You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
Honestly, it might be worth looking into a limited version of that - especially now that Spain is so much harder to retire to thanks to Brexit.
Build a new city on the Egyptian Mediterranean or Red Sea coasts, or even the Ethiopian highlands - big countries with plenty of capacity to absorb an increase in (relatively) wealthy population. Britain could easily part-fund hospitals and care facilities at lower cost than we pay for the NHS, and pensions would go a hell of a lot further...
About 750k people retire each year in the UK, just about enough to cancel out our current net migration rate. Surely this is what Refuk intend...
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s a tricky one, because I suspect Russia also knows it could ratchet up its “global South” propaganda to make half the UN believe “plucky” Transnistria is being denied its right to self determination by evil Western imperialists. So Moldova or Romania simply walking in and kicking out the separatists wouldn’t work - we saw how Russia exploited this moral ambiguity with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008.
It’s also tricky for Romania as a NATO member to get directly involved if things turn military. But I wonder about some form of little green men option.
Probably the best response would be to ignore any annexation demands, ensure any military supply lines to Transnistria are firmly choked off, and then wait.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The Apple new phone experience is truly amazing.
Apple have all sorts of odd crapiness though. For example iTunes really is hopeless. The areas that they choose to ignore really get ignored.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
It’s supposed to be a deterrent; if the order to fire them comes through, it will have failed, and it doesn’t matter whether the missiles work or not.
The problem is the potential opposition knowing that they don’t work, in advance.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
According to my consultant if I hadn't had my pacemaker two weeks ago, by Summer nobody would have had to deport me anywhere !!!!
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
Honestly, it might be worth looking into a limited version of that - especially now that Spain is so much harder to retire to thanks to Brexit.
Build a new city on the Egyptian Mediterranean or Red Sea coasts, or even the Ethiopian highlands - big countries with plenty of capacity to absorb an increase in (relatively) wealthy population. Britain could easily part-fund hospitals and care facilities at lower cost than we pay for the NHS, and pensions would go a hell of a lot further...
About 750k people retire each year in the UK, just about enough to cancel out our current net migration rate. Surely this is what Refuk intend...
I hear Rwanda is a beautiful and - by parliamentary decree - safe spot so that might be ideal for retirees.
On a serious note I don’t think any country has tried offshoring social care demand yet but it makes sense. Consider how corporates manage opex and cost reductions. They either:
- Make headcount reductions (not really morally acceptable on our elderly) - Squeeze suppliers through procurement (government already does this a lot but it’s a difficult task), - Offshore resources to lower cost locations (as suggested here), or - invest in automation, which is certainly an option - see Japan - but still not feasible for things like wiping bottoms or changing bedclothes
It’s interesting to speculate how many people would take this up. Not enough I suspect. Too many family ties. But it could help at the margins if we did a few health and social security deals with nearish countries.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
And, for us nerds, dpkg --get-selections | dpkg --set-selections has worked since the prehistoric era...
Oh, you're a Debian user?
I guess compiling packages from scratch is too complicated for you.
dpkg - I've only ever used apt and I've being using Debian / Ubuntu for about 25 years..
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
And, for us nerds, dpkg --get-selections | dpkg --set-selections has worked since the prehistoric era...
Oh, you're a Debian user?
I guess compiling packages from scratch is too complicated for you.
dpkg - I've only ever used apt and I've being using Debian / Ubuntu for about 25 years..
Oh, dpkg was revolutionary when it first came out in the late 90s. But then apt made it (largely) redundant. I used to use to install things where I wanted versions to be frozen, but I can't think of anything which I still use dpkg for.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
Honestly, it might be worth looking into a limited version of that - especially now that Spain is so much harder to retire to thanks to Brexit.
Build a new city on the Egyptian Mediterranean or Red Sea coasts, or even the Ethiopian highlands - big countries with plenty of capacity to absorb an increase in (relatively) wealthy population. Britain could easily part-fund hospitals and care facilities at lower cost than we pay for the NHS, and pensions would go a hell of a lot further...
About 750k people retire each year in the UK, just about enough to cancel out our current net migration rate. Surely this is what Refuk intend...
I hear Rwanda is a beautiful and - by parliamentary decree - safe spot so that might be ideal for retirees.
On a serious note I don’t think any country has tried offshoring social care demand yet but it makes sense. Consider how corporates manage opex and cost reductions. They either:
- Make headcount reductions (not really morally acceptable on our elderly) - Squeeze suppliers through procurement (government already does this a lot but it’s a difficult task), - Offshore resources to lower cost locations (as suggested here), or - invest in automation, which is certainly an option - see Japan - but still not feasible for things like wiping bottoms or changing bedclothes
It’s interesting to speculate how many people would take this up. Not enough I suspect. Too many family ties. But it could help at the margins if we did a few health and social security deals with nearish countries.
Maybe as the generations who have more incidence of not having children approach old age it will become a much more attractive prospect. A “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” situation but on a larger scale. Company, good weather and food and funds stretching further.
Maybe one of our more geriatric posters could report back if Cambodia is another option for this.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
A rapid merger of nuclear deterrent with France would do the job.
France cross-subsidise the cost of missile development with Ariane, don't they - the current M51 SLBMs are the Ariane 5 solid boosters, the previous M45s were from Ariane 4.
But Ariane 6 is smaller, and the solid boosters produce only half the thrust. So not much further scope for cross-subsidy.
So they might actually be open to considering joint development of a common replacement...
On the other hand, Trident II is described as "the most reliable booster ever built" (based on what?), and the Dreadnought subs currently being built would likely need to be scrapped before even being launched.
