Many Tory MPs as well as SNP MPs have now signed a motion of no confidence in Speaker Hoyle after he gave in to Labour pressure and allowed their Gaza peace amendment. Labour clearly wanted it to reassure their Muslim vote. However, it will have concerned Jewish voters I imagine so Tory chances of holding Finchley and Golders Green at least might have improved
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
Notable in the R4 discussion this morning, which went over much the same ground as Cyclefree's header, was the suggestion that the government plan to address the problem of intimidation by "increasing police powers".
AFAICS, the police have all the powers they might need. What's lacking are the resources, or the determination, or the understanding of how they might go about it.
The police recently made it clear that they have no interest in arresting everyone who makes threats against public figures.
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
Why not plan to bake in the tax cut, permanently?
The transition to Net Zero should benefit us all. Then, it will happen faster and raise productivity.
Many Tory MPs as well as SNP MPs have now signed a motion of no confidence in Speaker Hoyle after he gave in to Labour pressure and allowed their Gaza peace amendment. Labour clearly wanted it to reassure their Muslim vote. However, it will have concerned Jewish voters I imagine so Tory chances of holding Finchley and Golders Green at least might have improved
I think most people will look at it as politicians playing student politics and being petty over something that they have absolutely no control over.
Any statement of a UK position would have had little impact on either side in this conflict. Now it will have absolutely no impact as our politicians look like children while people a few thousand miles away die.
Many Tory MPs as well as SNP MPs have now signed a motion of no confidence in Speaker Hoyle after he gave in to Labour pressure and allowed their Gaza peace amendment. Labour clearly wanted it to reassure their Muslim vote. However, it will have concerned Jewish voters I imagine so Tory chances of holding Finchley and Golders Green at least might have improved
You see, this is what concerns me about this whole debate and even about political demographics. It is antisemitic to say Jewish voters care more about Israel than about Rishi's success in whatever his five pledges were, yet commonplace to say Jewish voters in Finchley and Golders Green will act as a block vote motivated by events in, erm, Israel. Or to treat any other group such as WWC or Muslim voters similarly as a whole.
In the particular case of Finchley and Golders Green, I'm not sure Mrs Thatcher's old constituency was ever a hotbed of Corbynism.
Notable in the R4 discussion this morning, which went over much the same ground as Cyclefree's header, was the suggestion that the government plan to address the problem of intimidation by "increasing police powers".
AFAICS, the police have all the powers they might need. What's lacking are the resources, or the determination, or the understanding of how they might go about it.
The police recently made it clear that they have no interest in arresting everyone who makes threats against public figures.
Notable in the R4 discussion this morning, which went over much the same ground as Cyclefree's header, was the suggestion that the government plan to address the problem of intimidation by "increasing police powers".
AFAICS, the police have all the powers they might need. What's lacking are the resources, or the determination, or the understanding of how they might go about it.
The police recently made it clear that they have no interest in arresting everyone who makes threats against public figures.
Notable in the R4 discussion this morning, which went over much the same ground as Cyclefree's header, was the suggestion that the government plan to address the problem of intimidation by "increasing police powers".
AFAICS, the police have all the powers they might need. What's lacking are the resources, or the determination, or the understanding of how they might go about it.
The police recently made it clear that they have no interest in arresting everyone who makes threats against public figures.
Let’s hope the pathetic putsch against Hoyle fails and this ridiculous episode is consigned to the annals of history. The nice Tory lady on QT last night seemed to back him, although she is a one nation wet rather than a swivel-eyed frother.
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
It's VAT on the duty.
The receipts from fuel duty are £25bn. So the VAT on that will be £5bn or so (but consumers will likely spend money not spent on fuel on other VATable consumer goods, so that VAT will likely not be lost to the Exchequer).
This income isn't going to be lost in one chunk, it will be a more or less gradual glide down towards zero, perhaps by around 2055 or so. Perhaps £1bn lost in an average year.
So the government of the day is never going to face the challenge of finding £25bn in one budget to replace the lost income. It will simply be another one of those things, like the demographic transition, that creates an extra squeeze on the budget as a whole.
The consequence is that, assuming Britain does have any proceeds of growth and increased productivity to share out, as a pre-crash Osborne used to talk about, most of those will be swallowed up by the demographic transition (and a little by the decline in fuel duty revenue).
As our democracy (apparently) teeters on the brink, I am reminded of the Chartists' petition!
A vote for every man aged twenty-one years and above, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
No property qualification for Members of Parliament (MPs), to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
Payment of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger ones.
Annual parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in every twelve months.
Non-binding Opposition Day motions by third parties to only face amendments from the Government benches
I think that's how they went.
I never had David Cameron down as a Chartist, but the equal sized-constituencies was implemented under him, wasn't it? Apart from the Lib Dems wanting special treatment for the Western Isles, which should also be scrapped.
Thank God we never got annual elections. The two-year term for America's House of Representatives causes enough problems as it is.
Notable in the R4 discussion this morning, which went over much the same ground as Cyclefree's header, was the suggestion that the government plan to address the problem of intimidation by "increasing police powers".
AFAICS, the police have all the powers they might need. What's lacking are the resources, or the determination, or the understanding of how they might go about it.
The police recently made it clear that they have no interest in arresting everyone who makes threats against public figures.
@hyufd have you thought about writing a thread header? I think your perspective as a traditional Tory could be interesting at the moment. I think it is fair to say you are fairly unique on this forum in that other Tories here can and do move away depending upon the movement of the Tory party either to the left or right and then their views are not necessarily align. That is what I would expect. That doesn't happen with you and I struggled to understand that for time, but I get it now. Correct me if I am wrong but your focus is very much on traditional values like church, social structure, tradition etc as core beliefs and therefore movement to the left or right might be important to you, but isn't critical to your support, provided those traditional views are kept.
I think a thread header would be interesting, a change and well received as a discussion point. In the past I encouraged Pagan to write a thread header and it was very well received because it was very thoughtful even though most on here might not agree with it. I think you could do the same.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
As our democracy (apparently) teeters on the brink, I am reminded of the Chartists' petition!
A vote for every man aged twenty-one years and above, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for a crime.
The secret ballot to protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
No property qualification for Members of Parliament (MPs), to allow the constituencies to return the man of their choice.
