When ChatGPT can work out that £3500 is less than £4500 then we can talk.
Until then it’s people with no technical foundation or knowledge telling us the sky is falling. None of these people work even vaguely closely to the field.
I strongly suspect ChatGPT can do that
I used it for some simple calculations and it hallucinated that £4500 was less than £3500.
I work with AI, trust me, it is overhyped.
Can it do cool stuff. Yes. Can you trust it, absolutely not.
Try asking it to write you some code, it will spit out gibberish.
I think the problem here is that these are large LANGUAGE models. So people who are good at language - eg, me - actually have a significantly better understanding of them, and ability to exploit them, than people in STEM
As usual you don’t know what you are talking about.
I would suggest you do a bit of research into hallucinations.
Baffling that Leon should be the one who worries about being identified.
We all know he's Sean Trellis, works for the Oldie, lives in Camden above a disused sex-shop. 47e Artillery Terrace. If he's not at home then his local is the Edinboro Castle. And his barber is the one with the newly acquired Ferrari.
To be fair to Leon, the fear of having one's reputation (or career in local politics) ruined by a determined campaigner digging through old posts is not entirely unjustified. Imagine if Leon is up for Flintknapper of the Year and a rival digs up his holiday snaps showing more half-empty glasses than faux phalluses: instant disqualification! And jigsaw identification of other pseudonymous posters might easily be possible.
I'm away and haven't followed any of this but for one of the worst muck spreaders on here to want privacy just about takes the biscuit. if anyone doesn't want their opinions on white babies or similar published to a wider audience maybe they could moderate their posts. Or discuss them on Stormfront with like minded posters
I've always thought anonymous comments on the internet are a bad idea.
Why?
Just don't see the point of it. Most letters published in newspapers used to include the writers' name. Only occasionally would it be withheld.
Even the posters here who use their names are effectively anonymous, as apart from a face to face drinkies every now and again we don't really know each other anyway.
We're lucky that this isn't on the Internet then, otherwise everybody could see our comments....
With respect to retrieving past comments vis google, it's a bit hit-and-miss. The link https://www.google.com/search?q=site:politicalbetting.com+"viewcode" gives a lot of fine articles but not much in the way of comment history. It's further complicated by the fact that PB has been reorganised a few times and some of the comments, if not lost, are difficult to retrieve.
@rcs1000 mentioned an API. If he could advise how to use it, I would be grateful
The Gateshead Flyover shambles continues (for non locals this is the main dual carriageway approach to the Tyne Bridge from the south which is closed, possibly forever, due to structural problems) with the Metro off in Newcastle City Centre as a result of following the road underground, or something.
Country is falling to bits
Hasn't Anabob explained yet that Gateshead is actually part of Edinburgh?
More seriously, I was planning to explain to Sabre Roads that it should be simply removed and a park created, as I just suggested to the Auto Shenangians channel about the Coventry Ring Road, but my style is cramped by the road traffic stats data website being offline.
In Nottingham we are gradually cutting out Maid Marian way - 4-6 lane urban dual carriageway - after the traffic on it fell by 40% in 20 years.
I was in Nottingham for the first time recently. I laughed when I saw what the dual carriageway was called. And laughed again when I saw the statue of Robin Hood in front of the "castle". Otherwise the place didn't seem too bad from what I could make out from a brief inspection.
It's interesting how it has worked its way into local identity, as it's only been there since 1952. But it's iconic in the way of say Greyfriars Bobby in Edinburgh, or Nelson's Column or the Monument in London.
The castle rock, and the immediate area, has a fairly extensive network of sometimes inhabited caves.
The whole of central Nottingham (and a fair few bits further out) has a massive network of caves. Well pover a thousand at the last count. All man made and all used at various times in history for habitation, industry, storage and shelter, including during the infamous bombings of 1941. Sadly a huge swathe of them with considerable historical value were also filled in with concrete when they built Maid Marion Way.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously ...