Who'd have thought it? Turns out that Paul "GB News" Marshall has some really unpleasant views: https://archive.is/C8Zcn
I used to know - and like - Paul Marshall very much. Haven't seen him for many years mind, although I was in the Marshall Wace offices not that long ago.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I agree; except Moldova essentially has zero military to move into Transnistria. The Russian military are already there, btw, and want a link along the southern coast of Ukraine to it.
(It's actually - for Eurovision - rather a catchy tune)
It was about merger between Romania and Moldova, but the band denied this and said it was just about a happy train journey so as not to fall foul of Eurovision’s no politics rule.
The lyrics are pretty explicit, with all the two countries or one lark. But they had to say it.
I think that’s the line they cut for the Eurovision version. Edits were made.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
I have an Android phone. Does the same. Got new phone, restored everything from old phone.
Both matter. The trouble is, it is easy to hate. Those people over there have the wrong politics, or the wrong religion, or the wrong genitalia. You name it, others will hate it.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
A rapid merger of nuclear deterrent with France would do the job.
France cross-subsidise the cost of missile development with Ariane, don't they - the current M51 SLBMs are the Ariane 5 solid boosters, the previous M45s were from Ariane 4.
But Ariane 6 is smaller, and the solid boosters produce only half the thrust. So not much further scope for cross-subsidy.
So they might actually be open to considering joint development of a common replacement...
On the other hand, Trident II is described as "the most reliable booster ever built" (based on what?), and the Dreadnought subs currently being built would likely need to be scrapped before even being launched.
Might be a fun double cross on the Aussies given the whole AUKUS situation. Maybe wait to see the result of the next Ashes series.
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.
Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.
Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.
Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.
1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.
Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.
Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?
Yep. Preston too far.
I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.
I suppose I deserve a Whigging.
Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.
The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.
Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?
Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.
Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.
Thanks, much appreciated.
He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.
My experience of the Alt M6 is that it is better to pay, and enjoy the 10 minutes you save.
It depends where you're going from/to and when.
If you're travelling at 9.30am, or at night, or at noon, and going to London or Leicester or Carlisle, it's not worth it.
If you're travelling from Coventry to Lichfield or Cannock at rush hour it's definitely worth it.
What's irritating is they've withdrawn all the nice little deals they used to have for frequent travellers. Makes it even less attractive to travel on.
I've only ever been on it by mistake. Once.
When travelling from Derby to Oswestry.
Yes it's very cleverly designed so that you get automatically directed onto the toll road, so you have to actively leave to stay on the non toll M6.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
According to my consultant if I hadn't had my pacemaker two weeks ago, by Summer nobody would have had to deport me anywhere !!!!
Summer sounds quite the girl!
To be honest it is quite sobering when you have a diagnosis that is unexpected like it was, but so grateful that technology is able to address my health issues
However, I really appreciate light hearted jokes which I am rather prone to myself
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
Biden's the one who diverted shells from Ukraine to Israel. Are you proud of that?
Are you going to answer the question you were asked?
It's based on a false premise. If I want anything it's for people to be less hysterical about the prospect.
I'm unsure 'hysterical' is the correct word.
Here's a question for you: why should I, as a Brit, be hopeful that a second Trump presidency would be in any way positive?
Why should you have a strong opinion either way? There were fewer serious international crises while Trump was President than there have been since Biden took over.
So what's your view, your personal view? Are you hoping for a Trump election victory in 2024?
Yep, that's how I feel. And I have extended the analogy - my review of the new Tesla Model 3 described it as the EV iPhone: It Just Works...
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
Who'd have thought it? Turns out that Paul "GB News" Marshall has some really unpleasant views: https://archive.is/C8Zcn
Is he a real person or another of Leons personas?
All too real, helped to fund Brexit, funds GB News and Unherd, likes racist tweets about mass deportations, just your regular loveable billionaire using his ill gotten gains to push political debate to the right and make sure people blame immigrants not the rich for their problems.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
Thats fine. Simply park HMS Vengeance in the Moskva River in the center of Moscow. Problem solved.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
I would have agreed with you ten years ago. However, their M1/M2 series of ARM chips are superb technically. Really, really good.
You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.
Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:
I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.
To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.
I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.
They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.
Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?
If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.
Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?
That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.
The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.
Reform UK have proposed a one-in/one-out rule, which is very stupid, but which is certainly different from the record high immigration we currently have under the Conservatives. The new income thresholds will reduce some of that, but immigration this year is likely to remain above historical norms. I think its brainless to vote Reform UK on anything, but if a voter does want much lower immigration, it might be a rational choice for them.
Given the shape of our population pyramid, isn't this essentially a call to deport British pensioners...?
To be fair, that's not a stupid idea.
Instead of importing care workers, export pensioners. We could perhaps turn some land in Guyana into a huge retirement complex and offer them a defence treaty in exchange.
Honestly, it might be worth looking into a limited version of that - especially now that Spain is so much harder to retire to thanks to Brexit.
Build a new city on the Egyptian Mediterranean or Red Sea coasts, or even the Ethiopian highlands - big countries with plenty of capacity to absorb an increase in (relatively) wealthy population. Britain could easily part-fund hospitals and care facilities at lower cost than we pay for the NHS, and pensions would go a hell of a lot further...
About 750k people retire each year in the UK, just about enough to cancel out our current net migration rate. Surely this is what Refuk intend...
I hear Rwanda is a beautiful and - by parliamentary decree - safe spot so that might be ideal for retirees.
