I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
Yes.
To me, 80 seems reasonable.
But then I've argued that before.
I don't think it's reasonable. 80 today is the same as 65 a few decades ago.
I was talking to students yesterday. We'd given them a task to design a research proposal. One group had chosen to look at over 60s and they were discussing how over 60s struggle to use technology...
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
UEFA has decided to move Maccabi Tel Aviv's upcoming Europa League match against Beşiktaş from Turkey to Hungary out of caution following the Amsterdam Pogrom
“Out of an abundance of anti-Semitism”
So they moved it to Hungary???
It is a bittersweet irony that, due to poverty and communism the highly antisemitic corners of Eastern Europe avoided large scale immigration from MENA, so they are now relatively much safer for Jews
Eg I’d rather be Jewish in Krakow than Bradford, which is quite astonishing, in context
There are more than 100 times the number of Jews in Krakow than Bradford.
There are many cities and towns in the UK that have seen vast declines in the number of jews - this is not down to antisemitism but people have moved for business or family. It becomes a vicious circle. A synagagoue or school closes and there is less incentive to stay.
Liverpool once had more than a dozen Jewish butchers and numerous bakers. There is one jewish deli left.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
Ideal world, yes. Like us with the East India Co. But Trump's a "no more foreign wars" peace-monger, isn't he. America the global policeman is over. So there's huge scope for saving money there. There's $1 TRILLION a year to go at. If Musk can't squeeze a few hundred billion off that he's a waste of space.
Some years ago, under the Bush II administration, there was debate about missile defence.
In Canada, various anti-war groups (who are always again missile defence) claimed that a US ABM system would "drag Canada in". All very ghastly, apparently.
A US general was being interviewed on Canadian radio. He said that this was incorrect - the plan was that the Keep Out zones for the system would be defined so that only countries that wished to participate would be protected. This set off a further storm - the anti-missile-defence people apparently believed that they had a moral right both to complain about missile defence. And get it for free....
There were some jokes that the Pentagon should setup a website/hotline. Buy your missile defence like insurance......
Yep. Being World Policeman comes with a big cost to America and it's all the higher if others don't cough up. If they are to relinquish that role, or step back from it somewhat, it opens up the possibility of major savings on the defense budget. Of the order $250 billion per annum, I'd have thought, just back of envelope, but let's see what Musk makes of it. He's the man, not me.
Or a pay to play.
If Germany wants not to have a functional military, they can rent one. Some kind of measure of GDP vs land area, with prices for nuclear deterrence, border guarantees.
"So, do you want to upgrade your package from Basic Existential, to Deluxe Protect? If you buy Deluxe Protect this month, we also throw in a years Protect Aboard - air cover and logistic support for invading countries up to 500 miles away."
That’s the Wagner business model, essentially.
I’m sure Musk could turn his hand to something like that. Once NASA has been abolished I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he acquires the Pentagon and kick starts its new era in the private sector.
Why would he abolish NASA? Given the contracts he gets from them, for a start.
The people saying that "He will abolish NASA" seem to be those in favour of SLS/Orion. Which indicates their thinking.
True. Better than abolition is a hollowing out / outsourcing model. Strip out all of the in-house capabilities meaning the organisation relies on contractors (like Musk) to deliver its objectives
NASA does use contractors to deliver *all* its objectives. JPL is 2/3 contractors, IIRC. That before you get to the fact that the actual fabrication and most of the design is contracted out, to outside companies.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
I think the chances are he'll go below 50% with all those votes still to come from the west coast.
Yes, and the margin will be less than 2percent between them.
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
The rules are simple. Grab as much as you can and donate 10% back to the political class.
% of 2 party vote in (Wikipedia numbers) compared to last time:
75.65% CA 81.99% AK 85.85% DC 87.48% MS 87.72% OR 88.66% WA 89.80% HI 89.83% MD 90.27% IL 90.49% NJ 90.61% UT 91.82% NY 93.17% MA 93.52% LA 94.83% WV 94.98% KS 95.55% CO 95.64% CT 95.86% OH 96.72% MT 97.05% KY 97.09% AZ 97.22% AL 97.29% IN 97.46% AR 97.58% RI 97.97% VA 98.14% WY 98.40% FL 98.58% IA 98.59% MO 98.68% NEB 99.42% NM 99.50% MN 99.90% VT 100.29% TX 100.76% OK 100.78% TN 101.10% PA 101.15% ME 101.31% SC 101.46% DE 101.69% MI 101.80% SD 102.11% ND 102.27% NC 102.93% NH 103.66% NV 103.85% WI 104.63% ID 105.49% GA
Running some numbers, I think there's enough blue leaning vote out there to push Trump sub 50% but I wouldn't stake my life on it. £34 at 1.5 for me.
Bishops come in several flavours in England: Archbishops Top diocesan bishops - London, Winchester, Durham Other diocesan bishops split into: those in the House of Lords and those waiting to be in the House of Lords Suffragan bishops who serve under a diocesan bishop Anglo catholic flying bishops - a sub branch of suffragan bishop Evangelical flying bishop - ditto One or two other spare bishops in admin posts Retired bishops Bishops who were CoE but have joined the Roman Catholics.
In the early planning stage: Bishops set aside for churches that don't like gays much.
Is this a good scheme? No Is it sustainable? No Is it a picture of an outfit in crisis? Yes Does the CoE have hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people who get on with it, fund the operation, and try not to think about it all and delete all emails from all diocesan sources? Yes.
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
Because to hold him to account takes time, and requires bodies where he may have influence or control, or a hold over those bodies, to be part of that process.
In practice, in many cases he can gum up the works for so long that enforcement will come too far after the fact to make much difference.
There are a number of groups working on legal strategies to 'Jiu-Jitsu' him on this. In his last term the ACLU did hundreds of lawsuits to challenge his policies, and won most of them.
A similar technique ('so use your money to use the courts to make us') is used in local council settings in the UK when there is something they do not wish to do. One small example of this is political noes to officer-recommended planning applications, which then have to be taken to Appeal which costs the Council money but gives the Councillors clean hands in the view of Nimby voters.
Assisted dying is legal in several countries. We should take a look at how they've gone about it and how it's worked out in practice. The ethical and practical questions aren't special to us.