Payment of Members, enabling tradesmen, working men, or other persons of modest means to leave or interrupt their livelihood to attend to the interests of the nation.
Equal constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing less populous constituencies to have as much or more weight than larger ones.
Annual parliamentary elections, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since no purse could buy a constituency under a system of universal manhood suffrage in every twelve months.
Non-binding Opposition Day motions by third parties to only face amendments from the Government benches
I think that's how they went.
I never had David Cameron down as a Chartist, but the equal sized-constituencies was implemented under him, wasn't it? Apart from the Lib Dems wanting special treatment for the Western Isles, which should also be scrapped.
Thank God we never got annual elections. The two-year term for America's House of Representatives causes enough problems as it is.
I'd like to think the Chartists would have stood firm against appeasing the suffragettes.
Let’s hope the pathetic putsch against Hoyle fails and this ridiculous episode is consigned to the annals of history. The nice Tory lady on QT last night seemed to back him, although she is a one nation wet rather than a swivel-eyed frother.
Careful @Anabobazina you can't be seen to be saying something nice about a person from a party you don't support. Look what happened last time I did it.
Did she say Deep State except in explaining that our quangos were similar to what Trump called the deep state?
And grifting in America is, sadly, normal for ex-PMs.
That is kind of saying ‘Deep State’. In any case she said the DS was out to get her and they did.
In Liz Truss's case, it was her sidelining the quangos (or deep state) that brought her down.
ETA and that can be traced back to her swallowing George Osborne's bile against the finest Chancellor of our times, and so Truss not appreciating why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent. Oh, and then George Osborne's too cute by half OBR, designed to trip Labour.
Truss has obviously decided that she can sleep better at night living in a fantasy world where vested interests brought her down, rather than her own incompetence, impatience, and lack of a mandate.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
That would require courage from all 650 MPs and police actually clamping down on protests.
Put it this way if I was an MP and there was a protest outside my personal front door - there would be a by election within the month. And I’m really surprised any MP is willing to be subjected to that .
So yes Wednesday was bad but the other options would have been worse
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
I enjoy the anger and surprise of some, who think that the DUP were rotters for holding up the formation of a government in NI.
When the same "some" carefully held the hands of the Shinners every time they threatened to end the peace process.
When customs officials were threatened in NI - it was straight out of that playbook. "We don't have anything to do with these people. But they have legitimate concerns."
We paid for the education of the political class in NI on the use of threats in politics. On the upside, the training worked.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
Question - how did the debate as played out appease violence? The mob wanted the SNP amendment. They didn't get it.
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Cornwall Insight were saying it should be 14% and it is less than that.
The regulator is the energy companies friend, not the consumers.
I actually know Mark McAllister. He head-hunted me to join him in the best job I've ever had - less like work, more like meeting your mates each day to see what mischief you could get up to.
He's a very measured guy and I think it rather trite to suggest he is just the "energy companies friend".
I doubt you'd say it to his face either. He's an imposing figure of a Scouser.
So what. I'd say it to his face. Course I would. Why not. There are concerns with regulatory capture/regulators not acting in the consumer interest, in this country. The revolving door between many regulators and the companies they regulate has to be a concern.
He alone is not OFGEM, there are many people who make up OFGEM. These people make decisions that affect all of our lives. They should be challenged and should be accountable.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
That would require courage from all 650 MPs and police actually clamping down on protests.
Put it this way if I was an MP and there was a protest outside my personal front door - there would be a by election within the month. And I’m really surprised any MP is willing to be subjected to that .
So yes Wednesday was bad but the other options would have been worse
And the line between "valid protest, freedom of speech" and "invalid intimidation" seems pretty grey from where I'm standing. That line clearly gets crossed by obsessives on all sides who have learnt to exploit the greyness of the actual line.
Ultimately the only rule that works is the one about doing unto others as you wish they would do unto you. "Don't be a dick" in other words. But we rather lost sight of that a while back. The populist reactions to the 2010 coalition made it mainstream, but it's been building for ages.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Why not. They may be the opposition to the govt in Westminster but in Scotland they are a very real threat to the SNP so in terms of an SNP-Labour battle in the Election it makes perfect sense.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
I'm not sure those figures quite add up.
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start. (Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.) EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p. For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs. But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles. And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
Oh god. That’s awful. She was just 15. She didn’t actually do any beheadings just held the knife for the other people. And she was personally kind to her Yazidi sex slave. Continued page 98
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
It's VAT on the duty.
The receipts from fuel duty are £25bn. So the VAT on that will be £5bn or so (but consumers will likely spend money not spent on fuel on other VATable consumer goods, so that VAT will likely not be lost to the Exchequer).
This income isn't going to be lost in one chunk, it will be a more or less gradual glide down towards zero, perhaps by around 2055 or so. Perhaps £1bn lost in an average year.
So the government of the day is never going to face the challenge of finding £25bn in one budget to replace the lost income. It will simply be another one of those things, like the demographic transition, that creates an extra squeeze on the budget as a whole.
The consequence is that, assuming Britain does have any proceeds of growth and increased productivity to share out, as a pre-crash Osborne used to talk about, most of those will be swallowed up by the demographic transition (and a little by the decline in fuel duty revenue).
Well there'll be some economic gain, if we use UK generated renewable electricity for motoring, as nearly two thirds of UK fuel is currently imported.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Why not. They may be the opposition to the govt in Westminster but in Scotland they are a very real threat to the SNP so in terms of an SNP-Labour battle in the Election it makes perfect sense.
Even without Holyrood, there would still be Labour-SNP animus, see 1979.
The old adage about the difference between opponents and enemies sort of applies here.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
@hyufd have you thought about writing a thread header? I think your perspective as a traditional Tory could be interesting at the moment. I think it is fair to say you are fairly unique on this forum in that other Tories here can and do move away depending upon the movement of the Tory party either to the left or right and then their views are not necessarily align. That is what I would expect. That doesn't happen with you and I struggled to understand that for time, but I get it now. Correct me if I am wrong but your focus is very much on traditional values like church, social structure, tradition etc as core beliefs and therefore movement to the left or right might be important to you, but isn't critical to your support, provided those traditional views are kept.
I think a thread header would be interesting, a change and well received as a discussion point. In the past I encouraged Pagan to write a thread header and it was very well received because it was very thoughtful even though most on here might not agree with it. I think you could do the same.
