That’s after Sunak has been having wall to wall coverage . Oh dear ! The more people see of him the worse it gets . The Rwanda Bill went through and the spineless gimp put the arms industry on a “ war footing “. Labour need to hope that the Tories do better than expected next week . The last thing they want is Sunak to be removed .
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Lots of pearls being clutched today by our right-leaning friends, their delicate constitutions grievously shaken by the language used by that uppity working-class woman. That kind of language is good for below stairs but shouldn’t befoul the refined air of better, more sophisticated nice middle-class folks. How very unparliamentary.
We are always told on here that becoming rich means you are no longer working class, that it’s all measured on how much money you have right now. This was a particularly strident message when it came to framing the bloc of voters responsible for Leave’s referendum win, and the social status of pensioners, so interesting to see Rayner constantly referred to as a ‘working class’ woman in an effort to defuse any political attack on her, despite her being wealthy and powerful
My own view is that rich people can be working class, and poor people can be upper class, and that Rayner is working class and always will be, but interesting none the less that people who used to say the likes of my friends & family, now probably middle class in terms of salary and where we live, were no longer working class, despite being brought up in working class households (the definition of working class to me)
Despite the cold spring the supermarkets are already filling up with British strawberries.
Given time of year I imagine English ones as they will not have long harvested the turnips up here. Never as good this early having been forced and no way are foreign ones much good.
Strawberries especially from Spain are crap . Too big and too watery .
Like Dutch Tomato's
Supermarket buyers value consistent size and shape over taste. Buy from your local greengrocer or market and support local business instead.
It will be interesting to see how the SNP go about getting their next Budget passed. A resurgent Labour will feel it is in their interests for the Government to fall.
That’s after Sunak has been having wall to wall coverage . Oh dear ! The more people see of him the worse it gets . The Rwanda Bill went through and the spineless gimp put the arms industry on a “ war footing “. Labour need to hope that the Tories do better than expected next week . The last thing they want is Sunak to be removed .
It's one poll with small changes, that mostly reverse the small changes that the previous poll recorded compared to the poll before that.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Oh, is 454cm3-size better?
Only joking - your point is a fair one.
So he’s a 454ml American pint size, rather than a 568ml British pint size?
Argh - just as well I don't work for an airport refuelling company. I meant 568 ...
In terms of getting measurements wrong a friend was creating a gutter clearing contraption for me by adapting a leaf blower. He asked me what the power of my leaf blower was. I replied 3000 kw rather than 3000 w. If it were 3000 kw I suspect I wouldn't have a blocked gutter problem any more because I wouldn't have any guttering either (or come to that many tiles on my roof).
If you look through history, the effect of a technological change is very hard to predict. At least, you can make hundreds of predictions, none of which turn out to be correct.
Take t'Internet. I've been involved with the Internet since just before the WWW; and used Mosaic as a browser back in 93-4. I thought it would change things; but the amount of change, and the direction, were very different from how I thought (*). But also, I don't think many other people saw it either. Yes, we all thought it would change things. But this much?
Also, there are many predictions of tech that will change the world that turn out to be nothingburgers despite massive hype. Driverless cars being a brilliant example so far. All promise, massive hype, and lacklustre results.
IMV current AI is somewhere between the two; it's not good enough to be truly transformative, but it is very hard to see exactly how it will change things.
(*) If I had got it right, I might be very rich.
We often differ on this, but actually I agree with your summary. AI is a singularity and by definition there is an event horizon. We can’t see beyond - it’s extremely hard to make good medium term predictions - 5-10 years. They will be inspired guesswork at best; bollocks at worst
However you can make good short term predictions based on actual evidence. In early March Klarna said they had successfully replaced their call centre with AI - they explicitly said the reason they announced this was its profound implications
I therefore predicted on here that all call centre work was imperilled. Et voila
According to Lewis Goodall and James O Brien PMQs was an unmitigated triumph for Rayner. Which f course it was over Dowden - but noone knows or cares who the completely forgetable and mediocre Dowden is. 24 hours later and it's not looking so good for her with the throwaway gag regarding Rishi's height. Of course everyone's forgotten about how poor Dowden was - in that sense he's the perfect PMQs stand in.
most people will not even know who he is.
That he’s seen as the sharpest tool merely draws attention to the load of blunt metal in the rest of the box.
According to Lewis Goodall and James O Brien PMQs was an unmitigated triumph for Rayner. Which f course it was over Dowden - but noone knows or cares who the completely forgetable and mediocre Dowden is. 24 hours later and it's not looking so good for her with the throwaway gag regarding Rishi's height. Of course everyone's forgotten about how poor Dowden was - in that sense he's the perfect PMQs stand in.
