If we're going to reheat Blair-era policies, can we please focus on lifting children out of poverty? Instead of this divisive, authoritarian nonsense."
"Palantir has cultivated relationships across the political spectrum, presenting itself as a technological solution to complex public sector challenges while accumulating unprecedented access to British citizens' data."
Thiel is a genuinely very interesting man, from all I’ve read about him. I’d be interested in meeting him.
But, I don’t think I’d want to give him access to all my data.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
For the 26 trillionth time, the issue isn't having a physical (or digital version) it is having a massive interconnected database drawing in information about every part of your life.
As for voting, there is a very easy way of getting a free voter card if you don't have passport, driving licence etc, but I wonder how you have bank account etc in the modern would without a form of id that also allows you to vote (and you are in a position that you are allowed to vote).
Here you go:
"Anyone seeking to start a new job would be required to provide their digital ID, which would be automatically checked against a central database of those legally entitled to work in the UK."
That’s the thing here - remember how often I’ve commented that some youngsters can’t get jobs because their id doesn’t pass the checks the national organization insists on.
So we need 2 things to ensure people who can legally be employed - 1 an ID card with photo so you know who you are checking an a link to the database that them says the person with id card x can or can’t work.
That requires a single purpose database and some form of photo id.
And as others have pointed out - done properly this will save a fortune
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
For the 26 trillionth time, the issue isn't having a physical (or digital version) it is having a massive interconnected database drawing in information about every part of your life.
As for voting, there is a very easy way of getting a free voter card if you don't have passport, driving licence etc, but I wonder how you have bank account etc in the modern would without a form of id that also allows you to vote (and you are in a position that you are allowed to vote).
Here you go:
"Anyone seeking to start a new job would be required to provide their digital ID, which would be automatically checked against a central database of those legally entitled to work in the UK."
I really despair at the cluelessness of this government. For those not wanting a Reform win at the next election it seems No10 is doing its very best to ensure they do win .
I really despair at the cluelessness of this government. For those not wanting a Reform win at the next election it seems No10 is doing its very best to ensure they do win .
I hope Andy Burnham does somehow manage to take over because he can only be better than Starmer.
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
You need ID to access benefits anyway. So the electronic ID would fast become the main way of doing it. God knows why we don't ask people to show ID before using the NHS, it's no different to proving that your insurance is up to date
The point of this, of course, is that most professional lawyers might simply refuse to pursue a political prosecution which is entirely baseless in law.
Lindsay Halligan, the newly-installed US Attorney prosecuting James Comey at President Trump's direction, is an insurance attorney and a Miss Colorado finalist. She has never prosecuted a case. https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1971396750771728672
Unless there are mass resignations at the DOJ in protest, then it's anther step towards authoritarianism, where the law is secondary to the whims of the president.
It appears that we are moving on to the show trial period of Trumpism. A prosecution brought by someone with no criminal experience because the President instructs it against someone he detests is getting a long, long way from the rule of law.
Diving into the legal weeds on this, it seems that John Roberts handed Trump the means, in the abysmal presidential immunity finding in Trump v US , with this bit of his opinion:
..Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)...
This article is on point.
The Supreme Court Greenlit the President’s Political Prosecutions—Even Unlawful Ones
Not long ago, that would have been a bold statement. After all, the Justice Department’s own website still assigns that job to the attorney general. But Trump has seized investigative and prosecutorial weapons that, in order to safeguard the rule of law, have traditionally been walled off from the president.
The Supreme Court handed him these loaded weapons. While it was little remarked upon at the time, last summer’s presidential immunity decision from the Republican wing of the Roberts’ Court gave the president the power to launch any investigation or prosecution he wanted, with real or fabricated evidence, without any repercussions. Just a year later, we are seeing the unprecedented weaponization of the DOJ.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States announced for the first time—and to the shock of much of the legal world—that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions that are part of his core presidential powers, and has presumptive immunity for all other official acts. The immediate result was to delay and ultimately derail the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. But legal scholars soon pointed out that the opinion went much further than immunity. It was not just a shield but also a sword, giving the president untouchable power to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute whoever he wanted—even in sham proceedings launched for political retribution...
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
For the 26 trillionth time, the issue isn't having a physical (or digital version) it is having a massive interconnected database drawing in information about every part of your life.
As for voting, there is a very easy way of getting a free voter card if you don't have passport, driving licence etc, but I wonder how you have bank account etc in the modern would without a form of id that also allows you to vote (and you are in a position that you are allowed to vote).
Here you go:
"Anyone seeking to start a new job would be required to provide their digital ID, which would be automatically checked against a central database of those legally entitled to work in the UK."
I really despair at the cluelessness of this government. For those not wanting a Reform win at the next election it seems No10 is doing its very best to ensure they do win .