Thanks kjh, I am quite busy at the moment but I might consider one on the lines above. I can't commit to regular thread headers though although I respect those who do put the time in to write them
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
Oh god. That’s awful. She was just 15. She didn’t actually do any beheadings just held the knife for the other people. And she was personally kind to her Yazidi sex slave. Continued page 98
Why do you care, you've given up on the woke, Islamified UK. Continued page 98.
Many Tory MPs as well as SNP MPs have now signed a motion of no confidence in Speaker Hoyle after he gave in to Labour pressure and allowed their Gaza peace amendment. Labour clearly wanted it to reassure their Muslim vote. However, it will have concerned Jewish voters I imagine so Tory chances of holding Finchley and Golders Green at least might have improved
You see, this is what concerns me about this whole debate and even about political demographics. It is antisemitic to say Jewish voters care more about Israel than about Rishi's success in whatever his five pledges were, yet commonplace to say Jewish voters in Finchley and Golders Green will act as a block vote motivated by events in, erm, Israel. Or to treat any other group such as WWC or Muslim voters similarly as a whole.
In the particular case of Finchley and Golders Green, I'm not sure Mrs Thatcher's old constituency was ever a hotbed of Corbynism.
No it wasn't but given Starmer Labour won Barnet council in 2022 it would have hopes of winning back all 3 of the parliamentary seats given Corbyn has now gone. However its amendment on Gaza this week will not have gone down well in the area, which has the highest Jewish population in the UK
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
I'm not sure those figures quite add up.
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start. (Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.) EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p. For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs. But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles. And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
The current expectation is that price parity of EVs and ICE will occur sometime around 2025.
The major player in this is the price of batteries. $135/ kWh. is the current price. A chunk of this is due to short supply. The prediction is that it will drop to $100/ kWh, in the near future, as more supply comes on line.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
That would require courage from all 650 MPs and police actually clamping down on protests.
Put it this way if I was an MP and there was a protest outside my personal front door - there would be a by election within the month. And I’m really surprised any MP is willing to be subjected to that .
So yes Wednesday was bad but the other options would have been worse
Something about support nets.
Police officers and individual MPs need to know that their leaders and institutions will back them.
It wouldn't surprise me if individuals would like to do more but the personal risk to them is just too high, and they'd be on their own.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
I enjoy the anger and surprise of some, who think that the DUP were rotters for holding up the formation of a government in NI.
When the same "some" carefully held the hands of the Shinners every time they threatened to end the peace process.
When customs officials were threatened in NI - it was straight out of that playbook. "We don't have anything to do with these people. But they have legitimate concerns."
We paid for the education of the political class in NI on the use of threats in politics. On the upside, the training worked.
We need to get past politicians being willing to ally with anyone provided they join them in their side of the pissing contest.
The "physical threat" problem is far more widespread than just Westminster. I have both a friend and a family member who have been local councillors and the abuse they sustained was quite extraordinary.
I've had death threats too, to the extent that the police came round and had a word with me. I'm sad to say that it really put me off and I'm nowhere near as active a campaigner as I once was.
Otoh, there are an awful lot of disaffected people (particularly young people) at the moment and the relative lack of political violence, rioting and misbehaviour is heartening. The environment is the fundamental issue of the day and all the climate movement have conjured up so far is walking slowly round London and throwing powder at snooker players.
That doesn't discount some of the abuse Jewish and Muslim people, and our politicians, have received. We shouldn't settle for it, but I don't think there is any solution other than a large increase in the resources available to the police, and very large fines and community service orders when obvious physical threats are made.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
That would require courage from all 650 MPs and police actually clamping down on protests.
Put it this way if I was an MP and there was a protest outside my personal front door - there would be a by election within the month. And I’m really surprised any MP is willing to be subjected to that .
So yes Wednesday was bad but the other options would have been worse
And the line between "valid protest, freedom of speech" and "invalid intimidation" seems pretty grey from where I'm standing. That line clearly gets crossed by obsessives on all sides who have learnt to exploit the greyness of the actual line.
Ultimately the only rule that works is the one about doing unto others as you wish they would do unto you. "Don't be a dick" in other words. But we rather lost sight of that a while back. The populist reactions to the 2010 coalition made it mainstream, but it's been building for ages.
Proposals for new legislation will move that line. Again.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
Is that a tiny violin I can hear firing up? Don't join genocidal terrorist groups and have no problem with murder, kids. At least don't if you want to come home after.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
I enjoy the anger and surprise of some, who think that the DUP were rotters for holding up the formation of a government in NI.
When the same "some" carefully held the hands of the Shinners every time they threatened to end the peace process.
When customs officials were threatened in NI - it was straight out of that playbook. "We don't have anything to do with these people. But they have legitimate concerns."
We paid for the education of the political class in NI on the use of threats in politics. On the upside, the training worked.
We need to get past politicians being willing to ally with anyone provided they join them in their side of the pissing contest.
Again, requires a bit of integrity.
Think of it is as options.
1) You can keep violence to of the political process. 2) You can start forming the Reichsbanner. What colour for the shorts?
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
Oh god. That’s awful. She was just 15. She didn’t actually do any beheadings just held the knife for the other people. And she was personally kind to her Yazidi sex slave. Continued page 98
Why do you care, you've given up on the woke, Islamified UK. Continued page 98.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
Oh god. That’s awful. She was just 15. She didn’t actually do any beheadings just held the knife for the other people. And she was personally kind to her Yazidi sex slave. Continued page 98
Going to be quite a moment when she steps onto the beach at Pevensey like William the Conqueror.
Preferably two days before the "small boats election".
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Excellent post, Mr P. I’ve read Ms Cyclefree’s header carefully as well, and I do think that we …. our Parliament….. has got into an unholy mess by trying to ride two, or possibly three, horses at the same time. It seems to me that The Speaker has taken note of the old adage that rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men.
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
I'm not sure those figures quite add up.
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start. (Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.) EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p. For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs. But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles. And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
The current expectation is that price parity of EVs and ICE will occur sometime around 2025.
The major player in this is the price of batteries. $135/ kWh. is the current price. A chunk of this is due to short supply. The prediction is that it will drop to $100/ kWh, in the near future, as more supply comes on line.