Repeating a joke that was in poor taste from someone else is not really a defence. Rayner has a child with disabilities, I’d have thought she’d be sensitive to mocking someone for physical or mental attributes beyond their control
That’s after Sunak has been having wall to wall coverage . Oh dear ! The more people see of him the worse it gets . The Rwanda Bill went through and the spineless gimp put the arms industry on a “ war footing “. Labour need to hope that the Tories do better than expected next week . The last thing they want is Sunak to be removed .
It's one poll with small changes, that mostly reverse the small changes that the previous poll recorded compared to the poll before that.
In other, immortal words, nothing has changed.
Perhaps others will show a bounce . I expected an increase in Tory support.
On this mornings news of the ending of the SNP - Green agreement how long before the SNP face a vonc in Holyrood
If the opposition have their wits about them, tomorrow.
So they probably won’t.
Indeed. It is hard to see how even the Greens could do other than vote against the government they have just been kicked out of and if Ash Regan also supports the motion the SNP lose and we start the process which might well result in an early election against a government in utter chaos and pretty much bankrupt to boot.
How many people work in call centres in the UK? I imagine it is not a trivia number
There over 6000 call centres in the United Kingdom There are around 812,000 agent roles within these centres Over 4% of the UK’s working population is employed at a call centre
And a lot of those call centres are a complete waste of time and energy - all those involved in oiling the wheels of the retail energy 'market' for a start. (Although I assume since the failure of said market the number of call centre roles there has significantly reduced.)
But that’s 800,000 jobs. Gone in a year or two - and then all the other cognitive jobs as AI moves up the food chain, lawyers, bankers, brokers, designers, accountants, musicians, writers, nearly all of them - gone
This is going to be devastating for so many, yet zero people discuss it. By the end of Starmer’s term - certainly his 2nd term - we could have five million unemployed - or we could be living in an era of perpetual abundance
Again, look at offshoring. We used to worry that accountancy and law jobs would be offshored, even medicine for things like reading scans. Some were, most weren't.
AI will doubtless cost some jobs. It will also create new ones. What it will mostly do is open up services for those who cannot currently afford them. You could employ AI to draw cartoons for your Gazette columns. That has not cost any cartoonist their job. Only when the Telegraph replaces Matt will a cartoonist lose his job. Likewise you could have AI translate your AI-cartoon captions into French or Japanese, but again no humans have lost their jobs. Forget AI. Have you cost a photographer his job by taking your own travel snaps for the Gazette, or would they not have sent one anyway?
Of course AI will destroy jobs. That guy in the FT makes the same claim as you - “oh yes millions will be made unemployed in a year or two but don’t worry they will do other jobs, AI will create jobs”
He just doesn’t say what these new jobs ARE. Because they don’t exist, I suspect
If 700k of the 800k UK call centre workers lose their jobs in a couple of years, what will they all do?
Photography, by the way, has basically been destroyed by the internet. It is not a viable career, not any more
Other artistic jobs will follow
You are right it will destroy a huge number of jobs.
You are also right that the new jobs may not exist. However we have been around this revolution several times in the past and new jobs have evolved out of that revolution, not least the call centre jobs that didn't exist before, became a thing with new technology and will now go again. The industrial revolution and the computer based information age, both destroyed and created a huge number of jobs.
However just because it happened in the past, it doesn't mean it will happen again in the future so maybe these unknown future jobs will remain unknown. Who knows? So he shouldn't assume it will happen and we shouldn't assume it won't, but we need to prepare for these jobs not materialising.
Typically, Leon obsesses with the detail of something and struggles to stand back and see it in any sort of wider context. That’s why he so often makes doom-laden predictions, when the world is actually full of negative feedback systems that tend to make genuinely apocalyptic outcomes very rare.
On this mornings news of the ending of the SNP - Green agreement how long before the SNP face a vonc in Holyrood
How would it benefit Labour to be seen voting with the Tories?
Because they have a very good chance of seizing power if there is an early election. Which might well also improve their chances of gaining more Westminster seats from the SNP as well.
A still from the upcoming ‘Around the World in 80 Daves’ where Lord Cameron goes round the world and meets 80 people also called Dave in unusual places (BBC2, Spring 2025)
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Lots of pearls being clutched today by our right-leaning friends, their delicate constitutions grievously shaken by the language used by that uppity working-class woman. That kind of language is good for below stairs but shouldn’t befoul the refined air of better, more sophisticated nice middle-class folks. How very unparliamentary.
We are always told on here that becoming rich means you are no longer working class, that it’s all measured on how much money you have right now. This was a particularly strident message when it came to framing the bloc of voters responsible for Leave’s referendum win, and the social status of pensioners, so interesting to see Rayner constantly referred to as a ‘working class’ woman in an effort to defuse any political attack on her, despite her being wealthy and powerful
My own view is that rich people can be working class, and poor people can be upper class, and that Rayner is working class and always will be, but interesting none the less that people who used to say the likes of my friends & family, now probably middle class in terms of salary and where we live, were no longer working class, despite being brought up in working class households (the definition of working class to me)
To be fair to Ms Rayner, she left school with almost no qualifications and trained as a care worker, before being elected as the local branch and then regional chair of Unison.