Nothing other than his total ignorance of economics or finance, record-breaking unpopularity and complete lack of political judgement or skills that is.
Mind you, not that different from the current incumbent I suppose.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
The United States and all friends of Israel will remember this “regrettable” false equivalence by Ireland.
Pro-peace you say? The 1,200 senselessly murdered and countless others who were raped and kidnapped would say otherwise?
Pro-human rights? Hundreds of Jewish hostages would see it differently.
Pro-international law? International law didn’t bring Hamas terrorists to justice, Israel did.
It takes a lot of nerve for a country neutral during WWII to now lecture the world on human rights.
It's very surprising, to UK folk, how utterly ingrained support for Palestinians is in Ireland. Every party supports it.
Go to Parkhead, and you'll see loads of "Two People, One Struggle" flags. Now, I consider myself generally sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people, but that's just bollocks that is.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
All three were Privy Councillors. Not every MP is a Privy Councillor. It would be an oversimplification to say she grabbed the nearest two so she could issue the Order, but you get the gist.
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
How that ignoramus is a CEO is beyond me, Latin is the source for most European languages and a key component of the foundations of western civilisation
I don't know Labour's manifesto position, although their verbal utterances during the election veered all over the place. The AI summary (https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer) is unhelpful, being all things to all men (pun not intended). But I assume the locus of dispute was this fragment
"...Overall, 404 individual pieces of guidance which fit the response criteria outlined on the call for input gov.uk page were submitted. After reviewing these examples, we found that the majority seem to correctly interpret the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions..."
If you want to follow the ins-and-outs of the trans debate in the UK, several pro-trans and gender-critical sources exist. As I prefer written sources to podcasts (grr) and tweets, a selection are as follows
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
How that ignoramus is a CEO is beyond me, Latin is the source for most European languages and a key component of the foundations of western civilisation
Whilst I am here spreading information amongst you gentle folk (unpaid, I might add!), I wish to draw your attention to this screed from Andrew Rakich, a filmmaker and historian who I quite like (his Youtube is here). He did a Q&A the other day in which he recommended that the left-wing should embrace the techniques of populism, specifically the use of showmanship and the "crafts of communication, of theater, of filmmaking, of storytelling".
I agree. I think political debate has become entirely disconnected from facts, logic and reason and although I hate it I am forced to concede that the way forward is as he states. His post is below
Storytelling has a structure and politicians need to understand and embrace it. This guy is good on the structure of story and finding the archetype, setting yourself within the story structure and displaying it to the world. Bear in mind that the best politicians are actors: Thatcher and Blair adopted personas that were not quite their true selves.
Until Governments understand that showmanship and narrative techniques are important, we will have continual failures until we get to a right-wing populist state, because those guys know how to play to a crowd.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
All three were Privy Councillors. Not every MP is a Privy Councillor. It would be an oversimplification to say she grabbed the nearest two so she could issue the Order, but you get the gist.
There are several hundred privy councillors. And Thatcher never just “grabbed the nearest two”. If he’d been the Lord Commissioner or perhaps Leader of the House that would have made sense… but employment?
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
All three were Privy Councillors. Not every MP is a Privy Councillor. It would be an oversimplification to say she grabbed the nearest two so she could issue the Order, but you get the gist.
There are several hundred privy councillors. And Thatcher never just “grabbed the nearest two”. If he’d been the Lord Commissioner or perhaps Leader of the House that would have made sense… but employment?
I don't know how to answer this. My remark derives from a memory of another remark from a lecturer in a law section of a larger course back in the 1990s. It's plausible - Nott was defence, Tebbit was a strong ally of Thatcher - and it explained the facts. As to the "why" she did it, I don;t know, sorry.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
All three were Privy Councillors. Not every MP is a Privy Councillor. It would be an oversimplification to say she grabbed the nearest two so she could issue the Order, but you get the gist.