Apparently Toyota have some exciting new battery tech coming soon. We have two Toyota hybrids, but both are simply petrol cars that drive through electric - you cannot charge them other than with petrol. I think they have been waiting for step change in their offering and I think its on the way.
The "physical threat" problem is far more widespread than just Westminster. I have both a friend and a family member who have been local councillors and the abuse they sustained was quite extraordinary.
I've had death threats too, to the extent that the police came round and had a word with me. I'm sad to say that it really put me off and I'm nowhere near as active a campaigner as I once was.
Otoh, there are an awful lot of disaffected people (particularly young people) at the moment and the relative lack of political violence, rioting and misbehaviour is heartening. The environment is the fundamental issue of the day and all the climate movement have conjured up so far is walking slowly round London and throwing powder at snooker players.
That doesn't discount some of the abuse Jewish and Muslim people, and our politicians, have received. We shouldn't settle for it, but I don't think there is any solution other than a large increase in the resources available to the police, and very large fines and community service orders when obvious physical threats are made.
We've had a mix of steadily increasing police powers, and steadily decreasing actual policing.
A warning from an AI expert that we will see “three or four AI developments in the next few weeks” that will dwarf anything so far this year
This month alone we have seen Google Gemini 1.5pro - possibly passing the “advanced Turing test” and SORA which is so terrifying movie moguls one billionaire has put a new $800m studio on hold and the guy who writes Slow Horses says tv drama will be scripted by robots within 3-5 years
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
No reason. Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
I'm not sure those figures quite add up.
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start. (Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.) EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p. For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs. But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles. And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
The current expectation is that price parity of EVs and ICE will occur sometime around 2025.
The major player in this is the price of batteries. $135/ kWh. is the current price. A chunk of this is due to short supply. The prediction is that it will drop to $100/ kWh, in the near future, as more supply comes on line.
Apparently Toyota have some exciting new battery tech coming soon. We have two Toyota hybrids, but both are simply petrol cars that drive through electric - you cannot charge them other than with petrol. I think they have been waiting for step change in their offering and I think its on the way.
No, they've been a laggard in making plans to transition to the new technology. They're trying to spin a desperate attempt to play catchup as a grand strategic plan.
Which is not to say that it won't work out for them, if their solid state battery tech can be delivered on schedule for mass manufacturing.
@hyufd have you thought about writing a thread header? I think your perspective as a traditional Tory could be interesting at the moment. I think it is fair to say you are fairly unique on this forum in that other Tories here can and do move away depending upon the movement of the Tory party either to the left or right and then their views are not necessarily align. That is what I would expect. That doesn't happen with you and I struggled to understand that for time, but I get it now. Correct me if I am wrong but your focus is very much on traditional values like church, social structure, tradition etc as core beliefs and therefore movement to the left or right might be important to you, but isn't critical to your support, provided those traditional views are kept.
I think a thread header would be interesting, a change and well received as a discussion point. In the past I encouraged Pagan to write a thread header and it was very well received because it was very thoughtful even though most on here might not agree with it. I think you could do the same.
Thanks kjh, I am quite busy at the moment but I might consider one on the lines above. I can't commit to regular thread headers though although I respect those who do put the time in to write them
Ditto. It is always good to get a thread header that is quite a bit different.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
No reason. Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
Well fine, but the Speaker shouldn't be changing the rules of the game to suit one team.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
No reason. Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
Absolutely we can, what's bang out of order is suggesting de haut en bas that it was completely right to obviate their day because they weren't using their time in the manner which eek and plenty of others here damned well thought they ought to.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
Ah well, at least it indicates that if the LDs become third party that they'll roll over and go along with the 'main' party consensus in any given situation. Much against Dynamic Ed Davey's inclinations of course.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
Age can be used in mitigation of sentencing for crimes - there is plenty of law, precedent, moral and philosophical argument behind that.
"The UK’s household energy price cap is set to fall by 12 per cent in April following a drop in wholesale gas and electricity prices.
Ofgem, Britain’s energy regulator, has set the price cap for the April to June period at £1,690 a year for a typical household, down from £1,928.
It is the lowest level for the cap since March 2022, when it stood at £1,216. However, it remains above typical levels of below £1,200 before the energy crisis that began in the winter of 2021 as wholesale prices rose."
Based on wholesale prices, I expect the cap will be reduced further in July as well.
Positive PMI news this morning as well but, despite the falls in energy costs, there are signs that inflation remains sticky downwards, driven by higher wages and the knock on consequences of the troubles in the Red Sea. I still think that interest rate cuts will be further away than the current market consensus.
And petrol is going back up
My local station was £1.33 a litre two weeks ago and is now £1.37
You need to get an electric car or hybrid.
Helps saves money and deprives Saudi Arabia of money.
If the petrol is £1.35 then the split is £0.60 fuel and £0.75 tax (Duty, VAT and amusingly duty ON the VAT !)
For your £0.60 you get 8.9 kwH of fuel, so the actual cost is 6.74 pence per kwh.
Figures for diesel are pretty much the same bearing in mind the slightly higher price but greater calorific density of diesel.
Working it out I get about 1.8 miles/kwH (~55 mpg), whilst EVs get about 4.8.
Here's the thing though, the price per kwh for leccy is 30p at home, or about 28p ex tax and far more on the road (80p at superchargers for non Tesla)
Which I work out as at least 1.5 times more expensive before the effects of taxation are considered. Now if you're on Octopus tariff and restrict charging between midnight and 4 am at home it makes sense, but charging anywhere else is a big cost to both yourself and also the treasury !
How is the Gov't going to get back all the fuel duty receipts when we're all on EVs ?
I'm not sure those figures quite add up.
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start. (Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.) EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p. For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs. But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles. And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
The current expectation is that price parity of EVs and ICE will occur sometime around 2025.
The major player in this is the price of batteries. $135/ kWh. is the current price. A chunk of this is due to short supply. The prediction is that it will drop to $100/ kWh, in the near future, as more supply comes on line.
Apparently Toyota have some exciting new battery tech coming soon. We have two Toyota hybrids, but both are simply petrol cars that drive through electric - you cannot charge them other than with petrol. I think they have been waiting for step change in their offering and I think its on the way.
No, they've been a laggard in making plans to transition to the new technology. They're trying to spin a desperate attempt to play catchup as a grand strategic plan.
Which is not to say that it won't work out for them, if their solid state battery tech can be delivered on schedule for mass manufacturing.