Yes, she does well financially as an MP and likely a minister in the next government, but I’d still describe her as working class. Her children, not so much.
A still from the upcoming ‘Around the World in 80 Daves’ where Lord Cameron goes round the world and meets 80 people also called Dave in unusual places (BBC2, Spring 2025)
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Lots of pearls being clutched today by our right-leaning friends, their delicate constitutions grievously shaken by the language used by that uppity working-class woman. That kind of language is good for below stairs but shouldn’t befoul the refined air of better, more sophisticated nice middle-class folks. How very unparliamentary.
We are always told on here that becoming rich means you are no longer working class, that it’s all measured on how much money you have right now. This was a particularly strident message when it came to framing the bloc of voters responsible for Leave’s referendum win, and the social status of pensioners, so interesting to see Rayner constantly referred to as a ‘working class’ woman in an effort to defuse any political attack on her, despite her being wealthy and powerful
My own view is that rich people can be working class, and poor people can be upper class, and that Rayner is working class and always will be, but interesting none the less that people who used to say the likes of my friends & family, now probably middle class in terms of salary and where we live, were no longer working class, despite being brought up in working class households (the definition of working class to me)
To be fair to Ms Rayner, she left school with almost no qualifications and trained as a care worker, before being elected as the local branch and then regional chair of Unison.
Yes, she does well financially as an MP and likely a minister in the next government, but I’d still describe her as working class. Her children, not so much.
This whole debate is a classic example of people talking at cross-purposes, because it depends whether people are talking about class in relation to power relations, cultural identity, income or wealth.
None of these are necessarily better or worse than the others, but they are different, and if one person is making a point in relation to one and another person responds in relation to another them confusion reigns.
If you look through history, the effect of a technological change is very hard to predict. At least, you can make hundreds of predictions, none of which turn out to be correct.
Take t'Internet. I've been involved with the Internet since just before the WWW; and used Mosaic as a browser back in 93-4. I thought it would change things; but the amount of change, and the direction, were very different from how I thought (*). But also, I don't think many other people saw it either. Yes, we all thought it would change things. But this much?
Also, there are many predictions of tech that will change the world that turn out to be nothingburgers despite massive hype. Driverless cars being a brilliant example so far. All promise, massive hype, and lacklustre results.
IMV current AI is somewhere between the two; it's not good enough to be truly transformative, but it is very hard to see exactly how it will change things.
(*) If I had got it right, I might be very rich.
We often differ on this, but actually I agree with your summary. AI is a singularity and by definition there is an event horizon. We can’t see beyond - it’s extremely hard to make good medium term predictions - 5-10 years. They will be inspired guesswork at best; bollocks at worst
However you can make good short term predictions based on actual evidence. In early March Klarna said they had successfully replaced their call centre with AI - they explicitly said the reason they announced this was its profound implications
I therefore predicted on here that all call centre work was imperilled. Et voila
AI alert.
AI alert.
AI alert.
ROBERT!!!!!!
Leave. Leon. Alone
One letter away from being Bedford Avenue in Omaha…
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Oh, is 454cm3-size better?
Only joking - your point is a fair one.
So he’s a 454ml American pint size, rather than a 568ml British pint size?
Argh - just as well I don't work for an airport refuelling company. I meant 568 ...
In terms of getting measurements wrong a friend was creating a gutter clearing contraption for me by adapting a leaf blower. He asked me what the power of my leaf blower was. I replied 3000 kw rather than 3000 w. If it were 3000 kw I suspect I wouldn't have a blocked gutter problem any more because I wouldn't have any guttering either (or come to that many tiles on my roof).
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Lots of pearls being clutched today by our right-leaning friends, their delicate constitutions grievously shaken by the language used by that uppity working-class woman. That kind of language is good for below stairs but shouldn’t befoul the refined air of better, more sophisticated nice middle-class folks. How very unparliamentary.
We are always told on here that becoming rich means you are no longer working class, that it’s all measured on how much money you have right now. This was a particularly strident message when it came to framing the bloc of voters responsible for Leave’s referendum win, and the social status of pensioners, so interesting to see Rayner constantly referred to as a ‘working class’ woman in an effort to defuse any political attack on her, despite her being wealthy and powerful
My own view is that rich people can be working class, and poor people can be upper class, and that Rayner is working class and always will be, but interesting none the less that people who used to say the likes of my friends & family, now probably middle class in terms of salary and where we live, were no longer working class, despite being brought up in working class households (the definition of working class to me)
To be fair to Ms Rayner, she left school with almost no qualifications and trained as a care worker, before being elected as the local branch and then regional chair of Unison.