There are several hundred privy councillors. And Thatcher never just “grabbed the nearest two”. If he’d been the Lord Commissioner or perhaps Leader of the House that would have made sense… but employment?
I don't know how to answer this. My remark derives from a memory of another remark from a lecturer in a law section of a larger course back in the 1990s. It's plausible - Nott was defence, Tebbit was a strong ally of Thatcher - and it explained the facts. As to the "why" she did it, I don;t know, sorry.
Being an ally would be my supposition, but wondering if there was an official reason
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
All three were Privy Councillors. Not every MP is a Privy Councillor. It would be an oversimplification to say she grabbed the nearest two so she could issue the Order, but you get the gist.
There are several hundred privy councillors. And Thatcher never just “grabbed the nearest two”. If he’d been the Lord Commissioner or perhaps Leader of the House that would have made sense… but employment?
I don't know how to answer this. My remark derives from a memory of another remark from a lecturer in a law section of a larger course back in the 1990s. It's plausible - Nott was defence, Tebbit was a strong ally of Thatcher - and it explained the facts. As to the "why" she did it, I don;t know, sorry.
Being an ally would be my supposition, but wondering if there was an official reason
It's a fair point, and you've got me thinking now. But I don't know how to clear it up quickly
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister (and hence also First Lord of the Treasury). First Sea Lord, however, was Admiral Sir Henry Leach.
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
How that ignoramus is a CEO is beyond me, Latin is the source for most European languages and a key component of the foundations of western civilisation
In legal/political terms, Rome is like Mount Fuji, in Japanese art.
You can’t even talk about law and politics, without using concepts that the Romans devised and terms that are derived from Latin.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister (and hence also First Lord of the Treasury). First Sea Lord, however, was Admiral Sir Henry Leach.
Which is why I referred to Thatcher as First Lord not First Sea Lord…
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister (and hence also First Lord of the Treasury). First Sea Lord, however, was Admiral Sir Henry Leach.
Which is why I referred to Thatcher as First Lord not First Sea Lord…
Five minutes of highlights from Spurs 4 - 3 Man Utd, including Son's goal directly from his corner, and two absurd goalkeeping blunders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYVWr_CZGQ
Interesting possiility for Biden at the end of his Presidency to put a spoke in the anti-abortion wheel, and in promotion of women's rights - complete the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
It has been in process since 1923, and had it's 38th State Ratify in 2020.
US House votes down slimmer 120-page version of the Continuation Bill, with a significant amount of the pork removed from yesterday’s 1,500 page version that was also voted down after a backlash.
They’ve got 24h to pass something, or else the government shuts down over the holidays. Everyone is blaming each other at the moment, rather than looking at what is needed to pass something.
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister (and hence also First Lord of the Treasury). First Sea Lord, however, was Admiral Sir Henry Leach.
Which is why I referred to Thatcher as First Lord not First Sea Lord…
Then you should have said Prime Minister.
Why? Her role was First Lord of the Treasury. The role of prime minister doesn’t exist in law…
The depth of Macron's tone-deafness and condescension is genuinely staggering.
Here he is in Mayotte, a French overseas territory off the coast of Africa that just suffered an absolutely devastating cyclone, literally shouting at people complaining of their situation that they ought to be "happy to be in France! Because if this wasn't France, I'm telling you, you would be 10,000 times more in deep shit."
The depth of Macron's tone-deafness and condescension is genuinely staggering.
Here he is in Mayotte, a French overseas territory off the coast of Africa that just suffered an absolutely devastating cyclone, literally shouting at people complaining of their situation that they ought to be "happy to be in France! Because if this wasn't France, I'm telling you, you would be 10,000 times more in deep shit."
Surely for these people, half the point of being part of France is that in an emergency the massive resources of a large state can be mobilised to assist?
If that were a British outpost, we’d see military planes and helicopters (and planes carrying helicopters!) on station almost immediately, with men and supplies to help those affected.