The latest reports suggest they are back peddling on when it will be available and the range of vehicles they will use it on. Seems like a chunk of their line up will use standard batteries.
In the history of electric vehicles, bet against "world changing tech". Bet on "small, incremental improvements, year by year".
Couldn't the politicians have just used AI to script the bloody ceasefire? Couldn't have made a worse hash of it than our lot.
Remember when I started banging on about AI on here? It was in mid-late 2021 I believe. When @FrancisUrquhart told me about GPT2 and the oncoming GPT3
I then EXTRAPOLATED what it meant. Almost everyone here scoffed at me
Here we are just over 2 years later and Hollywood moguls are shuttering planned studios. Because of AI
I've never used it, but now want to dip my toe. What's a decent (free!) image generator/editor? Maybe something to mess about with creating text as well. I've got an old mac book pro that my lad gave me that just collects dust, but I'd rather use my bloody expensive Samsung Tablet if possible. I'll be starting from scratch so bear that in mind!
The whole business of Wednesday's vote is unedifying. If the Guardian's account of events that day is to be believed, the key persuasive factior in Starmer's argument was indeed the threat of the mob. I wonder if he called them 'Hate Marches' in the meeting?
Then Penny Mordaunt threw the Conservatives' toys out of the pram and that was it.
The briefing to Nick Watt that a future Labour majority parliament would 'bring down' the speaker is curious, and of course does not match the Guardian's account; perhaps the 'senior Labour figure' was simply hubristic, so starry-eyed with the prospect of imminent power that they wanted to crow about it.
In Wednesday's events we may be getting a preview of how the next government will treat parliament. There will be chicanery and fiddling with constitutional norms as during the Johnson years, probably to some degree on all sides of the house; but it will be coupled with the current Labour leadership's sense of its own moral superiority.
The Truss spectace is just embarassing. Eccentric, and unsuited for the job, but her view as PM (and previously in government) seemed basically low-tax, small state, and notably more intensely relaxed about high immigration than any other government in my lifetime. In short, a Liberal Gobalist, the very opposite of Steve Bannon and co. But there seems a nasty tendency in libertarians (and I say this as a small-L libertarian myself) to end up down the MAGA nationalist rabbit-hole.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
No reason. Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
Absolutely we can, what's bang out of order is suggesting de haut en bas that it was completely right to obviate their day because they weren't using their time in the manner which eek and plenty of others here damned well thought they ought to.
As you know, I agree with the Speaker that he made a mistake.
He is a good man, but not a good Speaker in that he lacks the essential strength of character to say no, and enforce his judgment.
That said, the combination of stubbornness and principle necessary for the job is a rare one. We've had plenty who display one or the other.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Why not. They may be the opposition to the govt in Westminster but in Scotland they are a very real threat to the SNP so in terms of an SNP-Labour battle in the Election it makes perfect sense.
So do it in Scotland then.
My concern was that the whole day was student level virtue politics and should have been thrown in the scrap heap before it began.
The SNP have 3 days a year (and probably none for the foreseeable future when they lose their 3rd party status at the next election). Surely there are a lot of issues related to Scotland and the rest of the UK where the day could have been better used
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Sorry, why shouldn't the third party be entitled to do as it pleases with its time?
No reason. Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
Absolutely we can, what's bang out of order is suggesting de haut en bas that it was completely right to obviate their day because they weren't using their time in the manner which eek and plenty of others here damned well thought they ought to.
As you know, I agree with the Speaker that he made a mistake.
He is a good man, but not a good Speaker in that he lacks the essential strength of character to say no, and enforce his judgment.
That said, the combination of stubbornness and principle necessary for the job is a rare one. We've had plenty who display one or the other.
His replacement is quite likely to be Jacob Rees Mogg. I can't see JRM capitulating to Labour demands.
Couldn't the politicians have just used AI to script the bloody ceasefire? Couldn't have made a worse hash of it than our lot.
Remember when I started banging on about AI on here? It was in mid-late 2021 I believe. When @FrancisUrquhart told me about GPT2 and the oncoming GPT3
I then EXTRAPOLATED what it meant. Almost everyone here scoffed at me
Here we are just over 2 years later and Hollywood moguls are shuttering planned studios. Because of AI
I've never used it, but now want to dip my toe. What's a decent (free!) image generator/editor? Maybe something to mess about with creating text as well. I've got an old mac book pro that my lad gave me that just collects dust, but I'd rather use my bloody expensive Samsung Tablet if possible. I'll be starting from scratch so bear that in mind!
Midjourney is definitely the best
It has some horrible Discord UI when I last looked. So beware of that. Also it’s not free but you can pay just a few quid to muck around for a week. And it’s worth it. Not major cash
Then you can decide if you want to continue
It is highly addictive and once you get the hang you can produce seriously impressive images
There are free image makers but nowhere near that quality
Israel refusing to take part in Eurovision will solve a problem for a number of other countries where there is pressure for them to not take part is Israel is there
The whole business of Wednesday's vote is unedifying. If the Guardian's account of events that day is to be believed, the key persuasive factior in Starmer's argument was indeed the threat of the mob. I wonder if he called them 'Hate Marches' in the meeting?
Then Penny Mordaunt threw the Conservatives' toys out of the pram and that was it.
The briefing to Nick Watt that a future Labour majority parliament would 'bring down' the speaker is curious, and of course does not match the Guardian's account; perhaps the 'senior Labour figure' was simply hubristic, so starry-eyed with the prospect of imminent power that they wanted to crow about it.
In Wednesday's events we may be getting a preview of how the next government will treat parliament. There will be chicanery and fiddling with constitutional norms as during the Johnson years, probably to some degree on all sides of the house; but it will be coupled with the current Labour leadership's sense of its own moral superiority.
The Truss spectace is just embarassing. Eccentric, and unsuited for the job, but her view as PM (and previously in government) seemed basically low-tax, small state, and notably more intensely relaxed about high immigration than any other government in my lifetime. In short, a Liberal Gobalist, the very opposite of Steve Bannon and co. But there seems a nasty tendency in libertarians (and I say this as a small-L libertarian myself) to end up down the MAGA nationalist rabbit-hole.
Although there are real-life British libertarians (@Richard_Tyndall I think is one, apols if wrong), it's never been an individual strand in British politics.
