidate claimed to have it, which led to a little awkwardness when we queried it during the interview In the application cover letter he claimed to have used it extensively in his present role. We interviewed anyway as he was good on paper and thought perhaps a misunderstanding or attempt to interpret it as another existing dataset, but it soon became apparent that his main skill was in bullshit.
We won't know for some time who, if anyone, 'won' yesterday's hoo hah. Putting aside the increasing threat to politicians's safety for a moment (though this is an abomination), to win the GE, Labour need an awful lot of centrist votes to not vote Tory and to turn up and vote Labour.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
I think Netanyahu with his government’s actions has moved the window on this considerably. Those swing voters, looking at polls, are generally pretty supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel.
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
We once had a job ad that erroneously had under the 'desirables' experience with a non-existent dataset. One candidate claimed to have it, which led to a little awkwardness when we queried it during the interview In the application cover letter he claimed to have used it extensively in his present role. We interviewed anyway as he was good on paper and thought perhaps a misunderstanding or attempt to interpret it as another existing dataset, but it soon became apparent that his main skill was in bullshit.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Wouldn't it be fantastic if Flynny scalps Hoyle, Starmer and Gray. He really is an impressive Bond-villain.
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
Actually my wife who is a Scot, said Flynn was the only mp who impressed her yesterday and she is implacable opposed to the SNP
The notion that the Conservatives are uncoaltionable was put to bed yesterday. Labour and the SNP are incompatible coalition partners. An SNP confidence and supply Tory Government after the next GE?
Not really though the SNP will make hay in the GE over the 'English' Westminster
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
In about 2000, we had a requirement to hire a Java dev. Because of seniority, HR marked the position as requiring a decade of experience.
Until recently we were expected to hire senior engineering staff on 32k a year. STFC had multiple labs threatening to close until treasury finally relented and let UKRI pay market rate.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
It may be a Westminster bubble concern but soon to be opposition parties and smaller parties have a right to be annoyed and upset. I rarely say this but I totally get the SNPs fury here. They don't get many opportunities to lead a conversation.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
I’ll said it yesterday but will say again. The Lib Dems, including their spokesperson who has lost family members in Gaza, acted sensibly, correctly and without any political game playing.
Davey also remains the only politician to have (half) apologised for his actions on the Horizon scandal, just as Clegg was the only politician who ever apologised over austerity.
We won't know for some time who, if anyone, 'won' yesterday's hoo hah. Putting aside the increasing threat to politicians's safety for a moment (though this is an abomination), to win the GE, Labour need an awful lot of centrist votes to not vote Tory and to turn up and vote Labour.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
I think Netanyahu with his government’s actions has moved the window on this considerably. Those swing voters, looking at polls, are generally pretty supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel.
Subtle difference. Yes, attitudes about Israel and its relationships have shifted and sympathy for the plight of Palestinians has grown. That is not accompanied, IMHO, for centrist swing voters by a growing sympathy for anti Semitism, Islamism or Hamas. Nor does that group have a quiet sympathy with the threat of intimidation in UK politics.
His bond to be able to appeal is 120% of the penalty, as it needs to also cover the compound interest which will apply during the appeal proceedings. That is now up to around $500 million. Plus more if he also wants to appeal the defamation suits. The civil fraud case prosecution has quite successfully managed out potential grounds for appeal, so it may not happen. He also had only 30 days to appeal.
No sympathy. Trump is a NY business man for many decades, and as such he should ne aware of business law which has been in place since the 1950s. It's all a smokescreen anyway, as we know.
Judge Cannon in Hazzard County, Florida may be about to be caught in a hammer / anvil situation. She has passed rulings which puts confidential witnesses at risk by demanding that their identities be made public by application of an inappropriate legal standard - so she will either have to reverse ferret or have it appealed to her superiors, with the risk of being swapped out. In that latter case the fairly basic Florida confidential-documents-theft case can get on track.