On a serious note I don’t think any country has tried offshoring social care demand yet but it makes sense. Consider how corporates manage opex and cost reductions. They either:
- Make headcount reductions (not really morally acceptable on our elderly) - Squeeze suppliers through procurement (government already does this a lot but it’s a difficult task), - Offshore resources to lower cost locations (as suggested here), or - invest in automation, which is certainly an option - see Japan - but still not feasible for things like wiping bottoms or changing bedclothes
It’s interesting to speculate how many people would take this up. Not enough I suspect. Too many family ties. But it could help at the margins if we did a few health and social security deals with nearish countries.
Maybe as the generations who have more incidence of not having children approach old age it will become a much more attractive prospect. A “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” situation but on a larger scale. Company, good weather and food and funds stretching further.
Maybe one of our more geriatric posters could report back if Cambodia is another option for this.
I was almost wanting to sign up to a scheme like that myself as I posted.
If rents keep rising at the same rate as they are now, I'll need to find about £17k a month for a 1 bedroom flat by the time I retire at 68. My current pension stands to pay me about £37k a year - about two month's worth of rent.
There are actually multiple geopolitical and economic cases to be made for the UK and France merging.
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
For those thinking of betting on the Oscars, or otherwise interested, Cineworld are re-screening the Best Picture nominees at £5 per screening from 1st March:
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
Who'd have thought it? Turns out that Paul "GB News" Marshall has some really unpleasant views: https://archive.is/C8Zcn
Is he a real person or another of Leons personas?
All too real, helped to fund Brexit, funds GB News and Unherd, likes racist tweets about mass deportations, just your regular loveable billionaire using his ill gotten gains to push political debate to the right and make sure people blame immigrants not the rich for their problems.
Marshall doesn’t care how much money he loses on GB News as long as his world view gets pushed.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
Please recant your heresy.
Apple just works - MacOs is old in the tooth and there are things were windows is better but their hardware is way better than the equivalent from Dell / insert your choice here...
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Who'd have thought it? Turns out that Paul "GB News" Marshall has some really unpleasant views: https://archive.is/C8Zcn
Is he a real person or another of Leons personas?
All too real, helped to fund Brexit, funds GB News and Unherd, likes racist tweets about mass deportations, just your regular loveable billionaire using his ill gotten gains to push political debate to the right and make sure people blame immigrants not the rich for their problems.
This guy sounds like a fan of Donald Tusk's approach to immigration.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
The only thing Apple does well is their marketing, which deludes gullible people into thinking their products are something special.
It's usually good stuff. But that much higher in price good? Heck no.
Well done to them for managing to pull that trick.
There are actually multiple geopolitical and economic cases to be made for the UK and France merging.
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
The huge thing holding that back would be language. I know Canada uses both but it would be a completely different kettle of poissons with an Anglo-French merger. Regardless of the arguments about where the capital would be etc etc the language would doom it as most Brits wouldn’t be wanting to change from the global language and most French would be aggrieved by having to change to English and so everything would be more complicated.
Having lived in a French speaking place for many years, despite being conversationally fluent it was never “natural” still and you miss nuances which create an inevitable division between native speakers and non-native.
Anyone know if and where there might be a market for Mayor of San Francisco in November? Asking for a friend. (I really am! I’ve no idea who might be running or who he is interested in backing or if there even is a Mayor an an election for the role).
There are actually multiple geopolitical and economic cases to be made for the UK and France merging.
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
The huge thing holding that back would be language. I know Canada uses both but it would be a completely different kettle of poissons with an Anglo-French merger. Regardless of the arguments about where the capital would be etc etc the language would doom it as most Brits wouldn’t be wanting to change from the global language and most French would be aggrieved by having to change to English and so everything would be more complicated.
Having lived in a French speaking place for many years, despite being conversationally fluent it was never “natural” still and you miss nuances which create an inevitable division between native speakers and non-native.
We could make Welsh the official language as a compromise.
There are actually multiple geopolitical and economic cases to be made for the UK and France merging.
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
The huge thing holding that back would be language. I know Canada uses both but it would be a completely different kettle of poissons with an Anglo-French merger. Regardless of the arguments about where the capital would be etc etc the language would doom it as most Brits wouldn’t be wanting to change from the global language and most French would be aggrieved by having to change to English and so everything would be more complicated.
Having lived in a French speaking place for many years, despite being conversationally fluent it was never “natural” still and you miss nuances which create an inevitable division between native speakers and non-native.
I'm sure you know this, but there was a time it almost happened:
Allison Pearson @AllisonPearson · 48m Gotta love the Tory candidate in Rochdale by election who is “on holiday” . None of that campaigning nonsense. Perfectly summing up his party.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I think you have to understand Flynn represents the SNP who have an interest in making this a SNP v English Westminster fight and it is his Scottish audience he has in the front of his mind
However, it does not alter the fact the Speaker, by his own admission, made a mistake which is at the centre of this debacle
I understand the Speaker has offered to re-run the SNP day on Monday which if Flynn accepts, will put Labour under the spotlight they thought they had avoided yesterday
The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.
That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.
To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.
But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.
The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more widely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I think you have to understand Flynn represents the SNP who have an interest in making this a SNP v English Westminster fight and it is his Scottish audience he has in the front of his mind
However, it does not alter the fact the Speaker, by his own admission, made a mistake which is at the centre of this debacle
I understand the Speaker has offered to re-run the SNP day on Monday which if Flynn accepts, will put Labour under the spotlight they thought they had avoided yesterday
As I understand it’s an emergency debate not an official opposition day .
I'm reminded of the adage if everyone is critical, you're probably doing the right thing. I suspect Speaker Hoyle might not agree - the more he apologises, the deeper the hole he seems to dig but of course no amount of sincerity woulsd placate those MPs who think convention and tradition have been turned over.
Life, I'm sure, will go on.