US House votes down slimmer 120-page version of the Continuation Bill, with a significant amount of the pork removed from yesterday’s 1,500 page version that was also voted down after a backlash.
They’ve got 24h to pass something, or else the government shuts down over the holidays. Everyone is blaming each other at the moment, rather than looking at what is needed to pass something.
Given the lies you were spreading yesterday morning, why should we take this information as any more 'reliable'?
It's extraordinarily mild briefing against someone. The Tory version these days would be 'Everyone's f***g had it with Reeves sh****g all over the economy - the mood in the party is dire - don't know how long she can carry on.'
The bottom line is that Rachel from Customer Complaints really isn't up to the job.
No, but if that rule were applied across the board, cabinet meetings could take place on a sofa.
PMs have preferred that approach.
The National Security Council (UK version) is eight people. OK, two sofas and four chairs, and presumably a coffee table for the wine. Cabinet is twenty-seven people, which is too many (hence the big table). From memory, the minimum Privy Councillors you need for an Order In Council is three, which is how the Task Force got deployed to the South Atlantic (Thatcher, Tebbit, Nott)
It is not necessary for Ministerial posts to be filled by different people, and in theory the PM can be all of them simultaneously - I think Boris was advised this when he attempted to recreate a new Cabinet whilst everybody was resigning. Obviously it would be politically impossible, but technically no problem.
Churchill was PM and Minister for War simultaneously during WW2. There is nothing stopping Starmer being PM and CofE simultaneously, and at need he could send the Foreign Minister abroad to do all the conference attending instead of him. The Treasury problem (he who holds the purse strings controls the Government) crops up frequently, and it would be a way of bringing it to heel.
Why Tebbit? wiki says he was employment minister at the time - Nott was defence and Thatcher First Lord, both of which make sense.
Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister (and hence also First Lord of the Treasury). First Sea Lord, however, was Admiral Sir Henry Leach.
Which is why I referred to Thatcher as First Lord not First Sea Lord…
Then you should have said Prime Minister.
Why? Her role was First Lord of the Treasury. The role of prime minister doesn’t exist in law…
This is simple pedantry. The office of Prime Minister has been well defined by convention since at least 1905. First Lord of the Treasury is a sinecure that is held by the Prime Minister, not the Prime Minister being Prime Minister by virtue of being First Lord of the Treasury.
My son is learning Latin out of choice (*); his primary (obvs.) does not teach it. He loves it. Neither his mum or I knew Latin.
Latin *is* a useful skill to have. Not for everyone, but for some. Making it harder for state school pupils to access Latin is a mistake, for those few who have an interest in it. And scrapping it midway through the year is a hideous move for the kids involved.
I wonder what other subjects this government will see as unnecessary and elitist. Art, perhaps?
(*) Thanks, in part, to PB. There was a conversation years ago about a book people used to learn Latin; I bought a copy and put it in his bookshelf. I didn't know he was reading it, but I started noticing Latin graffiti scrawled around the house...
Sir Humphrey: (says something in Latin, possibly "Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis" – meaning "Times change, and we change with them.") Jim Hacker: "Sorry, what does that mean?" Sir Humphrey: "It means, Prime Minister, that times are changing, as, sadly, is the standard of education in state schools."
... Sir Humphrey: "The point of Latin, Prime Minister, is not to hold conversations, but to remind us that education is about standards. And how can I hold a conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom if he doesn’t even understand ‘tempora mutantur’?"
...
Imagine trying to hold a conversation with any member of this cabinet in Latin !
...
In my life not being taught Latin as a teenager has been a major issue. I have never developed the natural feel for the language so when I encounter Latin in legal documents, as I do at least once every couple of months, perhaps 4 or 5 pages A4 in transcription, I have to translate it by brute force. In forty years the Spanish I was taught has only been relevant once although in that case I was able to parrot of a fairly clean translation in no time.
...