She doesn't seem to be very on the ball. Not in the sense of disliking her decisions, though that can also be true, but in not covering herself well enough. As I understand it most procedural stuff a judge can make a call on is not directly appealable at least upfront, so doing something which could be overruled would be a big error. And she got some big slap downs on the special master stuff which was very deferential to Trump.
Trump seems angriest about the New York case because it hits his pocket, but he should be very worried about the documents case as the facts and law look very straightforward.
I assume they'll find a way to push that one beyond the election nonetheless though.
Grim news from Birmingham today. City Council has announced cuts to deal with effective insolvency notice. Includes:
-sale of £750m of assets -cuts of to public services by £300m over two years -21% rise in Council Tax -dimming street lights -fortnightly bin collections
Their liabilities for equal pay claims that look quite tenuous ought to make people question the premise of the legislation.
Refuse collectors have been paid more than all other council jobs of the same grade. Refuse collectors are nearly all men. Other jobs are partly or mostly women. The net effect of the implementation of the law says that a man working a grade 3 job at the council can claim equal pay compensation under what is called sex discrimination. On the surface that seems wrong. Beneath that, a grade 3 worker in one job should be paid the same as a grade 3 worker in another job regardless of sex. The mockery of the law is that if the council outsources workers, the law no-longer applies and they can be paid wildly different amounts. Even though they do the same job and ultimately for the same people.
It's not the same job, if it was the same job then why don't people who want to be paid a refuse collectors wage apply to be a refuge collector?
Supply and demand should set wages. If another job pays more, then go for it. If you don't want to, then maybe that is the reason it pays more?
Our collections typically happen at 7am and in this time of year it's happening in miserable, cold, wet, outdoor weather.
Should people who work outside of normal hours, outside, exposed to the elements like the rain be paid more than people who do a comparably skilled job, for which there's much more of a supply of people willing to do it, who work comfortably inside? I don't see why not.
The concept of banding has stretched. And now snapped.
It comes back to bizarre nonsense about status and pay.
So we can’t pay people in public service the going rate. Because they might get paid more than “their band”.
So we have the comedy of job adverts for IT specialists with a decade of experience and paid £40k, in London.
Which is why the public sector makes such extensive use of contractors in services such as IT.
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
We once had a job ad that erroneously had under the 'desirables' experience with a non-existent dataset. One candidate claimed to have it, which led to a little awkwardness when we queried it during the interview In the application cover letter he claimed to have used it extensively in his present role. We interviewed anyway as he was good on paper and thought perhaps a misunderstanding or attempt to interpret it as another existing dataset, but it soon became apparent that his main skill was in bullshit.
Ha, I might have to try that one (on purpose) the next time I need to recruit.
We won't know for some time who, if anyone, 'won' yesterday's hoo hah. Putting aside the increasing threat to politicians's safety for a moment (though this is an abomination), to win the GE, Labour need an awful lot of centrist votes to not vote Tory and to turn up and vote Labour.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
I suspect most of those swing voters (if they cared about this student politics facade at all) were far happier with Labour’s motion than either of the SNP / Tory version both of which were designed to create problems with 1 community or another
I agree. But swing voters are going to have attention drawn to the wider Labour family, in all its Rochdale like diversity, in a very dirty GE campaign.
My own view is that a moderate Labour government is essential for the country. Without that chance there is no-one left to vote for, so a good deal hangs on Starmer's dexterity.
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
They have only three parliamentary days and wasted an entire one on this?
How dare they decide what they want to pursue in their allotted time, far better to let Sir Keir and Sir Lindsay decide for them.
Presumably there was nothing vaguely pertaining to Scotland that they could have chosen to pursue?
Why should they have to? It's a perfectly legitimate topic of debate at Westminster.