Good header. I certainly have reservations about assisted suicide. While suicide is now legal allowing another to help you take your own life risks undue pressure being put on the patient. While the safeguard of a terminal illness in severe pain is meant to be there, in Canada now they now have even those with mental illness pressured to end their lives. Hence Conservative Opposition Leader Poilievre has promised to cut back on access to assisted suicide in Canada if elected PM next year
On undue pressure being put on the patient - the importance of this is being exaggerated. I doubt whether family coercion would happen given the patient has less that six months to live anyway. Forgive me but I suspect your objection is religious - only God should take life.
This is the thing.
There is overwhelming public support for assisted dying. It seems pretty obvious that people who object for moral reasons are throwing up all kinds of objections as deep down they know the public don't support their moral reasons.
It seems quite extraordinary that everybody should be prevented from doing something just because a far smaller number of people MIGHT be pressured to do something against their will.
We wouldn't stop everyone driving a car because a small number of people might be killed (or indeed we know some people will be killed). How about stopping bank transfers of money - after all someone might be pressured to give someone money against their will?
Of course life is much more important than a bank transfer. But then you come to the point - can it really be right that everyone has control over everything they do in life except the one most important thing - whether to continue living.
Wherever assisted dying has been brought in, it's been a popular change to the law. No countries are repealing such laws after they have been introduced. Where the scope has been extended that's a positive sign - it shows the law is popular and more peoole want to use it.
The public simply does not support being prevented from doing what they want because it goes against other people's morals or religion - we need to cut through the objections and get this done.
It's very similar to abortion and gay marriage where all kinds of objections were raised. It's very simple - if you don't want an abortion or a gay marriage then don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
If you don't like assisted dying, don't do it. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
That's basically my view too, supported by the fact that the option is already available to people with money (travel to Switzerland etc.). Cyclefree's header puts the case against, but too vigorously, throwing in all kinds of issues which can't reasonably be included in the Bill, and then complaining that it's too long for proper consideration. Second Reading doesn't require line-by-line analysis - it's about whther the proposal is right in principle. Committee Stage is not nearly as time-constrained and is the place to consider the detailed points raised by Cyclefree and others.
Personally, I think the Bill is too restrictive. But given the level of opposition, it's a reasonable shot at a compromise, which can be tweaked in Committee as necessary.
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,484,205 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,436,045 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 63,582 2.1
Lead: 48,160
Arizona Senate. Estimated 88.9 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,500,850 49.8 Kari Lake GOP 1,449,464 48.1 Eduardo Quintana GRN 64,552 2.1
Lead: 51,386
Arizona Senate. Estimated 91.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,555,426 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,488,733 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 67,961 2.2
Lead: 66,693
Arizona Senate. Estimated 93.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,574,597 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,505,837 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 69,107 2.2
Lead 68,760
Arizona Senate. Estimated 94.6 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,600,923 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,528,297 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 70,678 2.2
Lead 72,626.
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
Arizona Senate. Estimated 95.8 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,618,527 50.0 Kari Lake GOP 1,545,791 47.8 Eduardo Quintana GRN 71,869 2.2
Lead 72,736
Gallego (D) is projected to win by the Associated Press.
One genuinely still in-play question is whether Trump will end up above or below 50% of the popular vote. It doesn't really matter but I hope it's below (1.68 fav atm) since that will mean more Americans voted against him than for him.
I think the chances are he'll go below 50% with all those votes still to come from the west coast.
Basically, a third voted for him, a third voted for Harris and a third didn't vote. However, a good President can reach beyond those who voted for him to unite the nation!
I expect within 2 years Trump will indeed have united the nation. United in contempt, disgust and rage as the economy tanks following retaliation in the trade war he intends to launch and after multiple corruption indictments across the administration.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords
So?
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
What are the conflict of interest rules for US government jobs? How can Musk have a major government job while still benefitting financially from government contracts?
It won't be an official job. He probably won't get paid for it.
But if Trump listens to him, he can still do whatever he wants he likes.
That's the point: Trump wants to remove all checks and balances. If you're sufficiently ruthless, and have a complaisant Congress and S. Court, you can get away with an awful lot.
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
It's why I want Chope and co to talk it out. That would allow time for a proper debate before it returned to Parliament and proper debates once it returned to Parliament next year...
If anyone wants to know how mad our society has become, just consider that lots of government parliamentary time is being given to legislation about the governance of football. At the same time assisted dying is being given a cursory glance.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords
So?
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
Reform the House of Lords. But do it properly!
They might try the argument that Lords membership should be proportional to Commons membership, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a straight face.
It's also a topic where religion needs to keep its nose well out.
Why?
Many people - not you evidently - see their faith as an important part of their ethical framework. Why would you deny them leadership from people they respect?
Yes. Quite
The PB atheists are extremely wearying. Fine. They don’t believe. I feel sorry for them that they don’t have that solace - as they no doubt pity believers for their credulity
They have no right to force their sad desolate nihilism on those of us that do believe
For many religious people the question in the header goes to the core of what religious belief means
But both believers and unbelievers are represented through the democratic process. The perspective of a believer is valid but not special. Why should believers get an extra go at representation? I have no qualms with the churches expressing a view but the fact that that view is religiously informed does not lend it more weight than the view of those whose view is based on secular reasoning. FWIW, I probably agree with the position of the CoE on this subject.
All true. But religion informs the ethical framework of many of those who will be involved in this. Denying that is one option. But, as an atheist, I think that is inefficient and self defeating.
What will be accepted by society, is the societal "average" of moral and ethical constraints. The law (should) just try and run to catch up. So you will be feeding religious concerns into the law, regardless of whether you do this implicit, or explicitly.
Trying to dictate to society via the law is an attempt at the Rule of The Philosopher Kings. Which has always failed.
Who says anything about religious people not using it as an 'ethical' framework (*)? Of course they can. But their view and opinion is no more valid or invalid than mine, just because it is their reading of their religion. Their views get no extra validity or strength through being based on their individual reading of a religion.
(*) Although again I state that 'ethical' in many religious people seems to be more what advantages them, and not what is right, what their holy book says, or what their God might want.
You did. You said “religion should keep its nose well out”.
People can use whatever basis they want to form their views. Lobby groups - on whatever side - and other interested parties have the right to express their views.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords
So?