I hope Andy Burnham does somehow manage to take over because he can only be better than Starmer.
I’m not a big fan of Burnham but yes it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t be better than Starmer .
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
For the 26 trillionth time, the issue isn't having a physical (or digital version) it is having a massive interconnected database drawing in information about every part of your life.
As for voting, there is a very easy way of getting a free voter card if you don't have passport, driving licence etc, but I wonder how you have bank account etc in the modern would without a form of id that also allows you to vote (and you are in a position that you are allowed to vote).
Here you go:
"Anyone seeking to start a new job would be required to provide their digital ID, which would be automatically checked against a central database of those legally entitled to work in the UK."
There's already a central database of people with NI numbers
And that doesn't stop illegal working.
Honestly, another process state invention that will create jobs for the bureaucrats, give them more things to cock up, and do nothing to stop small boats and illegal working.
We simply have to introduce offshore processing. And £500k fines for employing illegal workers. Combined with incentivising illegal workers to dob in their employers.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
ID for voting was unnecessary. We managed perfectly well without it until about 2 years ago.
The hassle of providing voter ID before exercising one's franchise is precisely the point. It's a feature, not a bug.
The rationale was to discourage poorer, Labour-leaning voters who are less likely to have passports and driving licences by making them jump through hoops to get an ID certificate. (And Jacob Rees-Mogg, in his role as Minister for saying the quiet bits out loud, confirmed this.)
If every voter already had an ID card, there would be no point in requiring ID cards at polling stations.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
ID for voting was unnecessary. We managed perfectly well without it until about 2 years ago.
I'd prefer the inked finger approach myself.
One thing I find interesting/mildly annoying. The people at the polling station are not required to show me their ID, but I must show mine. Now I believe they are acting for the state at that point and should be required, if asked, to show who they are. Just as a police officer must show a warrant card etc. Am I being unduly stupid?
The point of this, of course, is that most professional lawyers might simply refuse to pursue a political prosecution which is entirely baseless in law.
Lindsay Halligan, the newly-installed US Attorney prosecuting James Comey at President Trump's direction, is an insurance attorney and a Miss Colorado finalist. She has never prosecuted a case. https://x.com/KyleClark/status/1971396750771728672
Unless there are mass resignations at the DOJ in protest, then it's anther step towards authoritarianism, where the law is secondary to the whims of the president.
It appears that we are moving on to the show trial period of Trumpism. A prosecution brought by someone with no criminal experience because the President instructs it against someone he detests is getting a long, long way from the rule of law.
Diving into the legal weeds on this, it seems that John Roberts handed Trump the means, in the abysmal presidential immunity finding in Trump v US , with this bit of his opinion:
..Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)...
This article is on point.
The Supreme Court Greenlit the President’s Political Prosecutions—Even Unlawful Ones
Not long ago, that would have been a bold statement. After all, the Justice Department’s own website still assigns that job to the attorney general. But Trump has seized investigative and prosecutorial weapons that, in order to safeguard the rule of law, have traditionally been walled off from the president.
The Supreme Court handed him these loaded weapons. While it was little remarked upon at the time, last summer’s presidential immunity decision from the Republican wing of the Roberts’ Court gave the president the power to launch any investigation or prosecution he wanted, with real or fabricated evidence, without any repercussions. Just a year later, we are seeing the unprecedented weaponization of the DOJ.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States announced for the first time—and to the shock of much of the legal world—that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions that are part of his core presidential powers, and has presumptive immunity for all other official acts. The immediate result was to delay and ultimately derail the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. But legal scholars soon pointed out that the opinion went much further than immunity. It was not just a shield but also a sword, giving the president untouchable power to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute whoever he wanted—even in sham proceedings launched for political retribution...
It's going to need a Constitutional Amendment to remedy. It will be part of the post-Trump reassessment of the rule of law.
According to Euractiv, Poland is preparing amendments to its law on the deployment of military units abroad, so that its forces would be granted the right to shoot down Russian assets on Ukrainian territory — including drones and possibly even missiles — without prior approval from NATO or the European Union. https://x.com/visionergeo/status/1971163865976061984
These petitions are often very interesting in terms of the geographical distribution of signatories. There's a wealth of information there.
On this one it's interesting that the major urban centres - e.g. London and Birmingham - have very low rates of signatures at present. Maybe they will catch up later. At a first glance I'd say that it looks like areas with strong Reform support have high rates of signing this petition.
This might just be because it has spread over the parts of social media used by those voters first, but it suggests this won't be a way to win back those voters to Labour.
it is growing at about 1,000 a minute. It will reach 1,000,000 I think. In some constituencies, over 2% of electors have already signed it.
