Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
The way it works is that:
- manifesto commitments and money bills are directly under the authority of the commons and can’t be blocked - The lords has the right to amend, delay, force reconsideration, etc - if the commons feels strongly you end up with ping pong, usually resulting in an acceptable compromise - if the commons rejects a lords amendment three times they will back down - The parliament acts aren’t supposed to be used frequently, if at all, but are there to break the deadlock if required
It comes down to the difference between “can” and “should”
Ultimately, the elected Commons has a variety of levers to deal with a situation where the unelected Lords plays silly buggers, including some nuclear ones as the Liberals threatened to get their 1906 budget through. Starmer should get tough with this effort by a tiny handful of appointed peers to frustrate the will of the MPs, and - from all polling - the public.
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
I see from the headlines that Starmer has raised the issue of human rights with Xi. Do British politicians really have no idea how patronising, arrogant and pathetic this sounds?
WTF are you would be the natural response. Raising the issue of a locked up British citizen (albeit with dual nationality) is fair enough but what right do we have to lecture other richer and more powerful countries about their domestic affairs. I sometimes wonder if the lecturing predates or post dates the begging for investment in our flat lining economy, before we beg them to buy some more of our goods and services and ask them nicely to stop using our fecklessness to spy on Downing Street for whatever secrets we think we have.
I've just listened to this, and read the lyrics - easy to google. It's fabulous! And yes, it will piss off Trump, Miller, Noem etc. A renaissance of political protest music is well overdue.
I think one of the most weird AI 'uses' is an 'AI spellchecker'. Just use a dictionary, as before. No need for AI to be involved whatsoever.
A more recent equivalent of the daftness of an online kettle.
Surely an AI spellchecker as opposed to ordinary spellchecker would be able to pick up not just words spelt incorrectly that are not words, but also some words spelt incorrectly that are the wrong words too?
As for a dictionary, most spelling errors many of us make are typos, and a spellchecker is what we need not a dictionary.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
The way it works is that:
- manifesto commitments and money bills are directly under the authority of the commons and can’t be blocked - The lords has the right to amend, delay, force reconsideration, etc - if the commons feels strongly you end up with ping pong, usually resulting in an acceptable compromise - if the commons rejects a lords amendment three times they will back down - The parliament acts aren’t supposed to be used frequently, if at all, but are there to break the deadlock if required
It comes down to the difference between “can” and “should”
Ultimately, the elected Commons has a variety of levers to deal with a situation where the unelected Lords plays silly buggers, including some nuclear ones as the Liberals threatened to get their 1906 budget through. Starmer should get tough with this effort by a tiny handful of appointed peers to frustrate the will of the MPs, and - from all polling - the public.
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
Assisted Dying 'it is the will of the people, stop these posh toffs blocking it'
Brexit 'It was a vote by oiks and the ignorant and easily led, let their educated and enlightened Lordships stop this damaging Withdrawal Bill'
I think one of the most weird AI 'uses' is an 'AI spellchecker'. Just use a dictionary, as before. No need for AI to be involved whatsoever.
A more recent equivalent of the daftness of an online kettle.
Surely an AI spellchecker as opposed to ordinary spellchecker would be able to pick up not just words spelt incorrectly that are not words, but also some words spelt incorrectly that are the wrong words too?
As for a dictionary, most spelling errors many of us make are typos, and a spellchecker is what we need not a dictionary.
It would also litter it with z's and other annoying Americanisations.
I have to constantly tell ChatGPT not to do that and even then it doesn't always get it right.
I think one of the most weird AI 'uses' is an 'AI spellchecker'. Just use a dictionary, as before. No need for AI to be involved whatsoever.
A more recent equivalent of the daftness of an online kettle.
Surely an AI spellchecker as opposed to ordinary spellchecker would be able to pick up not just words spelt incorrectly that are not words, but also some words spelt incorrectly that are the wrong words too?
As for a dictionary, most spelling errors many of us make are typos, and a spellchecker is what we need not a dictionary.
It would also litter it with z's and other annoying Americanisations.
I have to constantly tell ChatGPT not to do that and even then it doesn't always get it right.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
The way it works is that:
- manifesto commitments and money bills are directly under the authority of the commons and can’t be blocked - The lords has the right to amend, delay, force reconsideration, etc - if the commons feels strongly you end up with ping pong, usually resulting in an acceptable compromise - if the commons rejects a lords amendment three times they will back down - The parliament acts aren’t supposed to be used frequently, if at all, but are there to break the deadlock if required
It comes down to the difference between “can” and “should”
Ultimately, the elected Commons has a variety of levers to deal with a situation where the unelected Lords plays silly buggers, including some nuclear ones as the Liberals threatened to get their 1906 budget through. Starmer should get tough with this effort by a tiny handful of appointed peers to frustrate the will of the MPs, and - from all polling - the public.
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
Sadly that seems likely to be this govt's epitaph. Currently stands at 1200 amendments tabled for a 59 clause bill.