As for Hoyle's giving in, his job is presumably to protect "his" MPs. It is those MPs to decide whether they should tell him they are fearful and enough of them did to make him act. This can be divorced from the political element of the threat and in this case Israel/Gaza.
It is the MPs fault, rather than Hoyle's, from what I have understood of the details.
What could have people done differently to avoid this chaos.
The SNP could have sought consensus and created a unifying statement and downplayed partisan posturing. The Conservatives could have supported the speakers motives, allowed the vote and used their majority to assert their authority Labour could have adopted a more aggressive position against Israel and backed the snp motion. Hoyle could have ignored the safety fears of MPs and rigidly stuck to old rules.
When you look at it this way, of the main actors, the SNP and the Conservatives were in the position to be most constructive. Hoyle is not the villain.
Yes. With every respect to Cyclefree, I disagree on this one. We entirely agree that the threat (or indeed fact) of violence to MPs is a threat to democracy itself. That is an issue of policing, but also places a responsibility on partisans of all colours not to whip up hatred of their opponents.
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
Labour had plenty of opportunities to put it's motion before the house. The most recent being February 6th. It was the SNP's day, the convention is there because the 2nd party in our system tends to be much bigger than the 3rd, so they shouldn't be able to butt in on the 3rd party's days.
Most of the time you don’t use an opposition day to score points against another opposition party
Why not. They may be the opposition to the govt in Westminster but in Scotland they are a very real threat to the SNP so in terms of an SNP-Labour battle in the Election it makes perfect sense.
So do it in Scotland then.
My concern was that the whole day was student level virtue politics and should have been thrown in the scrap heap before it began.
The SNP have 3 days a year (and probably none for the foreseeable future when they lose their 3rd party status at the next election). Surely there are a lot of issues related to Scotland and the rest of the UK where the day could have been better used
On the other hand, what is the point of these days?
Most of them aren't news events, they aren't binding on government action.
Might as well play silly games with them. Labour, after all, do much the same, and I'm sure Conservatives will in 2025.
(Where I suspect that defence breaks down is that tensions are so high over this specific issue. It's bloody selfish and irresponsible to use those tensions as a tool in the great game.)
Israel refusing to take part in Eurovision will solve a problem for a number of other countries where there is pressure for them to not take part is Israel is there
"October Rain"
Presumably about a damp day on Primrose Hill looking out over the London vista.
'Not a perfect man' doing a lot of heavy lifting here. After his brief flirtation with supporting Israel, good to see Nick getting back to his roots. The state of some of the replies..
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
I think my argument is that I am not sure we have the evidence to try her here. She ought to be tried were the crimes were committed.
Israel refusing to take part in Eurovision will solve a problem for a number of other countries where there is pressure for them to not take part is Israel is there
"October Rain"
Presumably about a damp day on Primrose Hill looking out over the London vista.
God knows what they'd make of Green Day's "Wake me up when September Ends"
Could doing the heavy lifting. But yes, soaps are a classic case where good AI can draw on thousands of soap scripts and hash out some 'new' ones. Thats all the writers do now anyway. What else could they do? Casualty has been running for decades. There are only so many stories to tell.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
I think my argument is that I am not sure we have the evidence to try her here. She ought to be tried were the crimes were committed.
The slight problem with that is that the Kurds have absolutely no problem with the death penalty. And what she did are capital crimes. Incidentally, executing people for violations of the laws of war is perfectly legal.
The Kurds (and others) carefully didn't put her on trial as a favour to the UK government. Otherwise she'd have got a short drop and sudden stop, long since.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
I think my argument is that I am not sure we have the evidence to try her here. She ought to be tried were the crimes were committed.
While I’ve sympathy with that argument I’m not sure that she’d get what we would describe as a ‘fair trial’ there. I’m very sorry for her family, too.
Could doing the heavy lifting. But yes, soaps are a classic case where good AI can draw on thousands of soap scripts and hash out some 'new' ones. Thats all the writers do now anyway. What else could they do? Casualty has been running for decades. There are only so many stories to tell.
I just Googled. Charlie is leaving Casualty in 2024. This amazes me because i) I haven't seen it in years, ii) he's been in it for nearly forty years, and iii) I didn't know it was still on.
Israel refusing to take part in Eurovision will solve a problem for a number of other countries where there is pressure for them to not take part is Israel is there
Ruined my strategy for laying Israel in Eurovision this year.
Could doing the heavy lifting. But yes, soaps are a classic case where good AI can draw on thousands of soap scripts and hash out some 'new' ones. Thats all the writers do now anyway. What else could they do? Casualty has been running for decades. There are only so many stories to tell.
Judging by the number of remakes and reboots we see in both TV and cinema, it looks like the studios have given up thinking up new stuff already!
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
I think my argument is that I am not sure we have the evidence to try her here. She ought to be tried were the crimes were committed.
I find the case to be a tricky one, as whilst I have plenty of issues with the powers given to the Home Secretary to deprive people of citizenship, and about making someone effectively stateless or seeking to dump them as a problem on to others, it has been repeatedly upheld that the actions taken were lawful. Many of the arguments about repatriation and the like seem to boil down to it being morally right, which is not itself irrelevant, but seems very much in search of a legal theory to make it happen rather than a solid basis on what the law is. So it really seems like what her legal supporters need is a change in the law, as at this moment they are arguing morals rather than law.
Could doing the heavy lifting. But yes, soaps are a classic case where good AI can draw on thousands of soap scripts and hash out some 'new' ones. Thats all the writers do now anyway. What else could they do? Casualty has been running for decades. There are only so many stories to tell.
I just Googled. Charlie is leaving Casualty in 2024. This amazes me because i) I haven't seen it in years, ii) he's been in it for nearly forty years, and iii) I didn't know it was still on.
I used to love it. Watched it every week, but then there were only 4 channels, no streaming and video was in its infancy (as was Charlie). Every now and and again I watch a few episodes, but I can't stick with it. Essentially it regenerates just as surely as the Doctor does in Dr Who - new cast, same programme. Its clever it that way, but really in the modern age I am amazed its still running.
Charlie (or rather Derek Thompson has played a blinder. A whole career playing the same role.
Could doing the heavy lifting. But yes, soaps are a classic case where good AI can draw on thousands of soap scripts and hash out some 'new' ones. Thats all the writers do now anyway. What else could they do? Casualty has been running for decades. There are only so many stories to tell.