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
Reform the House of Lords. But do it properly!
You need a lesson in constitutional history.
1) Blair hasn’t been in power for **checks notes** seventeen years
2) No parliament can bind its successors, so the latest manifesto supersedes all that comes before it
3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen
4) Labour’s motive is to reduce the number of peers.
5) We have a control mechanism on the PM, commonly known as general elections
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
China battery giant CATL would build US plant if Trump allows it
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-battery-giant-catl-would-build-us-plant-if-trump-allows-it-2024-11-13/ ..Zeng, who met Musk when he visited Beijing in April and has talked to him often, said he agreed with the Tesla founder’s view on the potential for AI-powered autonomous-vehicle technology. Tesla’s self-driving tech relies solely on cameras and AI in hopes of building affordable autonomous vehicles that can sell in large volumes. Its competitors are mostly building more expensive vehicles with layers of redundant technology, for safety, and using them to operate taxi or delivery services. "He's all in," Zeng said of Musk's strategy. "I think it’s a good direction." But Zeng said he had told Musk directly that his bet on a cylindrical battery, known as the 4680, "is going to fail and never be successful." "We had a very big debate, and I showed him," Zeng said. "He was silent. He doesn't know how to make a battery. It's about electrochemistry. He's good for the chips, the software, the hardware, the mechanical things."..
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that: https://archive.ph/8pEdu
+Julie Birkenhead is +Joanne Stepney's deputy on safeguarding matters, so it's reasonable for her to stick her crozier in.
And I think it's fair to say that there's a generational shift here- people have a valid point when they say "this wasn't so bad, by the standards of the time", but others have a much more valid point when they say "those standards were wrong, and the current ones are better".
That doesn't excuse the Telegraph doing what the Telegraph now does all the blooming time. The only irony being that, by exploiting safeguarding as a way to topple someone they find uncongenial, they are likely to end up with someone younger, woker and fundamentally even less agreeable.
That's good comment on the generational shift.
I nearly mentioned yesterday (but the comment was too long) the contrast between the Bp of Newcastle withdrawing the Permission to Officiate (required to take services in a Church of England building - public embarrassment for an Archbishop) from John Sentamu, former ++York, when a complaint had been made about how he had responded to a complaint about historic abuse- essentially because in +Newcastle's view he had not taken 'appropriate advice' (ie from a specialist).
She felt it important to do that whilst the question was resolved, and he thought of it as being a far too pointed way to respond.
The difference between John Sentamu and +Newcastle in age is 25 years - 1949 vs ~1974.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords
So?
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
Reform the House of Lords. But do it properly!
You need a lesson in constitutional history.
1) Blair hasn’t been in power for **checks notes** seventeen years
2) No parliament can bind its successors, so the latest manifesto supersedes all that comes before it
3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen
4) Labour’s motive is to reduce the number of peers.
5) We have a control mechanism on the PM, commonly known as general elections
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords
So?
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
Reform the House of Lords. But do it properly!
You need a lesson in constitutional history.
1) Blair hasn’t been in power for **checks notes** seventeen years
2) No parliament can bind its successors, so the latest manifesto supersedes all that comes before it
3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen
4) Labour’s motive is to reduce the number of peers.
5) We have a control mechanism on the PM, commonly known as general elections
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Interesting thread. I agree with this - as vehicles to encourage venture capital investment, they're a multi decade failure. Reeves should take a look.
Angel investment tax breaks like EIS and VCT are one of the sacred cows of the UK tech and VC ecosystem.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt into Parliament.
Definitely a "top bishop" then... Good old Telegraph....
Suffragen bishops can be there to provide expertise that is otherwise not available within the current set of Diocesan bishops. And it is clear from a quick look at her history that the Bishop of Birkenhead has expertise in safeguarding that very few other Bishops (or ordinary clergy) have
"3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen"
Rewriting history there, Mr Eagles! AV was rejected by the electorate. It was, after all, just a "miserable little compromise".... There was no endorsement of anything.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
It's why I want Chope and co to talk it out. That would allow time for a proper debate before it returned to Parliament and proper debates once it returned to Parliament next year...
If anyone wants to know how mad our society has become, just consider that lots of government parliamentary time is being given to legislation about the governance of football. At the same time assisted dying is being given a cursory glance.
PL alone is about 0.4% of UK taxes, it is not inconsequential.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?
This has been going on since they started televising it.
“So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?”
To be fair to Andy, BigG and others with strong tribal bias - perhaps tribal bias should come with blindness when 90% of backbench questions from your own party have been written by whips?
Where BigG says it’s noticeable and embarrassing today, in recent years the number of Tory backbench q’s written by whips “my constituents are delighted with money/factory/road or statue put up thanks to this Conservative Government” was if anything more obvious and embarrassing than what we have today, as it never really dealt with the elephant in the room - a party about to suffer record defeat due to owning historic erosion of incomes.
The next General Elections will be decided on how quickly that is forgotten and forgiven, not the yahboo nonsense of PMQs.
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
As I say, she’s clunky, and very far from a finished article. She needs much better answers for when Starmer does his schoolmaster routine. I think she’s going for “plucky” but it’s coming across as a bit uncertain to me.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?
This has been going on since they started televising it.
“So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?”
To be fair to Andy, BigG and others with strong tribal bias - perhaps tribal bias should come with blindness when 90% of backbench questions from your own party have been written by whips?
Where BigG says it’s noticeable and embarrassing today, in recent years the number of Tory backbench q’s written by whips “my constituents are delighted with money/factory/road or statue put up thanks to this Conservative Government” was if anything more obvious and embarrassing than what we have today, as it never really dealt with the elephant in the room - a party about to suffer record defeat due to owning historic erosion of incomes.
The next General Elections will be decided on how quickly that is forgotten and forgiven, not the yahboo nonsense of PMQs.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
She's very good at giving people reasons to underestimate her.
After accusing Starmer of reading last week, she's proved herself incapable of reading today. Maybe her team should put it in larger type?
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
She's very good at giving people reasons to underestimate her.
After accusing Starmer of reading last week, she's proved herself incapable of reading today. Maybe her team should put it in larger type?