How on earth have the supporters of assisted dying managed to mess it all up when they started off with a substantial majority?
Wrong on both counts.
It didn't have a substantial majority in the HOC. It was 23. But it was a majority. The supporters of AD haven't messed it up. It is a small minority in the unelected house that have deliberately messed it up.
You are blaming the wrong side Andy.
For what it's worth, I think the UK's Assisted Dying Bill stinks, and I would vote against it.
However, I also believe that done right it could be an entirely positive thing, enabling people to die with dignity rather than agony, and also acting as a funnel for people into mental health treatment if need be.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even of the fairly poor. It is a step forward.
That's how we ended up with a hard Brexit because many Remainers held out for a second referendum rather than supporting May's bill.
There's a majority in the Commons for the principle of the bill, it's not as though this is a 'do now or never' situation.
I expect it will get through, as although I personally am against it I don't think the Lords want to have the Commons use the nuclear option on them, but contitutionally they could delay it, as you've said yourself, and I don't see how that is squared with outrage at the very idea they might do so - it would probably be a mistake to push it that far, when the Commons want it through, but proponents in the Lords have laid it on a bit thick that it would be almost impermissable.
I'm sure that is in frustration at implacable opponents always intending to block it, but it doesn't make it less untrue to say it would improper to delay (unwise to is a different question).
In part this is because the advocates for the bill have refused to listen to reasonable concerns, allow proper scrutiny in the commons and build in meaningful safeguards
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
The way it works is that:
- manifesto commitments and money bills are directly under the authority of the commons and can’t be blocked - The lords has the right to amend, delay, force reconsideration, etc - if the commons feels strongly you end up with ping pong, usually resulting in an acceptable compromise - if the commons rejects a lords amendment three times they will back down - The parliament acts aren’t supposed to be used frequently, if at all, but are there to break the deadlock if required
It comes down to the difference between “can” and “should”
Ultimately, the elected Commons has a variety of levers to deal with a situation where the unelected Lords plays silly buggers, including some nuclear ones as the Liberals threatened to get their 1906 budget through. Starmer should get tough with this effort by a tiny handful of appointed peers to frustrate the will of the MPs, and - from all polling - the public.
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
Sadly that seems likely to be this govt's epitaph. Currently stands at 1200 amendments tabled for a 59 clause bill.
It's a symbol of the fact he has no authority.
My 3-year old son could walk more confidently on that red carpet than he just did.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
But that's with commitments in the government's manifesto, this not a manifesto pledge, this would be as scandalous as the prorogation crisis.
The 1911Act, a mended by the Parliament Act 1949, which reduced the Lords' delaying power to one year, makes no mention of a manifesto pledge. That's just made up.
It is scandalous that the unelected body can frustrate the will of Parliament and of the large majority of voters. And it's a small minority in that unelected body that is doing the delaying.
It’s absolutely not scandalous. It’s the constitutional settlement we have - consequently they are just exercising their rights.
If you would rather have an appointed chamber of political has beens you are welcome to campaign for that
That is the current House of Lords. Political has been, dodgy donors, cult leaders and inbred aristocrats. It has no place in a democracy.
There are barely any genuine aristocrats left in the Lords and Labour’s bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers will effectively mean there will soon be none at all bar the odd one or two appointed life peers by the PM of the day
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
They are the ones presenting opinions not facts right?
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Do you have a source for that, william ?
This is the original source of that video. It claimes to be reporting by Dan Ming, Dallin Mello, and BBC Verify.
Doesn't that just confirm that eleven days later he was executed, gangland-style, for spitting on a window and kicking out a tail light.
Now spitting on a car window and kicking out a tail light probably deserves a day in court and an overnight stay in a police cell, but a summary execution without trial? Come on William, you are having a laugh.
The video was recorded on Jan. 13 and posted Wednesday by The News Movement, a digital media outlet. It shows a man, believed to be Pretti, confronting federal agents along with other protesters. The video was verified by CBS News partner BBC News, and CBS News has confirmed the footage was filmed in Minneapolis.
They are the ones presenting opinions not facts right?
As the comedian's monologue at the Golden Globes this year had it: "CBS news: America's newest place to see BS news."
Tesla says its annual revenue has fallen for the first time as the electric vehicle (EV) maker shifts it focus to artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.
The company, which is run by multi-billionaire Elon Musk, reported a 3% decline in total revenues in 2025, while profits fell 61% in the last three months of the year.
Tesla also announced plans to end production of its Model S and Model X vehicles. It will now use the manufacturing plant in California that made those cars to produce its line of humanoid robots - known as Optimus.
Always thought the Model S was a nice looking car even today. Looks like Tesla is exitting the high end EV market, just as the Chinese are getting really good at it with likes of Zeekr (BYDs higher end brand).
Impressive spin from Tesla. There's surely a limit to the number of times Musk can pretend robotics or robotaxis are getting released next quarter, next year, we really mean it this time.