Savanta's poll with fieldwork last weekend continues to provide the highest Conservative rating and the lowest Labour/LD/Green score though they still lead Con/Reform 56-36. A poor poll for the Conservatives however from YouGov dishes up a 62-33 margin.
Once again we see a huge dispartity in the Conservative score (28% with Savanta and 20% with YouGov) while Reform have just 8% with Savanta and 13% with YouGov. We can now see a clear disparity between those pollsters who poll high for the Conservatives and low for Reform and vice versa - could this be a prompting issue?
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
There are actually multiple geopolitical and economic cases to be made for the UK and France merging.
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
The huge thing holding that back would be language. I know Canada uses both but it would be a completely different kettle of poissons with an Anglo-French merger. Regardless of the arguments about where the capital would be etc etc the language would doom it as most Brits wouldn’t be wanting to change from the global language and most French would be aggrieved by having to change to English and so everything would be more complicated.
Having lived in a French speaking place for many years, despite being conversationally fluent it was never “natural” still and you miss nuances which create an inevitable division between native speakers and non-native.
See Belgium for reference.
But if the French could just adopt English it could work well.
Who would be the favourites for Speaker if there was a vacancy?
It’s the Tories “turn”, and presumably they will seize that opportunity if a vacancy arises before the GE. Often it tends to go to deputy speakers which would put Eleanor Laing in a strong position, though isn’t she in trouble for something or other?
Nigel Evans is the other Tory deputy speaker I think so might be a possibility. I think JRM is too divisive. Is there anyone else on the Tory benches who has their feelers out? I’d expect a lot of Tory candidates, if not for any other reason than it would be quite helpful at the moment to be granted a free pass at the GE!
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
The Tories withdrew their amendment and seem to have avoided much of the blame for the SNP not getting their vote . Mordaunts pathetic martyrdom routine summed up the vomit inducing hypocrisy from the party that supported a pathological liar who was happy to trash parliamentary standards .
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
You don't have a 'confirmatory vote.' The Speaker is re-elected unopposed.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
I doubt he will be Speaker with Starmer and a large Labour majority after yesterday's events
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
You don't have a 'confirmatory vote.' The Speaker is re-elected unopposed.
They're re-elected as an MP unopposed - but don't they have to be re-elected as speaker at the beginning of each parliament?
(I'm vaguely remembering frenzied PB discussion on whether Bercow would remain speaker after the 2010/15/17 elections, here...)
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
There was no vote on the full motion aiui, so the fact the amendment was applied to what was being debated has no weight even in parliamentary decision terms.
No motion, amended or unamended, carried and parliament failed to call for any kind of ceasefire in Gaza.
Feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong here.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
The key point is that there are opposition day debates which Labour have 17 and the SNP 3
The objective is to give a voice to opposition parties but yesterday, by the action of the Speaker, the SNP's day was hijacked by Labour which is unique as far as I am aware in parliament's history
The SNP argue Labour should have used one of their 17 days to debate their motion
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
I doubt he will be Speaker with Starmer and a large Labour majority after yesterday's events
Isn’t it conventionally a change from one party to the other in terms of speaker so the next should be a Tory .
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
You could imagine some sort of system whereby an opposition day motion that attracted significant amendments from from both government and other opposition parties would be 'promoted' to the status of a general debate, without eating up the opposition day.
There'd still be problems - what exactly would constitute a significant amendment? Who would propose the motion? Who would oppose it?
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
The key point is that there are opposition day debates which Labour have 17 and the SNP 3
The objective is to give a voice to opposition parties but yesterday, by the action of the Speaker, the SNP's day was hijacked by Labour which is unique as far as I am aware in parliament's history
The SNP argue Labour should have used one of their 17 days to debate their motion
I suspect if Labour had said we want to debate our motion before yours the SNP would have turned them down because the whole point for the SNP was to create problems for Labour for the fun of it screw the risk to MPs and others.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
I doubt he will be Speaker with Starmer and a large Labour majority after yesterday's events
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
Hoyle has been very fair since he became Speaker . Flynn refuses to accept his apology and comes across as a nasty individual lacking in any spirit of forgiveness.
I like what I've seen of Hoyle, but he's got a bit of an "indulgent grandparent" vibe - he never backs up his tellings-off with any real action.
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
You don't have a 'confirmatory vote.' The Speaker is re-elected unopposed.
They're re-elected as an MP unopposed - but don't they have to be re-elected as speaker at the beginning of each parliament?
(I'm vaguely remembering frenzied PB discussion on whether Bercow would remain speaker after the 2010/15/17 elections, here...)
By convention the next speaker is elected unopposed - that doesn't need to be the case.
Equally by tradition the next speaker comes from the party who didn't provide the speaker last time round - again that is just a convention, it could be ignored...
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
I think this is right. Labour's continuing difficulty is that their ideological split is real, only not having the division conceals it. The swing votes they need (a few million from the centre right) are not impressed by the current Israel regime, but hate and detest Islamism also, are opposed to Hamas and all its works.
Starmer's centrist position is an OK one in a world in which no-one is in the right and internationally we have interests which require compromises. But the hard left position is a threat to Labour's election hopes.
As for the Speaker, he is far too nice, and too good for that mob. He was right to do what he did, and should have neither apologised or explained. He is a humbler man than the rest of them put together. The rabble in the House of Commons is lucky to have him. Referees decide. Teams play the game and get on with it.
I wish to make it clear that the people who have not harassed and threatened MPs over Gaza are exactly the same people who also did not intimidate Jewish MPs out of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
There was no vote on the full motion aiui, so the fact the amendment was applied to what was being debated has no weight even in parliamentary decision terms.