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
As I say, she’s clunky, and very far from a finished article. She needs much better answers for when Starmer does his schoolmaster routine. I think she’s going for “plucky” but it’s coming across as a bit uncertain to me.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
I noted that Davey's second question was listened to in pin-drop silence. Unusual at PMQs. And something Kemi has not managed so far.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
It's why I want Chope and co to talk it out. That would allow time for a proper debate before it returned to Parliament and proper debates once it returned to Parliament next year...
If anyone wants to know how mad our society has become, just consider that lots of government parliamentary time is being given to legislation about the governance of football. At the same time assisted dying is being given a cursory glance.
PL alone is about 0.4% of UK taxes, it is not inconsequential.
Noted. Does that mean it needs its own special legislation and interference? There is plenty of law governing commerce, events, venues, tax paying, company practice and financial transactions.
Maybe a Rwanda type act deeming all matches played by Arsenal to be won by Arsenal 1-0 would help. I can't see another way of Arsenal winning the Premiership
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
Not my peril! But so far she has been rubbish.
In your opinion, other opinions are available
Don't worry BigG. I'm just passing through. I won't linger. Although if you think she did well I have a book titled "Unleashed" to sell you.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
Yes.
To me, 80 seems reasonable.
But then I've argued that before.
I am glad I read the quotes. In a thread on assisted dying/euthanasia, "80 seems reasonable" made me look twice.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Are the clicks generated by the Guardian posting or others sharing their articles, though?
They are withdrawing from the first rather than the second.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think that if she is upsetting labour supporters she is doing just fine, but also she is young, very new to the role, has plenty of time to grow into it, and above all else is different
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
Badenoch is a clear and present danger to the Conservative chances IMO. Unlike MexPet I don’t think there is an obvious replacement in Cleverly or Mordaunt or anyone ready to be voted Prime Minister.
Sure there will be some promising local election nights and polling between now and next General Election in 5 years, but none of that will actually impact the General Election decision the voters will make - because the problem with Badenoch and all the other Conservative leadership contenders in recent years is what do they actually believe in? When it has to be expressed as policy positions. Leave ECHR, sign an Asylum Seeker dumping deal with Rwanda, cut maternity and paternity benefits, cut minimum wage, etc etc.
The huge danger of Badenoch, we haven’t seen it yet but there is plenty of time, she is going to get an awful lot of attention and cut through as Leader of the Opposition for her policy positions.
The next Conservative Prime Minister probably elected MP for the first time in the May 3rd 2029 General Election.
Have we heard yet from the Bishop of Bath and Wells?
George Carey was the last baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells to become ABC. You might remember a scandal about covering up CSE allegations. What else can you expect of a man not clever enough for Eton?
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.
A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.
Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.
They are better than appointed parliamentarians
The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted
Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.
But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories
It was in their manifesto
Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big. The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords
A few things about this:
"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"
Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.
"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."
True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.
"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"
Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?
The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.
I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.
Yes.
To me, 80 seems reasonable.
But then I've argued that before.
I am glad I read the quotes. In a thread on assisted dying/euthanasia, "80 seems reasonable" made me look twice.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
I've seen comments elsewhere that posts on X containing links are being downgraded in the way that other platforms de-prioritise them. Given the source of those comments I'm inclined to believe them.
If that is taking place it's highly likely that the Guardian isn't getting the number of clicks they used to so it's less important than it used to be..
I may need to read this one in the Telegraph (unfortunately).
I'm not sure how the Bishop of Birkenhead became a "Top Bishop". She's a Suffragan (ie assistant Bishop - one Mrs Thatcher termed "little bishops"), who has been in post for 2 years.
(I'm not commenting on the Bishop, who has an interesting background as they all usually do - including a decade as a probation officer, or her suggestion, but mainly that the Telegraph are BS-merchants, as on any day with D in it.
Her views on same sex marriage would, if I have it right, normally lead to he being excoriated in that publication. Happy to be corrected on this last if the T supports same sex marriage blessings and same sex civil partnerships for clergy.)
Doesn’t she have some role in charge of safeguarding, hence why she’s been talking about this?
I've been quite open in my scepticism of the Telegraph, and have shown them inserting outright fabrications into their news reports where the CofE is concerned. Here my concern is that they are trying to leverage this into their culture war.
Having read the piece, +Birkenhead explicitly refused to mention names, so they pick out two from the report and say "these have been called upon to resign". No idea whether this is true - given the UK media, someone is probably outraged that the church mouse hasn't got a safeguarding certificate.
They mention two names: Rev Dr Jo Bailey Wells, who was personal chaplain to the ABC around 2013, and Rev Stephen Conway, Bp of Lincoln. Both are mentioned in the Makin Report and Appendices.
My take on the Telegraph is that they are trying to promote a narrative around what they call an "ecclesial blob", and have Welby and people and places they think are like him down as the villains, as part of their 'war on woke'. Others here will have views on this particular subject - especially perhaps those who have spoken about the Save the Parish organisation.
This piece by Madeleine Grant seems to me to be characteristic of that: https://archive.ph/8pEdu
+Julie Birkenhead is +Joanne Stepney's deputy on safeguarding matters, so it's reasonable for her to stick her crozier in.
And I think it's fair to say that there's a generational shift here- people have a valid point when they say "this wasn't so bad, by the standards of the time", but others have a much more valid point when they say "those standards were wrong, and the current ones are better".
That doesn't excuse the Telegraph doing what the Telegraph now does all the blooming time. The only irony being that, by exploiting safeguarding as a way to topple someone they find uncongenial, they are likely to end up with someone younger, woker and fundamentally even less agreeable.
That's good comment on the generational shift.
I nearly mentioned yesterday (but the comment was too long) the contrast between the Bp of Newcastle withdrawing the Permission to Officiate (required to take services in a Church of England building - public embarrassment for an Archbishop) from John Sentamu, former ++York, when a complaint had been made about how he had responded to a complaint about historic abuse- essentially because in +Newcastle's view he had not taken 'appropriate advice' (ie from a specialist).
She felt it important to do that whilst the question was resolved, and he thought of it as being a far too pointed way to respond.
The difference between John Sentamu and +Newcastle in age is 25 years - 1949 vs ~1974.
I really like these convos between people knowledgeable about Anglican hierarchy and matters. I don't fully understand them but they are very interesting. Please continue.