The problem with this government is not so much their state education as their execrably bad state education. There was an episode of Skins where one of the most able of the regulars, a skilled musician, was being patronised maybe at Oxford but being encouraged to go up to Oxford because she was black, had fuzzy hair and would do wonders for the statistics and so was offered a place at one of the crap modern colleges reserved for her type of student. ( Where if she had attended she would have met the present cabinet presumably)
US House votes down slimmer 120-page version of the Continuation Bill, with a significant amount of the pork removed from yesterday’s 1,500 page version that was also voted down after a backlash.
They’ve got 24h to pass something, or else the government shuts down over the holidays. Everyone is blaming each other at the moment, rather than looking at what is needed to pass something.
Given the lies you were spreading yesterday morning, why should we take this information as any more 'reliable'?
So why don’t you fuck off and do your own research then, and stop making things unnecessarily personal at six o’clock in the morning?
I made a mistake yesterday and admitted as such. We all get things wrong sometimes.
US House votes down slimmer 120-page version of the Continuation Bill, with a significant amount of the pork removed from yesterday’s 1,500 page version that was also voted down after a backlash.
They’ve got 24h to pass something, or else the government shuts down over the holidays. Everyone is blaming each other at the moment, rather than looking at what is needed to pass something.
Given the lies you were spreading yesterday morning, why should we take this information as any more 'reliable'?
So why don’t you fuck off and do your own research then, and stop making things unnecessarily personal at six o’clock in the morning?
I made a mistake yesterday and admitted as such. We all get things wrong sometimes.
Why don't *you* do your own research then, especially after getting caught out just yesterday?
F1: not confirmed yet, but I think Isaak Hadjar[sp] is set to get the second Racing Bulls (stupid name) seat. I think that completes the whole lineup for 2025, which many rookies.
Sir Humphrey: (says something in Latin, possibly "Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis" – meaning "Times change, and we change with them.") Jim Hacker: "Sorry, what does that mean?" Sir Humphrey: "It means, Prime Minister, that times are changing, as, sadly, is the standard of education in state schools."
... Sir Humphrey: "The point of Latin, Prime Minister, is not to hold conversations, but to remind us that education is about standards. And how can I hold a conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom if he doesn’t even understand ‘tempora mutantur’?"
...
Imagine trying to hold a conversation with any member of this cabinet in Latin !
...
In my life not being taught Latin as a teenager has been a major issue. I have never developed the natural feel for the language so when I encounter Latin in legal documents, as I do at least once every couple of months, perhaps 4 or 5 pages A4 in transcription, I have to translate it by brute force. In forty years the Spanish I was taught has only been relevant once although in that case I was able to parrot of a fairly clean translation in no time.
...
The problem with this government is not so much their state education as their execrably bad state education. There was an episode of Skins where one of the most able of the regulars, a skilled musician, was being patronised maybe at Oxford but being encouraged to go up to Oxford because she was black, had fuzzy hair and would do wonders for the statistics and so was offered a place at one of the crap modern colleges reserved for her type of student. ( Where if she had attended she would have met the present cabinet presumably)
An early instance of Reform splitting the Labour vote?
I’ve said it before and I’ll,say it again. Reform are a bigger threat to labour than the Tories and the assumptions that Reform voters are lapsed Tories by some, there for the taking back, is for the birds.
Is today a good day to ask Lord Peter Mandelson about the time he stayed at Epsteins lavish townhouse in Manhattan while the financier was in prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
When ChatGPT can work out that £3500 is less than £4500 then we can talk.
Until then it’s people with no technical foundation or knowledge telling us the sky is falling. None of these people work even vaguely closely to the field.
I strongly suspect ChatGPT can do that
I used it for some simple calculations and it hallucinated that £4500 was less than £3500.
I work with AI, trust me, it is overhyped.
Can it do cool stuff. Yes. Can you trust it, absolutely not.
Try asking it to write you some code, it will spit out gibberish.