Of course it is. But there is a clear pattern. The SNP motion was clearly designed to cause problems for Labour, which is fair enough. But in recent times it does appear that the SNP is forever focusing its attacks on Labour, and not the Tories. For example, Flynn's two questions at PMQs are now often used, quite cleverly, to attack Starmer rather than Sunak.
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
Quite a few stories got buried yesterday by the parliamentary pisstake. If only we could weaponise that shithousery and use it in place of our totally working nuclear arsenal.
That story came up before yesterday. It wasn't buried by the "parliamentary pisstake".
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
It may be a Westminster bubble concern but soon to be opposition parties and smaller parties have a right to be annoyed and upset. I rarely say this but I totally get the SNPs fury here. They don't get many opportunities to lead a conversation.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Wouldn't it be fantastic if Flynny scalps Hoyle, Starmer and Gray. He really is an impressive Bond-villain.
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
Actually my wife who is a Scot, said Flynn was the only mp who impressed her yesterday and she is implacable opposed to the SNP
The notion that the Conservatives are uncoaltionable was put to bed yesterday. Labour and the SNP are incompatible coalition partners. An SNP confidence and supply Tory Government after the next GE?
Interesting point. Until yesterday it seemed clear that the SNP would, through gritted teeth, ensure if necessary that there was a non-Tory government after the GE. As of today the impression is that their view of that matter would rather be that of SF MPs - not our country, don't care, plague on every house.
That would of course greatly increase the arena of results, already large enough, which would be fundamentally chaotic in consequence.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
He's already apologises for events, that itself and the furore would I think make any Speaker including him cautious about doing it again.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
I don't understand a system that says other parties can propose amendments, but they're never picked.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
I take the point but I think we do have to be extra cautious about any hint of threat or intimidation affecting our politics. Because once it happens its very hard to turn back and it can just spiral downwards.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
"I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support."
What exactly did Hoyle do, again? It is an outrage and I am outraged but I can't quite pin down what he did.
Very nuanced front page of the Graun today illustrating whatever point it was.
Went against the advice of his top clerk, see Tom Goldsmith's letter on X (Other social media is available) for procedure.
Only took soundings from Starmer prior to going against the advice of Goldsmith.
On one of only 3 out of 20 parliamentary days per session per sitting allocated to the SNP, the above actions effectively high-jacking the day away from them.
OK thanks makes sense. So he f**ked the SNP by privileging Lab and everyone disliked that.
Why did he do it and what did the Cons want, for example.
Out of a fear of reprisals on MPs. But here's another point, you don't just change parliamentary procedure after hearing one captain with his own interests for fear of the mob.
It's interesting, as I don't really give a fig about tradition or the minutia of parliamentary procedure, but I do think anything that removes the (little) power minority parties have is bad. By essentially allowing the Labour amendment to get voted on first, Hoyle took away the SNP motion on their day to do motions. If Hoyle took away one of the Labour days and gave the SNP another day as recompense (essentially admitting that he did, in fact, reduce the ability for the SNP to put forward a motion on the day that should have heard their motion) I would be fine with that; but I doubt Hoyle would do that because I suspect there is no precedent for such thing and it would be too close to admitting to doing something he shouldn't have done.
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
Not so much Westminster trickery but new trickery made up on the spot by SKS. Like he suddenly decides there's no such thing as an offside rule, scores what he claims is a goal, and bullies the referee into agreeing.
But SKS is likely going to be the next PM - and this situation sets a precedent. Now no opposition party can ever feel safe in the understanding that their opposition day motion won't be scuppered by the Speaker letting it be reworded and then voted on by the bigger (majority English) parties. To me it would be a wasted opportunity if the SNP did not take this fury away and campaign on it. It may sound dull and procedural and boring, but at the end of the day the voice of minority parties has been diminished within the Westminster system after this ruling by Hoyle.
Which also affects the Tories after they (probably) lose the next election, of course, the LDs, and Labour next time they lose an election. Indeed, I hope the Tories try that on SKS the next opposition day motion. Or indeed the SNP try it. If only to force the question to a head.