Yes, but as we've seen, AI has no scruples about making up all kinds of obviously implausible shit - it will make story lines that are self contradictory, with big reveals of stuff that doesn't in any way match the previous story arc and makes the past behaviour of characters who apparently knew these facts completely inconsistent.
"The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship. The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
She should be returned to this country to be prosecuted for the war crimes that she admitted (repeatedly) that she commited.
Under oath? Interview to a reporter (who found her 'hot' apparently) is not admissible, surely?
Making a mistake, or being seriously misled, at 15, should surely not mean a lifetime sentence. Even the two vicious little rats who were recently sentenced will probably be released eventually. I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
I think my argument is that I am not sure we have the evidence to try her here. She ought to be tried were the crimes were committed.
While I’ve sympathy with that argument I’m not sure that she’d get what we would describe as a ‘fair trial’ there. I’m very sorry for her family, too.
I am entertained by the idea that -
1) Criticising other cultures is wrong 2) Especially cultures of brown people, in ex-colonial countries 3) Their courts are evil, and we can't send people to be tried there.
Comments
Would it be this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/parliamentary-under-secretary-of-state-crime-prevention
Or this one:
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state--142
The splitting of the two roles (under Brown) is perhaps indicative of the problem government has in addressing the issue.
The transition to Net Zero should benefit us all. Then, it will happen faster and raise productivity.
Any statement of a UK position would have had little impact on either side in this conflict. Now it will have absolutely no impact as our politicians look like children while people a few thousand miles away die.
Multiculturalism is a disaster, we can now see this playing out in multiple European countries - from France to Sweden to the UK
Worse, there is no obvious way of fixing it. In the end I suspect the voters will do it for themselves
In the particular case of Finchley and Golders Green, I'm not sure Mrs Thatcher's old constituency was ever a hotbed of Corbynism.
The receipts from fuel duty are £25bn. So the VAT on that will be £5bn or so (but consumers will likely spend money not spent on fuel on other VATable consumer goods, so that VAT will likely not be lost to the Exchequer).
This income isn't going to be lost in one chunk, it will be a more or less gradual glide down towards zero, perhaps by around 2055 or so. Perhaps £1bn lost in an average year.
So the government of the day is never going to face the challenge of finding £25bn in one budget to replace the lost income. It will simply be another one of those things, like the demographic transition, that creates an extra squeeze on the budget as a whole.
The consequence is that, assuming Britain does have any proceeds of growth and increased productivity to share out, as a pre-crash Osborne used to talk about, most of those will be swallowed up by the demographic transition (and a little by the decline in fuel duty revenue).
Thank God we never got annual elections. The two-year term for America's House of Representatives causes enough problems as it is.
I think a thread header would be interesting, a change and well received as a discussion point. In the past I encouraged Pagan to write a thread header and it was very well received because it was very thoughtful even though most on here might not agree with it. I think you could do the same.
What Hoyle (and others) miss is that if you 'appease' violence you will get more of it because it will be seen to be an effective political tactic.
Therefore, the best way to eliminate violence in our political system and maximise public safety is to have to courage to call it out and ensure the offenders are prosecuted as soon as it happens.
Yes, this requires courage - and, yes, it does carry some risk in and of itself - but all the alternatives carry much greater risk.
These days the only game I play is Cards Against Humanity, which I rather excel at.
Apparently I have the right sense of humour for it.
Put it this way if I was an MP and there was a protest outside my personal front door - there would be a by election within the month. And I’m really surprised any MP is willing to be subjected to that .
So yes Wednesday was bad but the other options would have been worse
However, there is a substantial body of opinion in Parliament which agrees with the Labour motion - essentially demanding an immediate ceasefire without going as far as to accuse Israel of collective punishment. One can agree or disagree, but that's a perfectly respectable position. MPs who agree with this would like to show constituents that they mean it - and that's not only the small minority who are actually threatening, but also the majority who are horrified by what's happening In Gaza and want their MPs to show they agree.
The SNP motion was crafted in a way to make it difficult for anyone who agrees with the above to vote for it. The Conservatives, by pressing their own motion, were using Parliamentary procedure to prevent a vote on Labour's amendment. Both parties were actively trying to stop Labour MPs from voting for their preferred policy, hoping to create a split. Hoyle, by his decision, enabled MPs to vote on all three options - which enabled MPs to show constituents what they actually stood for. By their silly walkout and general simulated outrage, the Tories and SNP have colluded to obscure that and portray the whole thing as a mess. The actual motion that was agreed was entirely obscured for partisan reasons.
Yes, MPs who are actually threatened will probably be slightly less threatened as a result, and that's a benefit too - our disgust at threats of violence shouldn't extend to not allowing MPs to show that they aren't ignoring their constituents.
I understand the point that the SNP doesn't get many supply days and should be able to ensure that their motions get properly considered and voted on. I agree. But if they use that to put down a divisive motion they should expect an attempt to amend it - there is nothing undemocratic in that whatsoever.
When the same "some" carefully held the hands of the Shinners every time they threatened to end the peace process.
When customs officials were threatened in NI - it was straight out of that playbook. "We don't have anything to do with these people. But they have legitimate concerns."
We paid for the education of the political class in NI on the use of threats in politics. On the upside, the training worked.
He alone is not OFGEM, there are many people who make up OFGEM. These people make decisions that affect all of our lives. They should be challenged and should be accountable.
Thankfully after the next election the SNP will be back to minor party status and will no longer get to grandstand for the lols
Ultimately the only rule that works is the one about doing unto others as you wish they would do unto you. "Don't be a dick" in other words. But we rather lost sight of that a while back. The populist reactions to the 2010 coalition made it mainstream, but it's been building for ages.
The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68372112
The average fuel efficiency for UK cars is less than 40mpg, for a start.
(Most traffic is local - and in urban cycle motoring, EVs are much more efficient.)
EVs are somewhere around 4 miles per kWh.
A cheap gallon of petrol is around £6 at the moment.
So the breakeven cost per kWh to the driver is currently about 60p.
For the Treasury to be able to take its current cut, around half that.
I take the point about the current high cost of one the road charging - and, of course, the current high relative purchase cost of EVs.
But EVs will get cheaper and more efficient at a far faster rate than ICE vehicles.