I have been busy and still have stuff to do so will respond later to some of the questions and comments.
The Bill has far more in it than I have been able to explain in this header. I will only say this: reading and understanding it and the relevant law, cases, existing guidance, evidence etc will take one person way more than 5 hours. The idea that the principle of this can be debated and voted for in 5 hours is for the birds. Bluntly it is dishonest and suggests to me - for reasons I will explain later - an attempt to smuggle through a measure which will be used to bring in euthanasia and not simply assistance to those wishing to commit suicide. I react very strongly against the the intellectual and moral dishonesty involved in claiming that a morally freighted decision is simply a kind box ticking measure which no-one should have any concerns about.
Something as important as this ought to have a debate, or series of debates, going on for several days, at least.
It's why I want Chope and co to talk it out. That would allow time for a proper debate before it returned to Parliament and proper debates once it returned to Parliament next year...
If anyone wants to know how mad our society has become, just consider that lots of government parliamentary time is being given to legislation about the governance of football. At the same time assisted dying is being given a cursory glance.
PL alone is about 0.4% of UK taxes, it is not inconsequential.
Noted. Does that mean it needs its own special legislation and interference? There is plenty of law governing commerce, events, venues, tax paying, company practice and financial transactions.
Maybe a Rwanda type act deeming all matches played by Arsenal to be won by Arsenal 1-0 would help. I can't see another way of Arsenal winning the Premiership
I think it does yes, primarily as clubs have a social role in communities especially in mid/small sized towns that are perhaps those that have suffered the most. And the financial rewards from reaching the PL encourage the worst of roulette capitalism. Buy a league one club for £10m, invest a few more tens of millions, borrow the same, if you get to the Premier League you have a club worth hundreds of millions. More likely you fail and leave the club bankrupt and the small town loses part of itself. The hedge fund or foreign owner can just move onto their next project as if nothing has happened.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Are the clicks generated by the Guardian posting or others sharing their articles, though?
They are withdrawing from the first rather than the second.
By withdrawing from the first they will hugely disrupt the second because of the number of followers they have that share their tweets. People will need to go to the website or see a link elsewhere to then create their own tweet of it. I wonder what the policy is going to be for individual writers, I expect that will end up being the loophole - the writers can post the links on their own but not on the main account.
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
As I say, she’s clunky, and very far from a finished article. She needs much better answers for when Starmer does his schoolmaster routine. I think she’s going for “plucky” but it’s coming across as a bit uncertain to me.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
I noted that Davey's second question was listened to in pin-drop silence. Unusual at PMQs. And something Kemi has not managed so far.
It is all very early days.
Davey is in quite a good position with Labour backbenchers in that he can say things that are progressive but uncomfortable for the Labour frontbench.
He doesn't need to deny the existence of a budget blackhole to say "but GPs and pharmacies..." and can say Trump is a danger on Ukraine, which Starmer knows but cannot say in as many words.
Badenoch has a more difficult hand, although she's also not playing it well so far (but early days as you say). There was force in Starmer's point that she wants all the benefits of the budget and none of the costs - it's all very easy indeed to dismiss as non-serious, because it is. She needs to be more forensic.
She also needs to work on options with her team and be more flexible. She was undercut quite badly for Jardine happening to have the first question for the Lib Dems, and she happened to pr-empt one of Badenoch's. But she basically went ahead with it anyway, allowing Starmer to say he'd just answered the point.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?
This has been going on since they started televising it.
“So this is the first time you’ve ever watched PMQs?”
To be fair to Andy, BigG and others with strong tribal bias - perhaps tribal bias should come with blindness when 90% of backbench questions from your own party have been written by whips?
Where BigG says it’s noticeable and embarrassing today, in recent years the number of Tory backbench q’s written by whips “my constituents are delighted with money/factory/road or statue put up thanks to this Conservative Government” was if anything more obvious and embarrassing than what we have today, as it never really dealt with the elephant in the room - a party about to suffer record defeat due to owning historic erosion of incomes.
The next General Elections will be decided on how quickly that is forgotten and forgiven, not the yahboo nonsense of PMQs.
Fair comment
Having said that though, PMQs is ripe for some sort of reform - when half the questions are from the MPs from the party in power and written for them by whips, I too find it cringy and pointless, regardless which party is actually in power. Half pointless for sure, as only half the questions are actual questions, when they all should be to avoid prosecution under trade description act.
It’s been set up historically as Parliament backbenchers can ask Prime Minister a question - so this is what gets served up to us as the dish.
But is that dish put in front of us what we actually want and came for? Definitely not.
Does Parliament even need such a “backbench” flavoured dish every Wednesday, or our Democracy in 21st C. better served by the array of very different Opposition leaders having turn asking the questions instead?
But it needs a Prime Minister to accept the reform? A PM or party in power will never give up what’s great for them, but bad for us and democracy.
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
As I say, she’s clunky, and very far from a finished article. She needs much better answers for when Starmer does his schoolmaster routine. I think she’s going for “plucky” but it’s coming across as a bit uncertain to me.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
I noted that Davey's second question was listened to in pin-drop silence. Unusual at PMQs. And something Kemi has not managed so far.
It is all very early days.
Davey is in quite a good position with Labour backbenchers in that he can say things that are progressive but uncomfortable for the Labour frontbench.
He doesn't need to deny the existence of a budget blackhole to say "but GPs and pharmacies..." and can say Trump is a danger on Ukraine, which Starmer knows but cannot say in as many words.
Badenoch has a more difficult hand, although she's also not playing it well so far (but early days as you say). There was force in Starmer's point that she wants all the benefits of the budget and none of the costs - it's all very easy indeed to dismiss as non-serious, because it is. She needs to be more forensic.
She also needs to work on options with her team and be more flexible. She was undercut quite badly for Jardine happening to have the first question for the Lib Dems, and she happened to pr-empt one of Badenoch's. But she basically went ahead with it anyway, allowing Starmer to say he'd just answered the point.
Always have a spare question or 2. The fact she didn't shows that no-one is preparing things for her.
Just children. I bet they wouldn't have written that if Harris had won.
They're going to find the number of clicks they generate slow down quite a lot over the next few months and quietly early next year they'll come back.