It may be a Westminster bubble concern but soon to be opposition parties and smaller parties have a right to be annoyed and upset. I rarely say this but I totally get the SNPs fury here. They don't get many opportunities to lead a conversation.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
How can they? They don't have principles just a desire to jump on bandwagons.
SNP demanding the Speaker makes a personal statement on his involvement with Starmer
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
Wouldn't it be fantastic if Flynny scalps Hoyle, Starmer and Gray. He really is an impressive Bond-villain.
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
Actually my wife who is a Scot, said Flynn was the only mp who impressed her yesterday and she is implacable opposed to the SNP
The notion that the Conservatives are uncoaltionable was put to bed yesterday. Labour and the SNP are incompatible coalition partners. An SNP confidence and supply Tory Government after the next GE?
Interesting point. Until yesterday it seemed clear that the SNP would, through gritted teeth, ensure if necessary that there was a non-Tory government after the GE. As of today the impression is that their view of that matter would rather be that of SF MPs - not our country, don't care, plague on every house.
That would of course greatly increase the arena of results, already large enough, which would be fundamentally chaotic in consequence.
SF don’t turn up so don’t stop things going through parliament.
The SNP would turn up (once in a while) and vote against everything so any parliament without an actual majority would be very short lived.
I suspect however that the subsequent election would result in fewer SNP MPs as people decided they wanted a functioning Government
Blistering stuff from Mordaunt just now in the Commons. I'm not sure she's actually helping matters, but it's astonishing that she's not front-runner for next Tory leader.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
So aside from firebombings, racist graffiti on offices, threatening letters, emails, phone calls... There is no actual threat to MPs.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
I think I have it right that Stephen Timms and David Amess were attacked by individuals with Islamist motivation. And Jo Cox by an individual with a Far Right motivation.
I think Hoyle made a poor call and is legitimately and reasonably facing heat for it, but forcing a resignation over it would just be dumb and disproportionate. Poor calls happen, move on.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
He has set a pretty significant precedent for future parliaments and future Speakers - by forcing him out of the chair parliament is saying this precedent is bad and they won't let it stand. It would essentially tell future Speakers that if you follow this precedent (because I don't think there is a way to go back on it now) they will, too, be forced out.
He's already apologises for events, that itself and the furore would I think make any Speaker including him cautious about doing it again.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
I don't understand a system that says other parties can propose amendments, but they're never picked.
The 3rd party days propositions for debate come rarely. On the whole of course they will always lose the vote - they are the third party. But their proposal gets lost in a fog of procedure if there are multiple amendments. Hence the convention.
Labour of course didn't want to have to vote on either the SNP or the government's proposal, as they have to carefully tread a line as the Labour party is (irrevocably??) split between its social democrat Israel wing and its socialist/Marxist/radical/woke pro Palestine wing.
People are massively underestimating how this is, once fully unfurled, an election changing issue for Labour. But Starmer knows. It's a Black Swan on the horizon. He had to avoid a vote because it would reveal a massive split. But can he keep it hidden?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges I spoke to an MP yesterday who told me he had weighed up his own physical safety when deciding on how to vote on yesterday’s Gaza motion. We have crossed a line now. We are not a properly functioning democracy if this is a factor in how our elected representatives act.
I just don't take this in good faith. I'm sorry, but the same line was trotted out by SCOTUS post Dobbs when people all over the US started protested the leak that they were going to destroy Roe and essentially make abortion illegal in multiple states, and practically illegal in many more - and it was BS then too. With great power comes great responsibility; and great consequences if you misuse that power. I think online and physical harassment should not happen to anyone, but that doesn't mean all forms of showing disgust with the person tasked to represent you is a threat.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
The level of threats and abuse around what is going on in Palestine is egregious.