That's just all the small boats people signing it
I have signed it. I'm definitely NOT a "small boats person"!
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
You need ID to access benefits anyway. So the electronic ID would fast become the main way of doing it. God knows why we don't ask people to show ID before using the NHS, it's no different to proving that your insurance is up to date
I think we can say for certain that Labour MPs are not going to support the idea of only allowing people with ID to use the health service.
Here's something for the connoisseurs amongst us........
Highland Council is live-streaming the STV counts for the two by elections in Ward 7 (Caol & Mallaig) and Ward 11 (Tain & Easter Ross). Here's the link:-
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
For the 26 trillionth time, the issue isn't having a physical (or digital version) it is having a massive interconnected database drawing in information about every part of your life.
As for voting, there is a very easy way of getting a free voter card if you don't have passport, driving licence etc, but I wonder how you have bank account etc in the modern would without a form of id that also allows you to vote (and you are in a position that you are allowed to vote).
Here you go:
"Anyone seeking to start a new job would be required to provide their digital ID, which would be automatically checked against a central database of those legally entitled to work in the UK."
There's already a central database of people with NI numbers
The NI database is a disaster - people with not even a visa ended up with one! Tons of missing records and duplications
The driving license database is poor.
The passport data is probably the best. Though passports have been issued to people with no right to one.
When working at the DWP, I had access to about four different systems, many of which carried conflicting information or didn't list people at all. So yes it is chaos out there in the world of government data.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
I expect the typical disabled person owns no cycle, though that wasn't on the list.
2 Labour MPs have already come out against ID cards: Nadia Whittome and Clive Lewis.
72 more to go.
Let's wait and see what the quisling Lib Dems say before doing a count. They are in favour of the hugely illiberal online safety act so no guarantees they won't support this too.
In terms of implementing PR mentioned below, its very doable if you make it a blend. Pair up all the constituencies and have double sized ones (keep the "special case seats' separate) Do a list system for the nations and regions on d'hondt for the remaining 325 Workaround for the speaker.
The main reason for a delay would be getting whatever system you've chosen through Parliament.
The initial implementation could be quite simple in just about every case.
In the d'hondt system with constituency and list MPs how is the constituency workload divided up? Presumably the list MPs don't get a free ride?
In Ireland, where we have multi-member STV constituencies, people tend to approach the TD they think will be most helpful, or who they trust/voted for. You can also try contacting all of them and seeing who is most motivated to help.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
I expect the typical disabled person owns no cycle, though that wasn't on the list.
As the typical able-bodied person doesn't own a cycle either, that wouldn't be a surprise.
2 Labour MPs have already come out against ID cards: Nadia Whittome and Clive Lewis.
72 more to go.
Let's wait and see what the quisling Lib Dems say before doing a count. They are in favour of the hugely illiberal online safety act so no guarantees they won't support this too.
They’ve already come out against it . So I expect all their MPs will follow the leadership .
I really despair at the cluelessness of this government. For those not wanting a Reform win at the next election it seems No10 is doing its very best to ensure they do win .
I hope Andy Burnham does somehow manage to take over because he can only be better than Starmer.
I don't know. Starmer is basically continuity Sunak, this time done as farce.
Burnham is basically a mirror image of Truss, except that instead of spunking the cash on tax cuts (potential for creating at least some growth) he wants to spunk it yet more pointless government spending.
Are we going to force Irish citizens to have a Sir Keir ID card if they wish to exercise their existing right to work in the UK?
When travelling back to the UK, I was asked by the airline if I had a visa to get into the UK? Said I'd apply there and then but as I was not entitled to apply, I wouldn't get a visa as it was a Common Travel Area. Confusion all round until they consulted their smartphone and understood what I and the UK Government was saying.
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
You need ID to access benefits anyway. So the electronic ID would fast become the main way of doing it. God knows why we don't ask people to show ID before using the NHS, it's no different to proving that your insurance is up to date
I think we can say for certain that Labour MPs are not going to support the idea of only allowing people with ID to use the health service.
The point is that, if we introduce universal ID, everyone will have it.
Here's something for the connoisseurs amongst us........
Highland Council is live-streaming the STV counts for the two by elections in Ward 7 (Caol & Mallaig) and Ward 11 (Tain & Easter Ross). Here's the link:-
2 Labour MPs have already come out against ID cards: Nadia Whittome and Clive Lewis.
72 more to go.
Let's wait and see what the quisling Lib Dems say before doing a count. They are in favour of the hugely illiberal online safety act so no guarantees they won't support this too.
Lib Dems won't support it. They've already made that crystal clear.