Tesla is quite the bubble stock. Surely the crash is coming soon?
People have been calling a crash for ages. They will be right eventually. We had a crash last April when the market fell about 20% after the idiots Tariff announcement.
Thing is the S&P500 has been mainly about the magnificent 7. That means there is 493 unloved stocks that are potentially undervalued.
I’m not worried.
It's like the Nifty 50; only there are 7 of them rather than 50.
Personally, I'd probably go with 33% S&P500, 20% MSCI world, 20% FTSE 100, and the remainder split evenly between the Eurostoxx and a developed markets Asian index.
I pretty much have an absolute return strategy with some fun stuff sprinkled on top.
RPI+4% as a consistent return year in year out is fine for me
Is it? The 1911 act is precisely there to stop the Lords being undemocratic.
I thought the convention was that it would only be invoked on things in the government's manifesto - to avoid parties doing radical things with no consent.
I think you are conflating with the Salisbury convention - the lords doesn’t block manifesto commitments
Possibly I am, but that implies they are able block anything else.
Shouldn't the reverse apply in that that the Commons shouldn't force through non-manifesto (and non-government) business?
Otherwise we might as well abolish the Lords...
The way it works is that:
- manifesto commitments and money bills are directly under the authority of the commons and can’t be blocked - The lords has the right to amend, delay, force reconsideration, etc - if the commons feels strongly you end up with ping pong, usually resulting in an acceptable compromise - if the commons rejects a lords amendment three times they will back down - The parliament acts aren’t supposed to be used frequently, if at all, but are there to break the deadlock if required
It comes down to the difference between “can” and “should”
Ultimately, the elected Commons has a variety of levers to deal with a situation where the unelected Lords plays silly buggers, including some nuclear ones as the Liberals threatened to get their 1906 budget through. Starmer should get tough with this effort by a tiny handful of appointed peers to frustrate the will of the MPs, and - from all polling - the public.
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
Sadly that seems likely to be this govt's epitaph. Currently stands at 1200 amendments tabled for a 59 clause bill.
My suspicion is that the real motivation behind this small group of peers is to turn a bill, that has been treated as a matter of conscience in the Commons, political by forcing the govt to intervene just for political advantage.
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13.
Bombshell report from the BBC.
Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
Deserved to have been shot eleven times for that.
I hadn’t realised until yesterday that Pretti was shot 11 times IN THE BACK
Have I not been paying attention or has that not been widely reported?
Widely reported, in that I’ve heard it lots of times. They took the gun off him, pushed him to the ground, and shot an unarmed man over and over
I knew everything that you just wrote - just hadn’t really computed that he was face down (although of course you can see that in the videos). It just struck me as a clearly aggravating factor
According to the Daily Beast, apparently Miller is at war with Trump "for wobbling" over immigration and Miller has reported this to MAGA grandees and they are not happy. I'm rooting for Trump over "Crazy Stephen Miller".
Apparently Melania the Movie being overshadowed by events is pissing her off and thus pissing Trump off.
To be fair to her, if it hadn’t been for this she might have doubled her audience attendance
Even without this where’s the audience for this vanity project ?
Xi smiling broadly as he shakes Starmer's hand ahead of their talks. The Chinese have always liked dull, serious and bureaucratic UK PMs. Ted Heath was always very popular with the Chinese, also like Starmer far more than he was with UK voters "UK and China must build 'more sophisticated relationship', Starmer tells Xi - live updates - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cly9p5kr2q7t
Starmer making his visit to China all about the "cost of living" in the UK shows him to be deeply unserious about geopolitics
Comments
The striking thing is that despite its stonking majority, this government is so pitifully timid.
WTF are you would be the natural response. Raising the issue of a locked up British citizen (albeit with dual nationality) is fair enough but what right do we have to lecture other richer and more powerful countries about their domestic affairs. I sometimes wonder if the lecturing predates or post dates the begging for investment in our flat lining economy, before we beg them to buy some more of our goods and services and ask them nicely to stop using our fecklessness to spy on Downing Street for whatever secrets we think we have.
I bet Xi ate him alive.
As for a dictionary, most spelling errors many of us make are typos, and a spellchecker is what we need not a dictionary.
the people, stop these posh toffs blocking it'
Brexit 'It was a vote by oiks and the ignorant and easily led, let their educated and enlightened Lordships stop this damaging Withdrawal Bill'
I have to constantly tell ChatGPT not to do that and even then it doesn't always get it right.
I have to constantly tell ChatGPT not to do that and even then it doesn't always get it right.
Currently stands at 1200 amendments tabled for a 59 clause bill.
NEW THREAD
My 3-year old son could walk more confidently on that red carpet than he just did.
The initial report was from a highly dubious source, and the claims about the BBC clearly misleading, but it seems that his family have since confirmed that the incident took place.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/29/alex-pretti-shooting-11-days-before-federal-officers-clash
RPI+4% as a consistent return year in year out is fine for me