Yes, she does well financially as an MP and likely a minister in the next government, but I’d still describe her as working class. Her children, not so much.
Yes, I was being fair to her - I said I think it is right to describe her as working class. The problem is that those describing her thus are the same people who said that people on middle incomes and above were no longer working class when they wanted to frame the Leave win as being on the shoulders of people out of touch with the working class
1) Shop assistants are forbidden to physically intervene. If a company doesn't aggressively forbid this, they will get sued into the ground. 2) Security guards are forbidden to physically intervene. If a company doesn't aggressively forbid this, they will get sued into the ground. 3) Police officers, historically, didn't intervene. They turned up to take the detained shop lifters away. Often hours later.
In the Goode Olde Days, the shop assistants/security guards would detain the shoplifter and the police would come and get them. Do that today, and you'd be looking at assault and false imprisonment charges. For the assistants/security guards.
So either
1) We station police officers in every store 2) We go back to vigilante squads of staff in every store 3) Automated face ID entry and exit from stores. 4) Enjoy the shop lifting.
I would give security staff carte blanche , batons , pepper spray , etc and tell them to beat the crap out of any scroat trying to get out the door with something they had not paid for. Guaranteed we will suffer for it , will be having to give your card on entry to be precharged 100 quid or such , photographed and will only get out if you are scanned and photo evidence shows you got a receipt.
Well, the funny thing is that most tills don't automatically give you a receipt now. You have to ask for it. So if they aren't going to automatically give you a receipt they can hardly ask for it as proof you've paid.
Very true, they have asked for a lot of the trouble with their self checkouts, staff reductions , etc , etc. Saved pennies and are losing pounds.
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
It's all muscle.
Why are we not discussing Hunt quoting Mandelson's suggestion that Starmer is a porker? #fatshaming
SNP power sharing agreement with the Greens is over
And that is important news not the childish name calling at PMQs
There was me thinking that the Greens were making a stand on a point of principle over Net Zero.
Turns out it is connected to trans shit.
I'm struggling to think what the Scottish government actually stands for. Other than failing to deliver independence and declining the economy and social fabric of Scotland at a slightly slower rate than England.
The fact is that the Scottish economy is the strongest outside of the SE of England and has been growing at roughly the same pace as the rest of the UK. It's public spending that is the issue.
You could argue that the SNP's damage, if it exists, will only be apparent in years to come, or that comparing to rUK isn't particularly positive, but ultimately the SG has very few levers over economic growth and the economy is far too integrated with rUK for those levers to make much of a difference.
Talking about that, the PB Scotchexperts predicting the flood of higher paid tax payers over the border ...? They got the flood right, bujt not the direction, at least for 2021-22. Willbe interesting to see what the data for 2022-23 bring.
TUD, Which of the competing opinions was correct yesterday , one said £200M new tax income others said £60M reduction in overall income tax take. I assume both could be correct and to suit purpose , ie £200M in and £260M out.
I got lost in the smoke and mirrors tbh. The one unarguable fact afaIcs is that more folk have moved from England to Scotland than the reverse.
Roddy Dunlop KC going down south to check out house prices then scuttling back presumably cancelled himself out.
Yes but supposedly those leaving were high rate tax payers and those incoming were not, hardly successful getting thousands more incoming and using all the services but getting £60M less tax in return. So overall a big loser.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Scotland now has a minority government. And a completely useless one of course. Surely even Anwar must spot that this is an opportunity. Not the fastest thinker but jeez, it is staring him in the face.
Latest ECMWF forecast for the May Day bank holiday looks like it will have Leon in despair. Another area of high pressure to the west bringing a cold plunge south over Britain.
With luck this forecast will prove to be inaccurate.
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
Are we a step further towards Kate Forbes being the SNP leader at? SFAICS this would be a change that both SLab and SCon would be very keen not to see happen before the GE.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
It's all muscle.
Why are we not discussing Hunt quoting Mandelson's suggestion that Starmer is a porker? #fatshaming
A persons weight is something they can control, whereas height isn’t, so it’s probably less of an insult. Nevertheless, it’s a bit unnecessary at PMQs isn’t it?
Scotland now has a minority government. And a completely useless one of course. Surely even Anwar must spot that this is an opportunity. Not the fastest thinker but jeez, it is staring him in the face.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Is there anywhere I can watch or listen to Louise Haigh's speech? The Today programme this morning had some vested interest privateer ranting on for what seemed like hours with virtually nothing from the government, opposition or indeed passenger groups. Utterly bizarre coverage.
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
It's all muscle.
Why are we not discussing Hunt quoting Mandelson's suggestion that Starmer is a porker? #fatshaming
The incoherence of what is happening to the Greens is pretty clearly demonstrated by them storming off because the SNP is a. not following the science on the climate and b. is following the science on puberty blockers.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Are we a step further towards Kate Forbes being the SNP leader at? SFAICS this would be a change that both SLab and SCon would be very keen not to see happen before the GE.