I think the problem here is that these are large LANGUAGE models. So people who are good at language - eg, me - actually have a significantly better understanding of them, and ability to exploit them, than people in STEM
I agree with CHB - and I am a plus-sized model, so I understand twice as much about AI as you do.
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
An early instance of Reform splitting the Labour vote?
I’ve said it before and I’ll,say it again. Reform are a bigger threat to labour than the Tories and the assumptions that Reform voters are lapsed Tories by some, there for the taking back, is for the birds.
Labour vote Lib Dem vote
Just rejoice at that news.
I know these aren't indicative of a national election result, but they are wonderfully entertaining nonetheless.
It could actually be very useful. It's not only a very good way of learning grammar - because Latin grammar, being both stricter and simpler, is easier to understand than English grammar - but it's the basis for numerous European languages including Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.
I'm just wondering whether this particular programme was the best way of using it. I would have said it would have more practical benefit to teach Latin in primary schools and then take that as a basis for foreign languages and English grammar in secondary schools, particularly since German seems to have withered in favour of Spanish.
Equally, if I wanted to get rid of useless frills I would start with the epochal car crash that is Teach First.
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
Are you endorsing his rather stupid post?
He could, perhaps, have asked why we teach Latin but not Old Norse, which is the basis for German, Russian and *checks notes* this funny language called English.
That would have struck me as a very valid point...
It could actually be very useful. It's not only a very good way of learning grammar - because Latin grammar, being both stricter and simpler, is easier to understand than English grammar - but it's the basis for numerous European languages including Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.
I'm just wondering whether this particular programme was the best way of using it. I would have said it would have more practical benefit to teach Latin in primary schools and then take that as a basis for foreign languages and English grammar in secondary schools, particularly since German seems to have withered in favour of Spanish.
Equally, if I wanted to get rid of useless frills I would start with the epochal car crash that is Teach First.
It's the midway through the year thing that gets to me. At least let the kids who've started complete their courses.
For me, Latin at primary school would have been pointless. I'd argue it's better done at secondary level, when kids who have an interest can get the most out of it.
It could actually be very useful. It's not only a very good way of learning grammar - because Latin grammar, being both stricter and simpler, is easier to understand than English grammar - but it's the basis for numerous European languages including Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.
I'm just wondering whether this particular programme was the best way of using it. I would have said it would have more practical benefit to teach Latin in primary schools and then take that as a basis for foreign languages and English grammar in secondary schools, particularly since German seems to have withered in favour of Spanish.
Equally, if I wanted to get rid of useless frills I would start with the epochal car crash that is Teach First.
The depth of Macron's tone-deafness and condescension is genuinely staggering.
Here he is in Mayotte, a French overseas territory off the coast of Africa that just suffered an absolutely devastating cyclone, literally shouting at people complaining of their situation that they ought to be "happy to be in France! Because if this wasn't France, I'm telling you, you would be 10,000 times more in deep shit."
Surely for these people, half the point of being part of France is that in an emergency the massive resources of a large state can be mobilised to assist?
If that were a British outpost, we’d see military planes and helicopters (and planes carrying helicopters!) on station almost immediately, with men and supplies to help those affected.
“Emmanuel Macron swore during a furious exchange with residents of the cyclone-hit islands of Mayotte on Thursday night, telling a jeering crowd in the French territory “if this wasn’t France, you’d be in a bath of shit 10,000 times worse”.”
Comments
https://x.com/senkevincramer/status/1869389908890239111
The United States and all friends of Israel will remember this “regrettable” false equivalence by Ireland.
Pro-peace you say? The 1,200 senselessly murdered and countless others who were raped and kidnapped would say otherwise?
Pro-human rights? Hundreds of Jewish hostages would see it differently.
Pro-international law? International law didn’t bring Hamas terrorists to justice, Israel did.
It takes a lot of nerve for a country neutral during WWII to now lecture the world on human rights.