No motion, amended or unamended, carried and parliament failed to call for any kind of ceasefire in Gaza.
Feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong here.
Weren't both nodded through without a vote because the Tories and the SNP had flounced out and there was thus no one in the chamber who dissented?
"When a vote is held the Speaker in the Commons - or Lord Speaker in the Lords - asks Members to call out whether they agree or not. The Speaker will then judge whether there is a clear result. If this cannot be determined, the Speaker or Lord Speaker calls a division by announcing 'clear the lobbies' (in the Commons) or 'clear the bar' (in the Lords)."
I wish to make it clear that the people who have not harassed and threatened MPs over Gaza are exactly the same people who also did not intimidate Jewish MPs out of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
Of course there sre no anti semites within Labour. Oh no sir!
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
There was no vote on the full motion aiui, so the fact the amendment was applied to what was being debated has no weight even in parliamentary decision terms.
No motion, amended or unamended, carried and parliament failed to call for any kind of ceasefire in Gaza.
Feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong here.
Weren't both nodded through without a vote because the Tories and the SNP had flounced out and there was thus no one in the chamber who dissented?
"When a vote is held the Speaker in the Commons - or Lord Speaker in the Lords - asks Members to call out whether they agree or not. The Speaker will then judge whether there is a clear result. If this cannot be determined, the Speaker or Lord Speaker calls a division by announcing 'clear the lobbies' (in the Commons) or 'clear the bar' (in the Lords)."
"Opposition Day: Leader of the second largest opposition party (5th allotted day (Standing Order No. 14)) (resumed)
Question put, That the Amendment be made. Question agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two- state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour."
The SNP and Tories could have defeated the Labour amendment and then forced a vote on the SNP motion unamended but they chose instead to flounce out of the chamber.
I don't doubt Hoyle was heavily influenced by the fact he has had two colleagues murdered by terrorists. He wanted to reduce the tension in the situation but sadly most MPs want to see the tension ratched up. If someone gets killed well they will all put on their serious faces and pretend to be outraged.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
I didn't know much about Stephen Flynn before yesterday, but I have now concluded he really is a grade 1 shit.
I agree that he’s milking this for far more than it’s worth (dwelling on grievances? the SNP? Never!). It feels to me though that on a matter of such gravity and concerns being the way they are, the Speaker should have consulted more wisely and the fact he didn’t doesn’t cast him in a great light. I am sure he is concerned about MPs welfare and I think this was a genuine error of judgement rather than anything more sinister, albeit it is unfortunate that it occurred after a direct appeal from the party leadership of one party only, and in a manner where the decision would be politically favourable for them as a result.
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm quite ignorant of Commons procedure, but why couldn't they have voted on the Labour, SNP and government amendments? If it was important for all three parties to have the opportunity to express a view why not just allow that? I don't really see why it had to be a choice between the SNP and Labour amendments. It doesn't take that long to vote, surely. It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
Isn't it the case that the Labour amendment to the SNP's motion is debated first, and if that passes then there isn't the chance of a vote on the SNP's original wording, only the amended version. That means that there is no possibility of seeing which if any Labour MPs would have defied the party leadership and voted for the SNP's wording.
Exactly that, as far as I understand it.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
There was no vote on the full motion aiui, so the fact the amendment was applied to what was being debated has no weight even in parliamentary decision terms.
No motion, amended or unamended, carried and parliament failed to call for any kind of ceasefire in Gaza.
Feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong here.
Weren't both nodded through without a vote because the Tories and the SNP had flounced out and there was thus no one in the chamber who dissented?
"When a vote is held the Speaker in the Commons - or Lord Speaker in the Lords - asks Members to call out whether they agree or not. The Speaker will then judge whether there is a clear result. If this cannot be determined, the Speaker or Lord Speaker calls a division by announcing 'clear the lobbies' (in the Commons) or 'clear the bar' (in the Lords)."
But do amendments and the final division on the motion still need to be separate votes, even if both determined by acclamation? I'm not clear that the final division took place.
EDIT: I see benpointer has settled my query on the cross over. Thanks. Motion carried.
The SNP and Tories could have defeated the Labour amendment and then forced a vote on the SNP motion unamended but they chose instead to flounce out of the chamber.
Yes, it was actually the Tory shenanigans last night that caused the Labour amendment to be passed and the unamended SNP motion not to be voted on.
Not that you'd ever know that from the Tory "we're the protectors of the poor delicate third party" cant today.
The SNP and Tories could have defeated the Labour amendment and then forced a vote on the SNP motion unamended but they chose instead to flounce out of the chamber.
And, why, exactly, did they not defeat the amendment if not for the exact same, identical, reason that Labour pushed the issue of an amendment in the first place, that, for the sake of their own MPs, they could not be seen to vote against a ceasefire they supported, whatever wording that call took.
Starmer nobbling the speaker and the performative flounce are the self-same thing if anyone would care to admit it.
Who would be the favourites for Speaker if there was a vacancy?
It’s the Tories “turn”, and presumably they will seize that opportunity if a vacancy arises before the GE. Often it tends to go to deputy speakers which would put Eleanor Laing in a strong position, though isn’t she in trouble for something or other?
Nigel Evans is the other Tory deputy speaker I think so might be a possibility. I think JRM is too divisive. Is there anyone else on the Tory benches who has their feelers out? I’d expect a lot of Tory candidates, if not for any other reason than it would be quite helpful at the moment to be granted a free pass at the GE!
Has Hoyle gone yet? It hasn't passed my notice that a Labour MP/Speaker tried to do Labour a favour.