I suspect Flynn and Robertson will be scheming for one of them to get it.
Scotland now has a minority government. And a completely useless one of course. Surely even Anwar must spot that this is an opportunity. Not the fastest thinker but jeez, it is staring him in the face.
Will need someone to phone him up and explain it
Yes, using really small words. But surely that is Jackie Baillie's job? It must be a thankless task.
I step out upon the streets of Basingstoke. Rugged, so rugged. Hampshirians cram the plush avenues in their scuttling mania, absorbed with work or play. The sky yawns. I know. The quiddity of presence is boastful in its empathy of sheer assertion. I know. God was here.
Latest ECMWF forecast for the May Day bank holiday looks like it will have Leon in despair. Another area of high pressure to the west bringing a cold plunge south over Britain.
With luck this forecast will prove to be inaccurate.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Still better than Sir Lindsay.
Lindsay Hoyle's ok. Not as good as Betty or Tonypandy when they were alive, but better than Bercow or Martin. He gives the impression of a man trying his best who doesn't always get it right, which is more than can be said for the last two. Also, he's the first speaker to have a family member mentioned in a song by Carter USM.
Is there anywhere I can watch or listen to Louise Haigh's speech? The Today programme this morning had some vested interest privateer ranting on for what seemed like hours with virtually nothing from the government, opposition or indeed passenger groups. Utterly bizarre coverage.
Same on wake up to money and breakfast on 5 live
I did get to learn that the most profitable and costly part of the whole system is to remain private with all rolling stock being leased by the taxpayer by the wealth creators
Are we a step further towards Kate Forbes being the SNP leader at? SFAICS this would be a change that both SLab and SCon would be very keen not to see happen before the GE.
I suspect Flynn and Robertson will be scheming for one of them to get it.
I’d favour Flynn but doesn’t the SNP leader have to be in Holyrood? Hence Cherry’s greeting about being blocked from the path to power.
The "alternate" (fake) Electoral College Voters in Arizona have been indicted on felony criminal charges. A bunch of Trumps lawyers and lackeys indicted with them.
But not yet Trump. Suggestions the State AG is waiting for the Supreme Court ruling on his "absolute immunity" claims before joining him too. Until then, he is "Unindicted Co-conspirator Number 1"
Meanwhile, overnight, Nikki Haley gets 16.5% in the Republican Pennsylvanian primary where she wasn't even campaigning. Trump is not that popular even among registered Republicans.
Latest ECMWF forecast for the May Day bank holiday looks like it will have Leon in despair. Another area of high pressure to the west bringing a cold plunge south over Britain.
With luck this forecast will prove to be inaccurate.
I’m off abroad again. Thank fuck
Fantastic morning in Paris. Bright, clear, sunny day. Walked from one side of the AdT to the other, a couple of kilometres in total. Paris looking magnificent. Everyone had a spring in their step, big smiles all round. Had a quick coffee near Rue Francois 1er where, incidentally, I was passed by what seemed to be an endless stream of the most extraordinary yummy mummies what on earth do they feed them on a Paris, I wonder. Everyone so elegant, so what is the word, so chic. Bemoaned the fact that later today I will be back in drab old England walking out into the grotty St. Pancras air.
Is there anywhere I can watch or listen to Louise Haigh's speech? The Today programme this morning had some vested interest privateer ranting on for what seemed like hours with virtually nothing from the government, opposition or indeed passenger groups. Utterly bizarre coverage.
Same on wake up to money and breakfast on 5 live
I did get to learn that the most profitable and costly part of the whole system is to remain private with all rolling stock being leased by the taxpayer by the wealth creators
Yes, although I think that is more flexible (potentially) than the state owning all the rolling stock. Rather like leasing a car can be a better option than buying one if you want to keep up to date with the latest technology.
The package looks generally good I think but – as you say – it would be good to hear more about the actual package rather than endless whining propaganda from the privateers on every radio show.
Now imagine that the Daily Mail, Express, etc, had relentlessly banged on, day after day, about water, energy, etc, privatisation, instead of about immigration, and think how different British politics might be.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Still better than Sir Lindsay.
Lindsay Hoyle's ok. Not as good as Betty or Tonypandy when they were alive, but better than Bercow or Martin. He gives the impression of a man trying his best who doesn't always get it right, which is more than can be said for the last two. Also, he's the first speaker to have a family member mentioned in a song by Carter USM.
Well I’d say he covers up all sorts of jiggery pokery and calling precedent then changing the rules when it suits by looking confused and saying he’s doing his best, but chacun à son goût obvs.
The incoherence of what is happening to the Greens is pretty clearly demonstrated by them storming off because the SNP is a. not following the science on the climate and b. is following the science on puberty blockers.
BHA 2021: "The cornerstone of this agreement... is mutual trust and good faith."