"Zoe Strimpel
How Gen Z ruined Guinness
And the fetishisation of the mundane"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-gen-z-ruined-guinness/
https://archive.is/SSXwU#selection-1205.0-1215.36
Mind you, not that different from the current incumbent I suppose.
🌳 CON: 35.4% (+7.0)
➡️ RFM: 30.1% (New)
🌹LAB: 28.9% (-34.7)
🌍 GRN: 3.0% (New)
🔶 LDM: 1.5% (-6.5)
🙋 IND: 1.0% (New)
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2024.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/population-estimates-international-migration.html
https://x.com/wmarybeard/status/1869734712346046497
"Donald Clark
@DonaldClark
We have massive skills shortages, vocational learning decimated, school attendance in trouble. A dead language is regressive. The prejudice comes from privately educated people who want to impose their prejudices on the majority. Invoking 'ignorance' is truly awful Mary.
Skills in argument do not come from a dead language, they are independent of any single language. Why not go for Hieroglyphs if a longer perspective is required? We're scraping the pedagogic barrel here.
Funny how Latin threads bring out the crazier, right wing folk."
I don't know Labour's manifesto position, although their verbal utterances during the election veered all over the place. The AI summary (https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer) is unhelpful, being all things to all men (pun not intended). But I assume the locus of dispute was this fragment
"...Overall, 404 individual pieces of guidance which fit the response criteria outlined on the call for input gov.uk page were submitted. After reviewing these examples, we found that the majority seem to correctly interpret the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions..."
If you want to follow the ins-and-outs of the trans debate in the UK, several pro-trans and gender-critical sources exist. As I prefer written sources to podcasts (grr) and tweets, a selection are as follows
Gender-Critical
https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/
https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights
Pro-trans
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgender/
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/
https://bsky.app/starter-pack-short/3F9Xs4a
Freezing This Christmas, by Sir Starmer and the Granny Harmers, lampoons cutting of winter fuel payments for pensioners
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/bbc-refuses-to-play-anti-starmer-christmas-song/
The song (based on Mud's Lonely this Christmas) can be heard here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrvmY5s2mo
The "official" Christmas number one will be announced this afternoon (Friday) and is based on sales and streams up to midnight two hours ago.
I agree. I think political debate has become entirely disconnected from facts, logic and reason and although I hate it I am forced to concede that the way forward is as he states. His post is below
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxFUug3O0sWbkxNpqlEXAm9B4FRzx20UuQ
Storytelling has a structure and politicians need to understand and embrace it. This guy is good on the structure of story and finding the archetype, setting yourself within the story structure and displaying it to the world. Bear in mind that the best politicians are actors: Thatcher and Blair adopted personas that were not quite their true selves.
Until Governments understand that showmanship and narrative techniques are important, we will have continual failures until we get to a right-wing populist state, because those guys know how to play to a crowd.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/19/alzheimers-could-be-caused-by-a-herpes-virus/ (£££)
In 25-45 per cent of cases.
You can’t even talk about law and politics, without using concepts that the Romans devised and terms that are derived from Latin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYVWr_CZGQ
It has been in process since 1923, and had it's 38th State Ratify in 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
One for OGH Minor, I think ( @rcs1000 ).
They’ve got 24h to pass something, or else the government shuts down over the holidays. Everyone is blaming each other at the moment, rather than looking at what is needed to pass something.
1,547 vs 116 pages. If nothing else it will save money on printing!
With a nice view of Washington in the background.
Source: https://x.com/todd_storm/status/1869893493742526511
The depth of Macron's tone-deafness and condescension is genuinely staggering.
Here he is in Mayotte, a French overseas territory off the coast of Africa that just suffered an absolutely devastating cyclone, literally shouting at people complaining of their situation that they ought to be "happy to be in France! Because if this wasn't France, I'm telling you, you would be 10,000 times more in deep shit."
If that were a British outpost, we’d see military planes and helicopters (and planes carrying helicopters!) on station almost immediately, with men and supplies to help those affected.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/19/lord-mandelson-confirmed-ambassador-us/
Likely to be some good parties next year at the British Embassy in DC!