The fact they’re making a song and dance about it, says it was a political decision. They just don’t like that Elon Musk is working with Donald Trump.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
I've seen comments elsewhere that posts on X containing links are being downgraded in the way that other platforms de-prioritise them. Given the source of those comments I'm inclined to believe them.
If that is taking place it's highly likely that the Guardian isn't getting the number of clicks they used to so it's less important than it used to be..
We know that TwiX has an algorithm, and that it's important in determining how much people see of what. In principle, nothing wrong with that.
We don't know exactly what that algorithm is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't working to the Guardian's advantage. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a shock if the recent TwiXodus has had a bias towards Guardianistas. Putting those two together, maybe they are justified in thinking that it's more trouble than it's worth.
A platform can mandate absolute freedom of speech. It can amplify certain expressions of that freedom. What it can't do is force people to listen, or businesses to attach their adverts to it.
Half the questions from Lab MPs seem to be about the Tories. It's supposed to be PM's questions.
It is becoming so obvious it is embarrassing
Same old rubbish his honourable friends were asking Johnson and Sunak. It is very annoying, but no more so than the stupid planted questions Johnson and Sunak had to field from their shills. Jonathan Gullis, Chris Philp and our very own Alun Cairns were great exponents.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
Kemi is doing fine and it would be foolish to underestimate her
She was worse than last week. You need Cleverly or Mordaunt. You have time to get Mordaunt I to Parliament.
She is a real danger to labour and you underestimate her at your peril
She's very good at giving people reasons to underestimate her.
After accusing Starmer of reading last week, she's proved herself incapable of reading today. Maybe her team should put it in larger type?
It seems ridiculous that a hugely political website like the Guardian are now boycotting the number one generator of clicks for political news/articles for established media companies. Way, way more clicks for this stuff comes from Twitter than Instagram, Facebook or Tiktok which are content platforms rather than redirectors to source content.
Twitter's daily use figures are down 30% YoY in the US and UK, so the Guardian may be working on the assumption it's heading for irrelevance in future and the loophole of journalists posting links to their own stories will suffice to drive traffic for now.
Does musk give that much of a fuck if TwiX dies, anyway?
It has served its $44bn purpose. It got his choice of President elected and probably made Musk Inc $244bn in the process. And it is - via Trump - now destroying Woke, his big aim
He clearly doesn’t want TwiX to die, but if it does he can wrap it up with satisfaction: job done
I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna
It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”
The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people
There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?
Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard
Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna
You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.
We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.
I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.
The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?
And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.
My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.
So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely
It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast
A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper
While not getting into this discussion there is a Hannah Fry podcast on comparing the AI learning of different types of jobs which I think you will agree with. It is somewhere with a mega computer running a bionic arm trying to learn how to thread something. That is not programmed to do it but learn how to do it. It is rubbish at it.
As I think you have argued it is going to be much easier automating a writer, accountant, lawyer than it is to learn how to load a dishwasher. When you buy a new dishwasher there will be a lot of broken plates before the robot cracks it.
I used to believe this, as a kind of consoling fallback, but the latest robotics are astonishing
They can now absolutely load dishwashers. Slowly, but they can do it. In a year they will be brilliant
This is the frightening thing on all fronts: the speed of advance is not slowing, if anything it is accelerating
Scary times. Exciting but scary
@leon do you mean the dexterity they can programme into robots eg human and dog lookalikes or actual learning ability. The former I agree, the latter I thought was still way off, although I am by no means an expert, nor have I followed it.
So I assumed you could programme a human like robot to fill a dishwasher, but if you changed to a different designed dishwasher you can not get an AI robot to learn how to load it yet. Regardless that is clearly more difficult than stuff that can be interpreted, then searched from the internet and construct a response.
Popping back in here to mention that it’s very obvious that Starmer is rather rattled by Badenoch. He is in danger of taking a very dismissive/condescending tone to her (and for the second week seems to be getting the backbenchers to go after her too). She’s clunky and needs to improve the ability to think on her feet, but she has really touched a nerve it seems.
Lettuce focus on her performance.
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
As I say, she’s clunky, and very far from a finished article. She needs much better answers for when Starmer does his schoolmaster routine. I think she’s going for “plucky” but it’s coming across as a bit uncertain to me.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
I noted that Davey's second question was listened to in pin-drop silence. Unusual at PMQs. And something Kemi has not managed so far.
It is all very early days.
Davey is in quite a good position with Labour backbenchers in that he can say things that are progressive but uncomfortable for the Labour frontbench.
He doesn't need to deny the existence of a budget blackhole to say "but GPs and pharmacies..." and can say Trump is a danger on Ukraine, which Starmer knows but cannot say in as many words.
Badenoch has a more difficult hand, although she's also not playing it well so far (but early days as you say). There was force in Starmer's point that she wants all the benefits of the budget and none of the costs - it's all very easy indeed to dismiss as non-serious, because it is. She needs to be more forensic.
She also needs to work on options with her team and be more flexible. She was undercut quite badly for Jardine happening to have the first question for the Lib Dems, and she happened to pr-empt one of Badenoch's. But she basically went ahead with it anyway, allowing Starmer to say he'd just answered the point.
Always have a spare question or 2. The fact she didn't shows that no-one is preparing things for her.
I suspect they are preparing her, but badly.
This is a minor manifestation of a bigger issue. The Conservatives are having to make enormous cuts across the organisation because when you go from 344 to 121 MPs, that's a huge drop in income (even before you look at membership etc). That does show up in the quality and quantity of support for the frontbench.
Comments
There are more than 100 times the number of Jews in Krakow than Bradford.
There are many cities and towns in the UK that have seen vast declines in the number of jews - this is not down to antisemitism but people have moved for business or family.
It becomes a vicious circle.
A synagagoue or school closes and there is less incentive to stay.
Liverpool once had more than a dozen Jewish butchers and numerous bakers.
There is one jewish deli left.
Hurrah!!!