Greens today: "By ending the agreement in such a weak and thoroughly hopeless way, Humza Yousaf has signalled that when it comes to political cooperation, he can no longer trusted.".
I had a link for it last night. I had looked at the non paywall copy on line but I suspect that my cookies just put me into my account.
Its a really good piece. The story about his father is harrowing. I don't have anything like his world view, especially on religious matters which are central to his beliefs, but he comes across as a genuinely decent man trying to do the right thing in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.
In your world pretty much anything would be acceptable. 'It wasn't *me* being racist when I used that racist insult against someone, I was quoting someone else'. (I'm not comparing 'pint-size' with racist abuse - just wondering where would YOU draw the line when insulting someone using someone else's words)
When it comes down to what language is in order in parliament, the arbiter is Mr Speaker. And he didn't bat an eyelid.
Had she thrown a racial slur then he absolutely would have intervened. Not that she would have quoted that. As you know very well.
It isn't my fault that the Bad Ship Tory is both sinking fast and is inhabited by political rats who savage each other.
Worst speaker in history by a country mile.
By no means as bad as Bercow. Or, IIRC, Martin.
I disagree OKC. Personally I rated Bercow and bad as Martin was he was better than this clown.
To each his own. Opinion, I mean. Admittedly I’ve been disappointed with Hoyle in recent months.
Bring back Betty or Tonypandy
I appreciate the sentiment, but there might be signficant practical problems with that.
Still better than Sir Lindsay.
Lindsay Hoyle's ok. Not as good as Betty or Tonypandy when they were alive, but better than Bercow or Martin. He gives the impression of a man trying his best who doesn't always get it right, which is more than can be said for the last two. Also, he's the first speaker to have a family member mentioned in a song by Carter USM.
Why are you all eulogising the vile Georgie Thomas? Friend of Julian Hodge and fiddler of ****.
Much more relevant was the question from Jeff Smith;
When it eventually came to Smith’s turn, he simply and quietly asked Dowden the following: “He praised the prime minister for restoring stability. Who does he think caused the instability?”
The deputy prime minister knew he’d been clean bowled. He did his very best oleaginous smile, but the middle stump was out of the ground.
Bring back Jon Bercow. It just shows that we need someone who faces down the HoC, isn't intimidated, and gives some active direction to the business of the House.
That everyone seemed to loathe him surely was evidence that he was the right person.
Bring back Jon Bercow. It just shows that we need someone who faces down the HoC, isn't intimidated, and gives some active direction to the business of the House.
That everyone seemed to loathe him surely was evidence that he was the right person.
Labour is going to preside over some serious unemployment
“The head of Indian IT company Tata Consultancy Services has said artificial intelligence will result in “minimal” need for call centres in as soon as a year, with AI’s rapid advances set to upend a vast industry across Asia and beyond.”
FT ££
How many people work in call centres in the UK? I imagine it is not a trivia number
Few will mourn these repetitive jobs (tho the people who get made redundant might); AI will not stop there
Why do none of our politicians talk about this? This isn’t some distant prospect, this is happening shortly - “in as soon as a year”
A challenge for Reeves and Starmer
People hate talking to a computer.
Often you want empathy and understanding and not a chatbot.
Everyone's situation is different.
I think "chatbots" are just a way for multinational companies to avoid talking to their customers. After the 5th time a computer gives you a link to their (automated) complaints procedure, you just give up.
Yes, it's just poor customer service.
AI won't destroy all these jobs, but when we have a national shortage of workers redeployment some of these to other work is a plus. Less need for immigration.
It's hack travel journalists that need to worry most.
It’s really not. Travel journalists will be some of the last to go (amongst writers); an AI trying to pretend it’s having a human experience would be exposed and the company would be in deep shit - and an AI cannot have a human experience. Those jobs are safe for now, the ones that require intrinsic humanity and a human presence
Everyone else in a cognitive job where they don’t have to show a face and be there in the moment is in grave trouble. That’s most office jobs and a lot of artistic jobs
For some reason I've just thought of the travel writer who wrote a guidebook about something like the Canadian Rockies, and later on it turned out he hadn't actually visited them.
Guidebook writing will mostly be done by AI
But the journalism will be a last redoubt of the human. By the time the spooky looms come for the poor travel hack, having his final mojito in the Maldives, we will either all be dead or living in total AI abundance anyway. The Singularity will be at hand
I’ve been trying to work out why no politicians are even talking about this - the imminent prospect of AI taking millions of jobs. I deduce it is because
1. They don’t understand it, they can’t quite believe it 2. They’re scared 3. They have no idea what to do, better to go into denial
Sometimes a mix of all three
Perhaps some EU politicians have considered it.
And that's why they've become so keen on having free movement of young people to the UK again.
This is remarkable. Russia is out-producing Europe in military equipment to such an extent that it is able to restock its military warehouses, while Europe was unable to keep Ukraine supplied with US help. What a monumental failure by Europe.