Azerbaijan recently ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh, but basically no-one in the UK even raised an eyebrow. Large numbers of people have died or been displaced in fighting in Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar, but you see little reporting on any of this. Ditto the ongoing conflict in Syria. No MP has been made to feel unsafe over any of these.
What is happening in Gaza, and Israel/Palestine more broadly, is horrendous and I'm all for people in the UK paying attention to these events, and campaigning for a better way. However, the level of outrage around Palestine is now, and has for some years, been so much greater than other tragedies. This is because parts of the Left have made Palestine a cause célèbre. This had led to a level of protest that leaves politicians and communities feeling threatened. This is not a good thing. This has done nothing to actually improve the situation in Israel/Palestine.
I've read nothing to suggest the LDs are putting any effort into winning the Rochdale by election or are garnering support. The only LD news I've read is of an LD councillor being suspended for campaigning for the suspended Labour candidate! Much to my surprise I have managed to cash out my £20 bet at 50.0 on the LDs winning Rochdale. £1.20 profit. More importantly £20 back that I thought I would never see again. Now if the LDs go on and win I will not be happy!
Never be embarrassed about taking a profit. The aim of the game is to win. There are many nursing a large loss who would envy you.
I've heard on the grapevine that the LibDems are not seriously contesting Rochdale - no outside help or extra finance. But they do have a candidate. I'd say 200/1 chance of winning if that.
If SKS did not visit the Speaker yesterday to persuade him to allow the Labour amendment,Im surprised he has not personally confirmed this..
Starmer visit is not contested
Why is Starmer not facing any flack for doing that then?
He did, yesterday, when it was put about that he threatened the speaker's position if he did not acquiesce. The story has evolved in that Starmer argued that his MPs were receiving death threats and that his motion was designed to unify all of the opinions and move past the narrow partisanship which weaponises the issue.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
Comments
The SNP strategy may be understandable in trying to protect its HoC seats from Labour, but I do wonder if some of its supporters would like to see more focus on criticising the Tories, with whose views they have much less in common.
Not a firing squad, as such.
And there are far worse examples than what I’ve showed - go and look on TwiX
I don’t want to spam the site with AI images or text
This is also a major reputational hit for Google. All this time everyone’s been kinda presuming they are sitting on some fabulous AI that they just haven’t released
Not so. This image generator - besides being dreadfully woke and calamitously racist - is seriously poor. Way behind much smaller competitors like Midjourney
So what the fuck are Google doing? This is THE tech of the moment. They do have deepmind which is producing good stuff but Google itself apparently has fuck all
And they are far far behind OpenAI
And this race could be winner-takes-all
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-police-scotland-investigation-staff-working-at-party-headquarters-in-edinburgh-to-be-re-interviewed-under-operation-branchform-4527026
Such innocent days.
Sky saying the SNP is not letting up at all
At the end of the day Starmer had snookered himself politically by pissing off his base (and many MPs) by being mealy mouthed on a ceasefire in Gaza. Sure, the SNP may have been playing politics with the issue, but they're politicians - making your opponents face the consequences of their political decisions by doing politics with issues is their job. Getting the Speaker to save him (and reportedly threatening to oust him in the next parliament if he didn't) is Starmer refusing to deal with the consequences of his actions by just squashing democratic opposition.
This could be a gold mine for the SNP. Westminster trickery to deny them one of the only days they have to propose motions, and a motion that likely had support by many SNP (and ScotLab) voters, all to save the Starmer from a backbench (and potentially frontbench) rebellion. Another argument for Scotland and their representatives being ignored by the Westminster system in favour of a political elite based in England.
1) The do report - SNP angry, big bunfights with other parties if it partially lets the SNP off (as they see it) etc
2) They don't report, investigation ongoing - SNP happy(ier), other parties can't say anything.
Also I am struck by the notion that "Labour MPs" all just happen to agree (a) with each other and (b) with SKS on the intolerability of the SNP wording, conveniently for SKS. IANAE on the intestinal travails of the workers' party, but surely it's not that monolithic, even outwith Scotland (which isn't, as you noted)?