The Tories and the SNP stupidly let Labour off the hook by flouncing out of the chamber. They have only themselves to blame that they allowed Starmer to run rings around them.
For all his grey man blandness Starmer is proving a very astute politician.
The SNP and Tories could have defeated the Labour amendment and then forced a vote on the SNP motion unamended but they chose instead to flounce out of the chamber.
And, why, exactly, did they not defeat the amendment if not for the exact same, identical, reason that Labour pushed the issue of an amendment in the first place, that, for the sake of their own MPs, they could not be seen to vote against a ceasefire they supported, whatever wording that call took.
Starmer nobbling the speaker and the performative flounce are the self-same thing if anyone would care to admit it.
And, of course, none of us actually know whether the speaker was actually nobbled - or how, or by who. Whereas the Tory flounce was there for all to see.
Utterly off topic but I bought a new MacBook Pro this week and apple’s migration tool means it’s been set up identically to my old one (including the browser windows I had open) within 20 minutes
Yep. My PC/Android brother had to sully himself by setting up my mum's new iPhone the other day. He was trying to do it piecemeal, app by app, until I said, you just restore from the old phone.
He nearly fell off his chair when he saw how simple it was.
Once you Mac, you don't go back.
Ummm:
Both Windows PCs and Android have exactly the same functionality.
When you are setting up a new machine, it asks you if you want to restore apps, browsing history, etc., from a cloud backup.
Assuming you store all your files in cloud storage, the experience is essentially identical whether you are setting up a Mac, a PC, an iPhone or an Android phone.
And, for us nerds, dpkg --get-selections | dpkg --set-selections has worked since the prehistoric era...
Oh, you're a Debian user?
I guess compiling packages from scratch is too complicated for you.
dpkg - I've only ever used apt and I've being using Debian / Ubuntu for about 25 years..
Oh, dpkg was revolutionary when it first came out in the late 90s. But then apt made it (largely) redundant. I used to use to install things where I wanted versions to be frozen, but I can't think of anything which I still use dpkg for.
I used it quite a bit to install self-built packages without setting up an apt repo. But we're mostly a RHEL-esque shop now so less and less frequent.
Give it a year and that will probably be the standard view in politics. Less time if Trump wins and all hope of further Ukraine support ends.
Governments are preparing to accept the status quo, just as they did with Crimea, it is just taking longer because the invasion was even more egregious and destructive. Eventual rolling down of support will be part of that, as Ukraine itself may then have no choice but to negotiate something, and it will be presented as unfortunate but their 'choice'.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
It’s supposed to be a deterrent; if the order to fire them comes through, it will have failed, and it doesn’t matter whether the missiles work or not.
The problem is the potential opposition knowing that they don’t work, in advance.
Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making
We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
It’s supposed to be a deterrent; if the order to fire them comes through, it will have failed, and it doesn’t matter whether the missiles work or not.
The problem is the potential opposition knowing that they don’t work, in advance.
Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making
We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.
We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
It’s all a bit mad really that potentially hundreds of millions of people could die because one man’s insane actions where the benefits of those actions are so tiny and ultimately are just ego.
Imagine it, nuclear war gets sparked because Putin wanted to make a point in some shitty corner of Moldova.
A nuclear war we couldn't fight because all our missiles would go "plop" somewhere in the North Atlantic.
It’s supposed to be a deterrent; if the order to fire them comes through, it will have failed, and it doesn’t matter whether the missiles work or not.
The problem is the potential opposition knowing that they don’t work, in advance.
Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making
We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.
Well there's a surprise. Letting a mechanised word order generator that has read the Tweets of every lunatic on the planet decide when to fire nuclear missiles is sub-optimal. Who would have believed it?
Who would be the favourites for Speaker if there was a vacancy?
It’s the Tories “turn”, and presumably they will seize that opportunity if a vacancy arises before the GE. Often it tends to go to deputy speakers which would put Eleanor Laing in a strong position, though isn’t she in trouble for something or other?
Nigel Evans is the other Tory deputy speaker I think so might be a possibility. I think JRM is too divisive. Is there anyone else on the Tory benches who has their feelers out? I’d expect a lot of Tory candidates, if not for any other reason than it would be quite helpful at the moment to be granted a free pass at the GE!
Give it a year and that will probably be the standard view in politics. Less time if Trump wins and all hope of further Ukraine support ends.
Governments are preparing to accept the status quo, just as they did with Crimea, it is just taking longer because the invasion was even more egregious and destructive. Eventual rolling down of support will be part of that, as Ukraine itself may then have no choice but to negotiate something, and it will be presented as unfortunate but their 'choice'.
Putin’s biggest risk now is getting cocky. The West is happily shooting itself in the foot and selling Ukraine down the river, largely due to US politics (the EU actually seems to be getting its act together but it’s not enough). If he’s as wily as of yore he’ll take his victory, enjoy the ritual humiliation of his enemies, then bed down for a few years before trying the rest of Ukraine or Moldova.
But if he gets cocky he may overreach somewhere, and then suddenly the West might actually manage some meaningful sanctions and proper weapons transfers to the East.
Has Hoyle gone yet? It hasn't passed my notice that a Labour MP/Speaker tried to do Labour a favour.
The Tories and the SNP stupidly let Labour off the hook by flouncing out of the chamber. They have only themselves to blame that they allowed Starmer to run rings around them.
For all his grey man blandness Starmer is proving a very astute politician.
The Guardian's current take on Sudan. Hard to know what to say really. The Guardian has done slightly, only slightly, better than others in covering this war, and this update is welcome. But writing articles about how the war is ignored, when the Guardian is one of the media outlets doing the ignoring is not great.
Eastern Congo anyone? CAR? Refugees in Chad? The silence is immense.