75.65% CA
81.99% AK
85.85% DC
87.48% MS
87.72% OR
88.66% WA
89.80% HI
89.83% MD
90.27% IL
90.49% NJ
90.61% UT
91.82% NY
93.17% MA
93.52% LA
94.83% WV
94.98% KS
95.55% CO
95.64% CT
95.86% OH
96.72% MT
97.05% KY
97.09% AZ
97.22% AL
97.29% IN
97.46% AR
97.58% RI
97.97% VA
98.14% WY
98.40% FL
98.58% IA
98.59% MO
98.68% NEB
99.42% NM
99.50% MN
99.90% VT
100.29% TX
100.76% OK
100.78% TN
101.10% PA
101.15% ME
101.31% SC
101.46% DE
101.69% MI
101.80% SD
102.11% ND
102.27% NC
102.93% NH
103.66% NV
103.85% WI
104.63% ID
105.49% GA
Running some numbers, I think there's enough blue leaning vote out there to push Trump sub 50% but I wouldn't stake my life on it. £34 at 1.5 for me.
Archbishops
Top diocesan bishops - London, Winchester, Durham
Other diocesan bishops split into:
those in the House of Lords
and
those waiting to be in the House of Lords
Suffragan bishops who serve under a diocesan bishop
Anglo catholic flying bishops - a sub branch of suffragan bishop
Evangelical flying bishop - ditto
One or two other spare bishops in admin posts
Retired bishops
Bishops who were CoE but have joined the Roman Catholics.
In the early planning stage: Bishops set aside for churches that don't like gays much.
Is this a good scheme? No
Is it sustainable? No
Is it a picture of an outfit in crisis? Yes
Does the CoE have hundreds of thousands of ordinary decent people who get on with it, fund the operation, and try not to think about it all and delete all emails from all diocesan sources? Yes.
In practice, in many cases he can gum up the works for so long that enforcement will come too far after the fact to make much difference.
There are a number of groups working on legal strategies to 'Jiu-Jitsu' him on this. In his last term the ACLU did hundreds of lawsuits to challenge his policies, and won most of them.
A similar technique ('so use your money to use the courts to make us') is used in local council settings in the UK when there is something they do not wish to do. One small example of this is political noes to officer-recommended planning applications, which then have to be taken to Appeal which costs the Council money but gives the Councillors clean hands in the view of Nimby voters.
Personally, I think the Bill is too restrictive. But given the level of opposition, it's a reasonable shot at a compromise, which can be tweaked in Committee as necessary.
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2020.pdf
So if it's very close you can argue to Betfair when this is produced lol. Probably some time in March...
Changes to the constitution are not matters that should be pursued on a partisan basis.
And the fundamental principle of Blair’s reforms was that the hereditary peers would remain *until* there was a proper reform of the House
A house appointed by the PM will be a disaster for good governance. It’s kicking out a control mechanism.
Moreover given that (in my view) the size of this government’s majority was a one off because of unique circumstances you are introducing a long-term distortion into parliament.
There are 664 life peers at the moment. In 2020 there were a total of 451 peers over 70 (so over 79 by the end of this parliament). Let’s assume - unrealistically - that all 91 hereditaries were in this group, that means that you will have c. 360 life peers retiring at the end of this parliament.
Labour could easily argue that they should appoint 250 replacements over the next 5 years and that 160 should be Labour appontments (in line with their membership of the commons).
If they appoint a bunch of lords under 40 then they are baking in a significant partisan advantage for the next 40 years on the basis of what was - most likely - a freak favourable result for them.
Reform the House of Lords. But do it properly!
He probably won't get paid for it.
But if Trump listens to him, he can still do whatever he wants he likes.
That's the point: Trump wants to remove all checks and balances. If you're sufficiently ruthless, and have a complaisant Congress and S. Court, you can get away with an awful lot.
Proportional to general election votes? Fine.
People can use whatever basis they want to form their views. Lobby groups - on whatever side - and other interested parties have the right to express their views.
Why are you so eager to cut down on debate?
"Immigration: How British Politics Failed"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0024qb1/immigration-how-british-politics-failed-series-1-episode-1
1) Blair hasn’t been in power for **checks notes** seventeen years
2) No parliament can bind its successors, so the latest manifesto supersedes all that comes before it
3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen
4) Labour’s motive is to reduce the number of peers.
5) We have a control mechanism on the PM, commonly known as general elections
She is looking to win gotchas. Six separate gotchas today. (Plus I should have notes, but Starmer shouldn't). She isn't very good at it. Davey on the other hand is asking sensible questions. Davey put Starmer on the rack particularly his follow up question.
You need Sunak to resign, Penny to win the by election then win the Tory leadership race.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/china-battery-giant-catl-would-build-us-plant-if-trump-allows-it-2024-11-13/
..Zeng, who met Musk when he visited Beijing in April and has talked to him often, said he agreed with the Tesla founder’s view on the potential for AI-powered autonomous-vehicle technology.
Tesla’s self-driving tech relies solely on cameras and AI in hopes of building affordable autonomous vehicles that can sell in large volumes. Its competitors are mostly building more expensive vehicles with layers of redundant technology, for safety, and using them to operate taxi or delivery services.
"He's all in," Zeng said of Musk's strategy. "I think it’s a good direction."
But Zeng said he had told Musk directly that his bet on a cylindrical battery, known as the 4680, "is going to fail and never be successful."
"We had a very big debate, and I showed him," Zeng said. "He was silent. He doesn't know how to make a battery. It's about electrochemistry. He's good for the chips, the software, the hardware, the mechanical things."..
I nearly mentioned yesterday (but the comment was too long) the contrast between the Bp of Newcastle withdrawing the Permission to Officiate (required to take services in a Church of England building - public embarrassment for an Archbishop) from John Sentamu, former ++York, when a complaint had been made about how he had responded to a complaint about historic abuse- essentially because in +Newcastle's view he had not taken 'appropriate advice' (ie from a specialist).
She felt it important to do that whilst the question was resolved, and he thought of it as being a far too pointed way to respond.
The difference between John Sentamu and +Newcastle in age is 25 years - 1949 vs ~1974.
- On certain issues, such as immigration, there is no debate. Even asking for a debate is immoral
- Democracy is the source of all true power
This has been going on since they started televising it.
What did you think of Badenoch's performance? Should we be making the same jokes we were making about the incompetent LOTO Starmer when he started out against Johnson?
I agree with this - as vehicles to encourage venture capital investment, they're a multi decade failure.
Reeves should take a look.
Angel investment tax breaks like EIS and VCT are one of the sacred cows of the UK tech and VC ecosystem.