Russia is already producing more arms and military equipment than it needs for its war against Ukraine, and is filling its weapons warehouses, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said, as reported by the German television channel n-tv on April 25.
As Russia switches into a war economy mode, "a large part or part of what is newly produced no longer goes to the front, but ends up in warehouses," Pistorius said on air of the ARD program Maischberger.
Labour is going to preside over some serious unemployment
“The head of Indian IT company Tata Consultancy Services has said artificial intelligence will result in “minimal” need for call centres in as soon as a year, with AI’s rapid advances set to upend a vast industry across Asia and beyond.”
FT ££
How many people work in call centres in the UK? I imagine it is not a trivia number
Few will mourn these repetitive jobs (tho the people who get made redundant might); AI will not stop there
Why do none of our politicians talk about this? This isn’t some distant prospect, this is happening shortly - “in as soon as a year”
A challenge for Reeves and Starmer
I thought we currently had a serious "not enough workers" problem?
If AI call centres can be made effective, it is perhaps good thing for productivity.
I step out upon the streets of Basingstoke. Rugged, so rugged. Hampshirians cram the plush avenues in their scuttling mania, absorbed with work or play. The sky yawns. I know. The quiddity of presence is boastful in its empathy of sheer assertion. I know. God was here.
Rayner's abusive remark wasn't aimed at people who knew it was a quote. It was aimed at the kind of yobs (of whatever caste) who shout "shortarse" at a bloke because he's of below average height. It will have gone down badly not just with short men, but also with short women, with women who are married to short men, and with women and men who have sons or dads or whatever who are short. The fact that it's unoriginal just shows she and her team couldn't even think up a good insult. Also note that she wasn't saying it to Rishi Sunak's face, and she seemed to be praising Boris Johnson. What an idiot.
And I don't know why there's reluctance to say it's similar to racism, because it is. Height and skin colour are characteristics you can't usually change and they have nothing to do with your skill or lack of it at running the country.
You'd never hear Jeremy Corbyn saying something like this. He had politics that were opposed to the Tory party's.
Actually, I think I agree with you here. I have no idea why Sunak is criticised for his height: there are manifold other things one can reasonably attack him for, without resorting to this sort of stuff. I think it's distasteful and I'm on the short side of six foot. It probably won't make much difference, but I think Rayner was out of order using it (in what was otherwise a fun bombastic session if, as ever with the PB pantomime, more heat than light).
I've met him - he isn't particularly short. I read "pint-sized loser" as his political stature. Dorries was comparing him to Boris! Sunak's height isn't really the issue - she thinks he is a political pygmy compared to her beloved.
Boris is himself a shortish man – I have met him twice and towered over him. I'm not sure there is a huge difference in height between Bozzatron and The Rish. Not that it matters. Who cares?
It's all muscle.
Why are we not discussing Hunt quoting Mandelson's suggestion that Starmer is a porker? #fatshaming
A persons weight is something they can control, whereas height isn’t, so it’s probably less of an insult. Nevertheless, it’s a bit unnecessary at PMQs isn’t it?
Bring back Jon Bercow. It just shows that we need someone who faces down the HoC, isn't intimidated, and gives some active direction to the business of the House.
That everyone seemed to loathe him surely was evidence that he was the right person.
Absolutely right. Looking back, some people only objected to him because he refused to turn parliament into a rubber-stamping machine for whatever crap version of Brexit Boris proposed at the time.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Oh, is 454cm3-size better?
Only joking - your point is a fair one.
So he’s a 454ml American pint size, rather than a 568ml British pint size?
Argh - just as well I don't work for an airport refuelling company. I meant 568 ...
In terms of getting measurements wrong a friend was creating a gutter clearing contraption for me by adapting a leaf blower. He asked me what the power of my leaf blower was. I replied 3000 kw rather than 3000 w. If it were 3000 kw I suspect I wouldn't have a blocked gutter problem any more because I wouldn't have any guttering either (or come to that many tiles on my roof).
Is this your leaf blower?
Laughed out loud at that. It probably wouldn't have been far off. Who cares about 3 decimal points anyway (I'm sure no one at NASA has said)
Bring back Jon Bercow. It just shows that we need someone who faces down the HoC, isn't intimidated, and gives some active direction to the business of the House.
That everyone seemed to loathe him surely was evidence that he was the right person.
Absolutely right. Looking back, some people only objected to him because he refused to turn parliament into a rubber-stamping machine for whatever crap version of Brexit Boris proposed at the time.
Wasn't he a bit of a bully to people he had managerial control over?
I had a link for it last night. I had looked at the non paywall copy on line but I suspect that my cookies just put me into my account.