Europe and Ukraine's other allies need to act now. This is not a time to let process drive events; Russia is waging war against not just Ukraine but the entire notion of sovereignty, human rights and the rules-based international order.
The UK, EU, US and others aligned need to reaffirm the territorial integrity of Moldova.
If Transnistria's authorities attempt annexation by Russia, every encouragement and support should be given by Nato to enable Ukraine and/or Moldova (but at Moldova's request), to move into Transnistria. The establishment of a Russia presence there, under deeply dodgy circumstances, would be an intolerable situation for both neighbours, not least because it would inevitably be a precursor to military action from Russia. If Hungary or Turkey kick up stink, they should be ignored.
I don't think the Moldovan military is strong enough to take that action, and Ukraine's is rather preoccupied. If Moldova ask for assistance from their neighbour Romania, then that might be a way forward.
Russia's military is also preoccupied, and Transnistria will have even less of its own than Moldova. First move wins.
The danger with getting Romania involved is direct confrontation with Russian troops. But if it comes down to it, that's still better than letting Russia establish a presence, never mind a formal landgrab. Ukraine would still be a better option, if possible.
Ukraine are on the verge of running out of artillery shells, so sadly it's not at all possible.
Comments
Build a new city on the Egyptian Mediterranean or Red Sea coasts, or even the Ethiopian highlands - big countries with plenty of capacity to absorb an increase in (relatively) wealthy population. Britain could easily part-fund hospitals and care facilities at lower cost than we pay for the NHS, and pensions would go a hell of a lot further...
About 750k people retire each year in the UK, just about enough to cancel out our current net migration rate. Surely this is what Refuk intend...
believe “plucky” Transnistria is being denied its right to self determination by evil Western imperialists. So Moldova or Romania simply walking in and kicking out the separatists wouldn’t work - we saw how Russia exploited this moral ambiguity with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008.
It’s also tricky for Romania as a NATO member to get directly involved if things turn military. But I wonder about some form of little green men option.
Probably the best response would be to ignore any annexation demands, ensure any military supply lines to Transnistria are firmly choked off, and then wait.
Apple have all sorts of odd crapiness though. For example iTunes really is hopeless. The areas that they choose to ignore really get ignored.
Good choice for a £300k mining job, of course.
The problem is the potential opposition knowing that they don’t work, in advance.
A 335% increase in anti-Muslim hate cases in the UK has been recorded since Hamas's attack on Israel on 7 October
https://news.sky.com/story/335-rise-in-anti-muslim-hate-cases-in-uk-since-hamass-attack-on-7-october-13078030?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
On a serious note I don’t think any country has tried offshoring social care demand yet but it makes sense. Consider how corporates manage opex and cost reductions. They either:
- Make headcount reductions (not really morally acceptable on our elderly)
- Squeeze suppliers through procurement (government already does this a lot but it’s a difficult task),
- Offshore resources to lower cost locations (as suggested here), or
- invest in automation, which is certainly an option - see Japan - but still not feasible for things like wiping bottoms or changing bedclothes
It’s interesting to speculate how many people would take this up. Not enough I suspect. Too many family ties. But it could help at the margins if we did a few health and social security deals with nearish countries.
Close that dump.
He's a fucking appeaser/Putin Catamite based on those Tweets.
Maybe one of our more geriatric posters could report back if Cambodia is another option for this.
But Ariane 6 is smaller, and the solid boosters produce only half the thrust. So not much further scope for cross-subsidy.
So they might actually be open to considering joint development of a common replacement...
On the other hand, Trident II is described as "the most reliable booster ever built" (based on what?), and the Dreadnought subs currently being built would likely need to be scrapped before even being launched.
However, I really appreciate light hearted jokes which I am rather prone to myself
If rents keep rising at the same rate as they are now, I'll need to find about £17k a month for a 1 bedroom flat by the time I retire at 68. My current pension stands to pay me about £37k a year - about two month's worth of rent.
Rwanda, here I come...
It would be the predominant European power, it would squat like a toad over the soft power, culture and media industries outside the US, it would have vast agricultural, fishing and renewable energy resources, a huge global hinterland of départements outre mer and crown protectorates, and a military capable of fighting peer-to-peer with the main European adversary.
But there’s a host of political and cultural reasons it will never happen. The mediaeval kings of England attempted it repeatedly for, what, 100 years, and didn’t succeed.
https://www.cineworld.co.uk/static/en/uk/blog/oscar-season-cineworld-best-picture-nominee-screenings
Near me some are close to selling out, so worth booking ahead.
Last couple of days have not been Westminster's finest hour
Well done to them for managing to pull that trick.
Having lived in a French speaking place for many years, despite being conversationally fluent it was never “natural” still and you miss nuances which create an inevitable division between native speakers and non-native.
https://archive.is/2n44L
Allison Pearson
@AllisonPearson
·
48m
Gotta love the Tory candidate in Rochdale by election who is “on holiday” .
None of that campaigning nonsense.
Perfectly summing up his party.
However, it does not alter the fact the Speaker, by his own admission, made a mistake which is at the centre of this debacle
I understand the Speaker has offered to re-run the SNP day on Monday which if Flynn accepts, will put Labour under the spotlight they thought they had avoided yesterday
But yes, Flynn is going over the top in a way that makes him look far worse.
I'm reminded of the adage if everyone is critical, you're probably doing the right thing. I suspect Speaker Hoyle might not agree - the more he apologises, the deeper the hole he seems to dig but of course no amount of sincerity woulsd placate those MPs who think convention and tradition have been turned over.
Life, I'm sure, will go on.