I argue that the tax break tail is wagging the innovation dog, producing zombie companies, founder unfriendly terms, and increasingly little innovation. 🧵
https://x.com/chalmermagne/status/1856268792994713873
Bluesky have approximately 15 million users, which is up from 1 million in autumn 2023.
IMO it's like Ref UK in local Government - they are definitely here but need to expand by 5x to be a player, and10x to be a serious player.
As you say they’ll realise they’re losing a load of clicks-through, and quietly go back to Twitter in a few months’ time.
"3) FPTP was endorsed by the electorate, the country knows what can happen"
Rewriting history there, Mr Eagles! AV was rejected by the electorate. It was, after all, just a "miserable little compromise".... There was no endorsement of anything.
To be fair to Andy, BigG and others with strong tribal bias - perhaps tribal bias should come with blindness when 90% of backbench questions from your own party have been written by whips?
Where BigG says it’s noticeable and embarrassing today, in recent years the number of Tory backbench q’s written by whips “my constituents are delighted with money/factory/road or statue put up thanks to this Conservative Government” was if anything more obvious and embarrassing than what we have today, as it never really dealt with the elephant in the room - a party about to suffer record defeat due to owning historic erosion of incomes.
The next General Elections will be decided on how quickly that is forgotten and forgiven, not the yahboo nonsense of PMQs.
Starmer is reverting to the usual PM at PMQs type (which, hey, has been a tactic beloved of PMs since time immemorial. It works - by and large.) but Starmer’s weakness is he can’t help but sound a bit condescending and prissy when he does so. She is evidently needling him in the right places. And there is clearly enough concern in Labour circles that they are going after her with the backbench questions too.
As to the final point, I don’t really need anything. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next GE at the moment. Badenoch, whilst interesting, would have a lot of persuading to do to make me vote Tory again. It’s true that I’ve been very disappointed with Labour in government so far, who I did vote for in 2024.
After accusing Starmer of reading last week, she's proved herself incapable of reading today. Maybe her team should put it in larger type?
Sadly that is Mrs Truss.
It is all very early days.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
Maybe a Rwanda type act deeming all matches played by Arsenal to be won by Arsenal 1-0 would help. I can't see another way of Arsenal winning the Premiership
Don't worry BigG. I'm just passing through. I won't linger. Although if you think she did well I have a book titled "Unleashed" to sell you.
Probably a way of targetting ads better too.
They are withdrawing from the first rather than the second.
Sure there will be some promising local election nights and polling between now and next General Election in 5 years, but none of that will actually impact the General Election decision the voters will make - because the problem with Badenoch and all the other Conservative leadership contenders in recent years is what do they actually believe in? When it has to be expressed as policy positions. Leave ECHR, sign an Asylum Seeker dumping deal with Rwanda, cut maternity and paternity benefits, cut minimum wage, etc etc.
The huge danger of Badenoch, we haven’t seen it yet but there is plenty of time, she is going to get an awful lot of attention and cut through as Leader of the Opposition for her policy positions.
The next Conservative Prime Minister probably elected MP for the first time in the May 3rd 2029 General Election.
Allison Pearson reveals how police officers called at her home on Remembrance Sunday to tell her of inquiry into year-old social media post"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/12/telegraph-journalist-allison-pearson-hate-crime-alleged/
If that is taking place it's highly likely that the Guardian isn't getting the number of clicks they used to so it's less important than it used to be..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-ZW3IZFMY
He doesn't need to deny the existence of a budget blackhole to say "but GPs and pharmacies..." and can say Trump is a danger on Ukraine, which Starmer knows but cannot say in as many words.
Badenoch has a more difficult hand, although she's also not playing it well so far (but early days as you say). There was force in Starmer's point that she wants all the benefits of the budget and none of the costs - it's all very easy indeed to dismiss as non-serious, because it is. She needs to be more forensic.
She also needs to work on options with her team and be more flexible. She was undercut quite badly for Jardine happening to have the first question for the Lib Dems, and she happened to pr-empt one of Badenoch's. But she basically went ahead with it anyway, allowing Starmer to say he'd just answered the point.
It’s been set up historically as Parliament backbenchers can ask Prime Minister a question - so this is what gets served up to us as the dish.
But is that dish put in front of us what we actually want and came for? Definitely not.
Does Parliament even need such a “backbench” flavoured dish every Wednesday, or our Democracy in 21st C. better served by the array of very different Opposition leaders having turn asking the questions instead?
But it needs a Prime Minister to accept the reform? A PM or party in power will never give up what’s great for them, but bad for us and democracy.
The former Vice President of the United States may not have ‘invented the Internet’ as claimed but he did write a lot of its source code.
This is why they are called AlGorethms.
We don't know exactly what that algorithm is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't working to the Guardian's advantage. Furthermore, it wouldn't be a shock if the recent TwiXodus has had a bias towards Guardianistas. Putting those two together, maybe they are justified in thinking that it's more trouble than it's worth.
A platform can mandate absolute freedom of speech. It can amplify certain expressions of that freedom. What it can't do is force people to listen, or businesses to attach their adverts to it.
Not yet, anyway.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
Though TBF the others all leave holes for archiving services
[Ostrich from Family Guy]
It has served its $44bn purpose. It got his choice of President elected and probably made Musk Inc $244bn in the process. And it is - via Trump - now destroying Woke, his big aim
He clearly doesn’t want TwiX to die, but if it does he can wrap it up with satisfaction: job done
@RalstonReports
·
Nov 3
Good morning from The #WeMatter State.
Not much mail overnight -- 10K or so. Dems won big but picked up about 2K. Indies had most votes.
R lead still over 42K.
Current lead for Trump in Nevada: 47k
The early vote looks to my mind to be the best source to work out who will win Nevada at the top of the ballot.
So I assumed you could programme a human like robot to fill a dishwasher, but if you changed to a different designed dishwasher you can not get an AI robot to learn how to load it yet. Regardless that is clearly more difficult than stuff that can be interpreted, then searched from the internet and construct a response.
This is a minor manifestation of a bigger issue. The Conservatives are having to make enormous cuts across the organisation because when you go from 344 to 121 MPs, that's a huge drop in income (even before you look at membership etc). That does show up in the quality and quantity of support for the frontbench.