I don't care about tradition or parliamentary minutia, but reducing the ability of minority parties to use one of the few levels of power they have in the system we have seems bad from the point of view of a pluralistic democracy. I don't really know how the speaker fixes this short of taking an opposition day away from Labour, giving it to the SNP, and then resigning.
I'm delighted that I missed all the Parliamentary kerfuffle yesterday by having something more important to do, but I gather it was about one word and "collective punishment of the Palestinians".
You can take a "bad word" and in one context it's racism, in another the user is part of the group being targetted and is referring to themself, or it might be a lyric, or a quote from a book, or a discussion about the bad word. Or it might even be a discussion of any of those uses and the difficulty of determining context clearly. Context can be huge, just think of all the things we recognise from our shared culture that you would understand the origin of from a short quote alone with no other information, even though I might be referring to an event decades ago.
So an attempt to make more diverse images (some people think this is good) leads to images of Black Nazis (whoops your context wasn't aware that a Black Nazi would have been incredible rare or non-existant). Even Google aren't smart enough to get this stuff right all the time.
It occurs to me that we will know we have a real AGI or even artificial superintelligence when they don't make these sort of mistakes.
What benefit would there be to anyone in doing so, when he's otherwise not been an awful Speaker? Who will replace him and will him being forced out make them well inclined to those forcing him out?
I vaguely recall having this conversation with @Leon sometime ago and him saying he had similar experiences with French food.
After all, you get tons of Slavic Nazis..
The funniest IT job adverts remain those asking for five years’ experience in a two-year-old technology, with some HR droid on the other end wondering why all their incoming applications are getting filtered out.
And yet Dall-e and Midjourney and stable diffusion have NOT made these terrible errors in their image creation
And it’s not like this would be hard to spot. You could red team the model for an hour and you’d say “er, wait, it’s apparently racist and it’s anti white we can’t release this”
Did they not do that? Are they so woke they didn’t actually notice - or even care? They certainly care now and I’d say the main developer’s job might be gone
This is Google. They have virtually infinite money. How did they fuck up so badly?
What of the heroine of yesterday. There was only one. The fragrant Penny!
No party would want that kind of stuff being dragged through the courts in the run up to an election.
This swing vote - they are the ones who count - won't turn up if they think there is the slightest danger of Labour tilting in an Islamist or an anti Semitic direction. They are the same people who queued up to make sure that the Friend of Hamas did not become PM in 2017 (through gritted teeth) and 2019 (slightly but not much more cheerfully).
The mere fact that Labour had to play games is a sufficient signal that there is a problem, compounded by the horror of Rochdale, where an allegedly 'moderate' Islamic candidate proved to be a conspiracy theorist of QAnon quality.
The three million swing voters are watching. A number of PBers are among them. This is why (betting post) NOM remains value.
He thinks it's illegitimate for a PM to be forced out if the House of Commons no longer has confidence in them (not simply its a bad idea) and that winning a confidence vote is losing it if it is not large enough (unless its someone he likes).
He's got the consistency of a custard pudding.
I have a story about the writer of a tasting framework who was rejected because he didn’t have sufficient experience using said framework
If SKS snookers himself with a bad political choice (whipping his party against a motion that many of his voters and MPs would happily vote for, and look like they will rebel against him to vote for) it should not be the job of the Speaker to save him from that. It's one thing to make these kinds of calls for real policy issues - but this was a motion where SKSs main issue was the fact the SNP were making it happen (and a bit of wording that a squish like SKS probably didn't like). If SKS allowed the motion to go through by supporting it - he shows that the SNP pushed him into this. If SKS suffers a rebellion on the issue, he looks weak, and headlines about Labour infighting happen again. SKS made the choices that led to that. He should have had to face the consequences. Instead, it sounds like, he bullied the Speaker into changing precedent to reduce the power of opposition parties in Parliament - something that will likely have future consequences. That not only weakens the ability of minority parties to do stuff, as well as reveals how the most likely person to be the next PM is going to act when he is PM.