Savanta's poll with fieldwork last weekend continues to provide the highest Conservative rating and the lowest Labour/LD/Green score though they still lead Con/Reform 56-36. A poor poll for the Conservatives however from YouGov dishes up a 62-33 margin.
Once again we see a huge dispartity in the Conservative score (28% with Savanta and 20% with YouGov) while Reform have just 8% with Savanta and 13% with YouGov. We can now see a clear disparity between those pollsters who poll high for the Conservatives and low for Reform and vice versa - could this be a prompting issue?
It seems to me that the SNP have a legitimate grievance but then so would Labour if its MPs had been forced to choose between two positions they didn't totally support, on a matter of significant public concern and high emotion. Sometimes parliamentary procedure hust seems so unwieldy and strange.
But if the French could just adopt English it could work well.
It’s the Tories “turn”, and presumably they will seize that opportunity if a vacancy arises before the GE. Often it tends to go to deputy speakers which would put Eleanor Laing in a strong position, though isn’t she in trouble for something or other?
Nigel Evans is the other Tory deputy speaker I think so might be a possibility. I think JRM is too divisive. Is there anyone else on the Tory benches who has their feelers out? I’d expect a lot of Tory candidates, if not for any other reason than it would be quite helpful at the moment to be granted a free pass at the GE!
In this particular case, though, that easy-going persona actually helps him - as you say, it helps cast Flynn and Wragg as bullies.
I do wonder, though, whether his authority might have been fatally eroded by this. And if it has, isn't it best for all concerned that he announces in the next few days that he's standing down at the GE?
Otherwise, if he's ousted against his will in the near future, we'd run into the same problems that we discussed wrt Scott Benton a few days ago with holding a by-election so late in the parliament. And if he instead fails at the confirmatory vote at the beginning of the next parliament, then there'll need to be a by-election held a month or so after the GE - which is not what anyone wants, either.
So I think the parliamentary mechanics mean that he either announces within the next week that he'll not seek re-election, or he'll be allowed to stay in place for another year or two.
You vote on the amendment first, and then the motion. So if the amendment is successful then the motion as amended is put to the vote - there’s no option to vote on the unamended motion.
One can’t help but feel though that parliamentary procedure is very silly. That said, when they’ve tried different innovations (like the “choose your favourite Brexit” vote - remember that one?) it ended up making them look even more ridiculous, so maybe the rules are there for a reason.
I would just add he could be in the Lords instead
(I'm vaguely remembering frenzied PB discussion on whether Bercow would remain speaker after the 2010/15/17 elections, here...)
No motion, amended or unamended, carried and parliament failed to call for any kind of ceasefire in Gaza.
Feel free to correct if my understanding is wrong here.
The objective is to give a voice to opposition parties but yesterday, by the action of the Speaker, the SNP's day was hijacked by Labour which is unique as far as I am aware in parliament's history
The SNP argue Labour should have used one of their 17 days to debate their motion
There'd still be problems - what exactly would constitute a significant amendment? Who would propose the motion? Who would oppose it?
But there must be some way to do this better.
Equally by tradition the next speaker comes from the party who didn't provide the speaker last time round - again that is just a convention, it could be ignored...
Starmer's centrist position is an OK one in a world in which no-one is in the right and internationally we have interests which require compromises. But the hard left position is a threat to Labour's election hopes.
As for the Speaker, he is far too nice, and too good for that mob. He was right to do what he did, and should have neither apologised or explained. He is a humbler man than the rest of them put together. The rabble in the House of Commons is lucky to have him. Referees decide. Teams play the game and get on with it.
@newsinbrie_
I wish to make it clear that the people who have not harassed and threatened MPs over Gaza are exactly the same people who also did not intimidate Jewish MPs out of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
"When a vote is held the Speaker in the Commons - or Lord Speaker in the Lords - asks Members to call out whether they agree or not. The Speaker will then judge whether there is a clear result. If this cannot be determined, the Speaker or Lord Speaker calls a division by announcing 'clear the lobbies' (in the Commons) or 'clear the bar' (in the Lords)."
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/divisions/
"Opposition Day: Leader of the second largest opposition party (5th allotted day
(Standing Order No. 14)) (resumed)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
Question agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved, That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks
catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the
intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns
the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and
New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate
humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire
that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease
fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance
that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic
mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded
humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion
and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional
measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international
partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-
state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including
working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to
rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the
Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour."
https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/85340/Pdf?subType=Standard
EDIT: I see benpointer has settled my query on the cross over. Thanks. Motion carried.
Not that you'd ever know that from the Tory "we're the protectors of the poor delicate third party" cant today.
Starmer nobbling the speaker and the performative flounce are the self-same thing if anyone would care to admit it.
Imagine it!
For all his grey man blandness Starmer is proving a very astute politician.
Government hypocrisy? Who could have guessed...
Er...
Governments are preparing to accept the status quo, just as they did with Crimea, it is just taking longer because the invasion was even more egregious and destructive. Eventual rolling down of support will be part of that, as Ukraine itself may then have no choice but to negotiate something, and it will be presented as unfortunate but their 'choice'.
Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making
We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.
But if he gets cocky he may overreach somewhere, and then suddenly the West might actually manage some meaningful sanctions and proper weapons transfers to the East.
The Guardian's current take on Sudan. Hard to know what to say really. The Guardian has done slightly, only slightly, better than others in covering this war, and this update is welcome. But writing articles about how the war is ignored, when the Guardian is one of the media outlets doing the ignoring is not great.
Eastern Congo anyone? CAR? Refugees in Chad? The silence is immense.
https://x.com/hugogye/status/1760732262314955176?s=46