Its a really good piece. The story about his father is harrowing. I don't have anything like his world view, especially on religious matters which are central to his beliefs, but he comes across as a genuinely decent man trying to do the right thing in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
I was out for dinner last night visiting old friends, who made home made Aubergine Schnitzel.
He has a good trick for controlling wine consumption - a small collection of inexpensive 18/19C English glasses, which are heavy with thick glass and therefore small in volume.
Yes, and have you checked out the investment curve? Remember that the privateers and their fellow travellers like @another_richard told us that this was the whole point of privatisation. Oh. Oh. Oh!
Comments
My own view is that rich people can be working class, and poor people can be upper class, and that Rayner is working class and always will be, but interesting none the less that people who used to say the likes of my friends & family, now probably middle class in terms of salary and where we live, were no longer working class, despite being brought up in working class households (the definition of working class to me)
It will be interesting to see how the SNP go about getting their next Budget passed. A resurgent Labour will feel it is in their interests for the Government to fall.
So they probably won’t.
In other, immortal words, nothing has changed.
Angela vdB is either very very stupid or very very malign or possibly both.*
The big message is don't fuck with Jason Beer.
*says the entire country as/if they watch this.
https://x.com/_f_b_g_/status/1783252770423718098?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Yes, she does well financially as an MP and likely a minister in the next government, but I’d still describe her as working class. Her children, not so much.
https://x.com/holyroodmandy/status/1783428277102657722
We watch. And we wait.
None of these are necessarily better or worse than the others, but they are different, and if one person is making a point in relation to one and another person responds in relation to another them confusion reigns.
Why are we not discussing Hunt quoting Mandelson's suggestion that Starmer is a porker? #fatshaming
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-hunt-spring-budget-sir-keir-starmer-labour-conservative-tory-b1143543.html
When youre a thick fooker
Scotland now has a minority government. And a completely useless one of course. Surely even Anwar must spot that this is an opportunity. Not the fastest thinker but jeez, it is staring him in the face.
With luck this forecast will prove to be inaccurate.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1783390500549972139
The actual height difference.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1783390505578955217
Applies to Boris and SKS
https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1783432954095493589
Not these voters obviously.
Also, he's the first speaker to have a family member mentioned in a song by Carter USM.
I did get to learn that the most profitable and costly part of the whole system is to remain private with all rolling stock being leased by the taxpayer by the wealth creators
Hence Cherry’s greeting about being blocked from the path to power.
Rail? No.
Energy? Er, maybe. Probably no.
Water? LOL.
https://archive.ph/jzKAa
Are climate change, Covid recovery, social inequality and independence all sorted?
Or are SNP MPs bricking it over the election and desperate to be rid of Greens?
https://x.com/HTScotPol/status/1783436931130359875
Trump is not that popular even among registered Republicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOgJYmifHJE
Oh well.
The package looks generally good I think but – as you say – it would be good to hear more about the actual package rather than endless whining propaganda from the privateers on every radio show.
As with most things well run organisations are far less newsworthy than badly run ones.
BHA 2021: "The cornerstone of this agreement... is mutual trust and good faith."
Greens today: "By ending the agreement in such a weak and thoroughly hopeless way, Humza Yousaf has signalled that when it comes to political cooperation, he can no longer trusted.".
https://x.com/HTScotPol/status/1783439140219957341
Hell hath no fury….
Its a really good piece. The story about his father is harrowing. I don't have anything like his world view, especially on religious matters which are central to his beliefs, but he comes across as a genuinely decent man trying to do the right thing in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
Oh.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/country-and-farming/landmark-ps500000-payout-from-yorkshire-water-over-sewage-spill-which-killed-significant-amounts-of-fish-and-wildlife-kickstarts-restoration-project-4599138
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/yorkshire-water-pays-record-1million-civil-sanction
https://labour25.com/2014/07/22/homosexual-labour-peer-lord-tonypandy-accused-of-child-rape/
That everyone seemed to loathe him surely was evidence that he was the right person.
His time is now.
And that's why they've become so keen on having free movement of young people to the UK again.
https://x.com/shiny02/status/1783437381548298563
As Russia switches into a war economy mode, "a large part or part of what is newly produced no longer goes to the front, but ends up in warehouses," Pistorius said on air of the ARD program Maischberger.
If AI call centres can be made effective, it is perhaps good thing for productivity.
https://yorkmix.com/yorkshire-water-pipes-dumped-sewage-into-york-river-for-11000-hours-last-year/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-66984823
And they would continue to happen if they were nationalised.
But Yorkshire doesn't suffer from droughts and water restrictions now as it did in the 1990s.
"Leg-lengthening: The people having surgery to be a bit taller"
https://twitter.com/chirpychappy1/status/1783074985621275064
You'll be claiming next that there were no railways accidents during British Rail or power cuts during the 1970s.
He has a good trick for controlling wine consumption - a small collection of inexpensive 18/19C English glasses, which are heavy with thick glass and therefore small in volume.