New things happen to develop new precedent, but it only becomes convention if it keeps on happening. Many things are potentially possible based on if they've happened before but nonetheless advice and guidance mean they almost never do.
His bond to be able to appeal is 120% of the penalty, as it needs to also cover the compound interest which will apply during the appeal proceedings. That is now up to around $500 million. Plus more if he also wants to appeal the defamation suits. The civil fraud case prosecution has quite successfully managed out potential grounds for appeal, so it may not happen. He also had only 30 days to appeal.
No sympathy. Trump is a NY business man for many decades, and as such he should ne aware of business law which has been in place since the 1950s. It's all a smokescreen anyway, as we know.
Judge Cannon in Hazzard County, Florida may be about to be caught in a hammer / anvil situation. She has passed rulings which puts confidential witnesses at risk by demanding that their identities be made public by application of an inappropriate legal standard - so she will either have to reverse ferret or have it appealed to her superiors, with the risk of being swapped out. In that latter case the fairly basic Florida confidential-documents-theft case can get on track.
Have the LDs weighed in on the principles at play here?
Davey also remains the only politician to have (half) apologised for his actions on the Horizon scandal, just as Clegg was the only politician who ever apologised over austerity.
Trump seems angriest about the New York case because it hits his pocket, but he should be very worried about the documents case as the facts and law look very straightforward.
I assume they'll find a way to push that one beyond the election nonetheless though.
My own view is that a moderate Labour government is essential for the country. Without that chance there is no-one left to vote for, so a good deal hangs on Starmer's dexterity.
It has become a pattern amongst powerful people, now that social media and such allows people to directly respond to them, to cast all forms of criticism as a threat, or as abuse. And much of the time it just isn't - it's average people sharing their opinion to powerful people who aren't used to having average people question them in such a manner.
That would of course greatly increase the arena of results, already large enough, which would be fundamentally chaotic in consequence.
Oh, and a few murders.
Gotcha.
Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP. Well said.
The SNP would turn up (once in a while) and vote against everything so any parliament without an actual majority would be very short lived.
I suspect however that the subsequent election would result in fewer SNP MPs as people decided they wanted a functioning Government
And Jo Cox by an individual with a Far Right motivation.
Labour of course didn't want to have to vote on either the SNP or the government's proposal, as they have to carefully tread a line as the Labour party is (irrevocably??) split between its social democrat Israel wing and its socialist/Marxist/radical/woke pro Palestine wing.
People are massively underestimating how this is, once fully unfurled, an election changing issue for Labour. But Starmer knows. It's a Black Swan on the horizon. He had to avoid a vote because it would reveal a massive split. But can he keep it hidden?
Azerbaijan recently ethnically cleansed Nagorno-Karabakh, but basically no-one in the UK even raised an eyebrow. Large numbers of people have died or been displaced in fighting in Yemen, Sudan and Myanmar, but you see little reporting on any of this. Ditto the ongoing conflict in Syria. No MP has been made to feel unsafe over any of these.
What is happening in Gaza, and Israel/Palestine more broadly, is horrendous and I'm all for people in the UK paying attention to these events, and campaigning for a better way. However, the level of outrage around Palestine is now, and has for some years, been so much greater than other tragedies. This is because parts of the Left have made Palestine a cause célèbre. This had led to a level of protest that leaves politicians and communities feeling threatened. This is not a good thing. This has done nothing to actually improve the situation in Israel/Palestine.
I was on the LibDems at 100 and out at 40.
This is the simple truth about BJO calling Starmer a "genocide enabler" - death threats against MPs as a result. Wherever you stand on this issue, we can't have government by mob. On any issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/21/how-keir-starmer-averted-gaza-ceasefire-vote-crisis