Latin *is* a useful skill to have. Not for everyone, but for some. Making it harder for state school pupils to access Latin is a mistake, for those few who have an interest in it. And scrapping it midway through the year is a hideous move for the kids involved.
I wonder what other subjects this government will see as unnecessary and elitist. Art, perhaps?
(*) Thanks, in part, to PB. There was a conversation years ago about a book people used to learn Latin; I bought a copy and put it in his bookshelf. I didn't know he was reading it, but I started noticing Latin graffiti scrawled around the house...
Jim Hacker: "Sorry, what does that mean?"
Sir Humphrey: "It means, Prime Minister, that times are changing, as, sadly, is the standard of education in state schools."
...
Sir Humphrey: "The point of Latin, Prime Minister, is not to hold conversations, but to remind us that education is about standards. And how can I hold a conversation with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom if he doesn’t even understand ‘tempora mutantur’?"
...
Imagine trying to hold a conversation with any member of this cabinet in Latin !
...
In my life not being taught Latin as a teenager has been a major issue. I have never developed the natural feel for the language so when I encounter Latin in legal documents, as I do at least once every couple of months, perhaps 4 or 5 pages A4 in transcription, I have to translate it by brute force. In forty years the Spanish I was taught has only been relevant once although in that case I was able to parrot of a fairly clean translation in no time.
...
The problem with this government is not so much their state education as their execrably bad state education. There was an episode of Skins where one of the most able of the regulars, a skilled musician, was being patronised maybe at Oxford but being encouraged to go up to Oxford because she was black, had fuzzy hair and would do wonders for the statistics and so was offered a place at one of the crap modern colleges reserved for her type of student. ( Where if she had attended she would have met the present cabinet presumably)
I made a mistake yesterday and admitted as such. We all get things wrong sometimes.
This government cares f-all about disruption to kid's education - at least if they're the 'wrong' kids.
The right kids are, of course, Starmer's own kids. So he accepts grift for tens of thousands just so that his kid's education won't be disrupted...
F1: not confirmed yet, but I think Isaak Hadjar[sp] is set to get the second Racing Bulls (stupid name) seat. I think that completes the whole lineup for 2025, which many rookies.
1st August business confidence is at a 3 year high.
Now it is at a 4 year low.
This from the same people who claim ‘Truss crashed the economy”
https://x.com/aaronbastani/status/1869710310409687213?s=61
Lib Dem vote
Just rejoice at that news.
I know these aren't indicative of a national election result, but they are wonderfully entertaining nonetheless.
It could actually be very useful. It's not only a very good way of learning grammar - because Latin grammar, being both stricter and simpler, is easier to understand than English grammar - but it's the basis for numerous European languages including Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian.
I'm just wondering whether this particular programme was the best way of using it. I would have said it would have more practical benefit to teach Latin in primary schools and then take that as a basis for foreign languages and English grammar in secondary schools, particularly since German seems to have withered in favour of Spanish.
Equally, if I wanted to get rid of useless frills I would start with the epochal car crash that is Teach First.
That would have struck me as a very valid point...
For me, Latin at primary school would have been pointless. I'd argue it's better done at secondary level, when kids who have an interest can get the most out of it.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/schools-face-significant-disruption-as-government-culls-latin-scheme/
£4 million isn't that much money, but 29 schools, 1000 GCSE candidates, total reach 5000 pupils isn't that much impact.
Besides, "the government doing less" is meant to be how we get out of the fiscal hole that we're in, isn't it?
NEW THREAD
(Unless I've missed another joke.)
This seems…. Suboptimal
“Emmanuel Macron swore during a furious exchange with residents of the cyclone-hit islands of Mayotte on Thursday night, telling a jeering crowd in the French territory “if this wasn’t France, you’d be in a bath of shit 10,000 times worse”.”
GUARDIAN