And increasing renewables infrastructure investment will increase the availability of zero marginal cost electricity.
The old adage about the difference between opponents and enemies sort of applies here.
The major player in this is the price of batteries. $135/ kWh. is the current price. A chunk of this is due to short supply. The prediction is that it will drop to $100/ kWh, in the near future, as more supply comes on line.
Police officers and individual MPs need to know that their leaders and institutions will back them.
It wouldn't surprise me if individuals would like to do more but the personal risk to them is just too high, and they'd be on their own.
Again, requires a bit of integrity.
I've had death threats too, to the extent that the police came round and had a word with me. I'm sad to say that it really put me off and I'm nowhere near as active a campaigner as I once was.
Otoh, there are an awful lot of disaffected people (particularly young people) at the moment and the relative lack of political violence, rioting and misbehaviour is heartening. The environment is the fundamental issue of the day and all the climate movement have conjured up so far is walking slowly round London and throwing powder at snooker players.
That doesn't discount some of the abuse Jewish and Muslim people, and our politicians, have received. We shouldn't settle for it, but I don't think there is any solution other than a large increase in the resources available to the police, and very large fines and community service orders when obvious physical threats are made.
Backing for wider police powers to protect MPs amid fears of political violence
Recommendation by Woodcock review comes with threat to politicians under spotlight in wake of Gaza vote
https://www.ft.com/content/e27b679a-9152-4aac-8a69-74e8cc56e8be
This is, to my mind, entirely the wrong approach.
The Police already have a very broad range of powers, which as everyone knows, they use neither consistently not coherently.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lord-walney-announced-as-independent-adviser-on-political-violence-and-disruption
1) You can keep violence to of the political process.
2) You can start forming the Reichsbanner. What colour for the shorts?
Preferably two days before the "small boats election".
It seems to me that The Speaker has taken note of the old adage that rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Which is entirely the wrong way round.
This month alone we have seen Google Gemini 1.5pro - possibly passing the “advanced Turing test” and SORA which is so terrifying movie moguls one billionaire has put a new $800m studio on hold and the guy who writes Slow Horses says tv drama will be scripted by robots within 3-5 years
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/23/tyler-perry-halts-800m-studio-expansion-after-being-shocked-by-ai
So the new developments will be bigger than THAT?!
Why shouldn't we be entitled to criticise their choices ?
https://news.sky.com/story/left-wing-anarchist-guilty-of-terror-offences-after-declaring-he-wanted-to-kill-mps-13072775
Sadly, there's a lot of it about.
Which is not to say that it won't work out for them, if their solid state battery tech can be delivered on schedule for mass manufacturing.
What happened this week was a disgrace.
I have no problem with her being returned her and tried for whatever crimes she has committed.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/feb/22/james-hawes-select-committee-tv-soaps-made-using-ai
My point here is that she has freely admitted to personally committing such crimes.
First, she should be tried.
In the history of electric vehicles, bet against "world changing tech". Bet on "small, incremental improvements, year by year".
I then EXTRAPOLATED what it meant. Almost everyone here scoffed at me
Here we are just over 3 years later and Hollywood moguls are shuttering planned studios. Because of AI
Then Penny Mordaunt threw the Conservatives' toys out of the pram and that was it.
The briefing to Nick Watt that a future Labour majority parliament would 'bring down' the speaker is curious, and of course does not match the Guardian's account; perhaps the 'senior Labour figure' was simply hubristic, so starry-eyed with the prospect of imminent power that they wanted to crow about it.
In Wednesday's events we may be getting a preview of how the next government will treat parliament. There will be chicanery and fiddling with constitutional norms as during the Johnson years, probably to some degree on all sides of the house; but it will be coupled with the current Labour leadership's sense of its own moral superiority.
The Truss spectace is just embarassing. Eccentric, and unsuited for the job, but her view as PM (and previously in government) seemed basically low-tax, small state, and notably more intensely relaxed about high immigration than any other government in my lifetime. In short, a Liberal Gobalist, the very opposite of Steve Bannon and co. But there seems a nasty tendency in libertarians (and I say this as a small-L libertarian myself) to end up down the MAGA nationalist rabbit-hole.
He is a good man, but not a good Speaker in that he lacks the essential strength of character to say no, and enforce his judgment.
That said, the combination of stubbornness and principle necessary for the job is a rare one. We've had plenty who display one or the other.
My concern was that the whole day was student level virtue politics and should have been thrown in the scrap heap before it began.
The SNP have 3 days a year (and probably none for the foreseeable future when they lose their 3rd party status at the next election). Surely there are a lot of issues related to Scotland and the rest of the UK where the day could have been better used
It has some horrible Discord UI when I last looked. So beware of that. Also it’s not free but you can pay just a few quid to muck around for a week. And it’s worth it. Not major cash
Then you can decide if you want to continue
It is highly addictive and once you get the hang you can produce seriously impressive images
There are free image makers but nowhere near that quality
Israel refusing to take part in Eurovision will solve a problem for a number of other countries where there is pressure for them to not take part is Israel is there
As for Hoyle's giving in, his job is presumably to protect "his" MPs. It is those MPs to decide whether they should tell him they are fearful and enough of them did to make him act. This can be divorced from the political element of the threat and in this case Israel/Gaza.
It is the MPs fault, rather than Hoyle's, from what I have understood of the details.
Most of them aren't news events, they aren't binding on government action.
Might as well play silly games with them. Labour, after all, do much the same, and I'm sure Conservatives will in 2025.
(Where I suspect that defence breaks down is that tensions are so high over this specific issue. It's bloody selfish and irresponsible to use those tensions as a tool in the great game.)
Presumably about a damp day on Primrose Hill looking out over the London vista.
https://x.com/NickGriffinBU/status/1760058451357524392?s=20
In fact it looks like the old monster is still hanging on to life, so the deniers were right (in this case).
The Kurds (and others) carefully didn't put her on trial as a favour to the UK government. Otherwise she'd have got a short drop and sudden stop, long since.
I’m very sorry for her family, too.
Charlie (or rather Derek Thompson has played a blinder. A whole career playing the same role.
Ah... Yes, well maybe it could work
1) Criticising other cultures is wrong
2) Especially cultures of brown people, in ex-colonial countries
3) Their courts are evil, and we can't send people to be tried there.