I don’t understand why Sweden and Denmark are not shooting these drones down
Bit on the news saying it’s from fear of them hitting civilians/property, talk of using nets and the like. The fear of deaths thing seems a bit unlikely unless the drones are carrying ordnance which I doubt,
2 Labour MPs have already come out against ID cards: Nadia Whittome and Clive Lewis.
72 more to go.
Let's wait and see what the quisling Lib Dems say before doing a count. They are in favour of the hugely illiberal online safety act so no guarantees they won't support this too.
Lib Dems won't support it. They've already made that crystal clear.
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
You need ID to access benefits anyway. So the electronic ID would fast become the main way of doing it. God knows why we don't ask people to show ID before using the NHS, it's no different to proving that your insurance is up to date
I think we can say for certain that Labour MPs are not going to support the idea of only allowing people with ID to use the health service.
The point is that, if we introduce universal ID, everyone will have it.
To me, Lib Lab coalition/working agreement looks a pretty likely prospect, if the Lib Dems are up for it. You'd think they would do anything to stop Farage, but I always feel there's an undercurrent of extreme dislike of Labour amongst some Lib Dems I can't quite fathom...
I think the more difficult aspect of supporting a minority Labour government is that such a government would have just lost a massive majority, indicating rejection by the electorate.
Supporting such a government would be anti-democratic and also a poisoned chalice at the next GE.
I think the UK has to get past this sort of thinking. In Europe it would be not unusual for a party to go backwards in votes/seats but remain in power through a coalition.
The gruesome Liz Kendall said the opposite. Yvette Cooper said they wouldn't be brought in because not in the manifesto. Now Starmer is announcing them. Palantir and Peter Thiel - for whom the word gruesome was invented - are behind it.
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
You need ID to access benefits anyway. So the electronic ID would fast become the main way of doing it. God knows why we don't ask people to show ID before using the NHS, it's no different to proving that your insurance is up to date
I think we can say for certain that Labour MPs are not going to support the idea of only allowing people with ID to use the health service.
The point is that, if we introduce universal ID, everyone will have it.
If everyone has it, you don't actually need it.
Well, some people would have one saying they are not able to work, or use the NHS, or vote. And it would be a handy tool for doing things like open bank accounts, which government rules have made a real pain in the arse
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
I expect the typical disabled person owns no cycle, though that wasn't on the list.
As the typical able-bodied person doesn't own a cycle either, that wouldn't be a surprise.
"use", I'm sure that a large proportion of the drivers unable to cope with navigating vulnerable road users have access to a non-functioning bicycle in the shed
Here's something for the connoisseurs amongst us........
Highland Council is live-streaming the STV counts for the two by elections in Ward 7 (Caol & Mallaig) and Ward 11 (Tain & Easter Ross). Here's the link:-
Not sure if I herard the figures correctly, so please DYOR, but it looks like the Tories did spectacularly badly in the Taain and Easter Ross by election. The Lib Dems won on Stage 6 with over 900 first preferences - the Tories were bottom with 45 first preferences. But please check the official mresult before you quote me.
I don’t understand why Sweden and Denmark are not shooting these drones down
Very probably because they don't yet have the systems in place to track and destroy them.
This should serve as an urgent warning.
And there is a potential debris issue as well: from the drones and whatever is used to shoot it down.
That's secondary, I think. Unarmed, they wouldn't that do much damage anyway. Carrying ordnance, then shooting them down is probably safer than the potential alternative.
To me, Lib Lab coalition/working agreement looks a pretty likely prospect, if the Lib Dems are up for it. You'd think they would do anything to stop Farage, but I always feel there's an undercurrent of extreme dislike of Labour amongst some Lib Dems I can't quite fathom...
I think the more difficult aspect of supporting a minority Labour government is that such a government would have just lost a massive majority, indicating rejection by the electorate.
Supporting such a government would be anti-democratic and also a poisoned chalice at the next GE.
I think the UK has to get past this sort of thinking. In Europe it would be not unusual for a party to go backwards in votes/seats but remain in power through a coalition.
It's not antidemocratic.
It is if the seats are distributed by our current FPTP lottery.
Only if it's a civil war. You don't prepare for war by putting every single armed forces commander - including those from every global deployment - in one location.
I don’t understand why Sweden and Denmark are not shooting these drones down
Very probably because they don't yet have the systems in place to track and destroy them.
This should serve as an urgent warning.
And there is a potential debris issue as well: from the drones and whatever is used to shoot it down.
That's secondary, I think. Unarmed, they wouldn't that do much damage anyway. Carrying ordnance, then shooting them down is probably safer than the potential alternative.
Secondary, but still an issue.
Here's what I might do: 1) Leverage Ukrainian experience to develop interceptor drones, capable of either knocking the target out of the sky (preferably at a safe place) or capturing them. This would require tracking tech that will still be needed for a shoot-out-of-the-sky approach.
2) Develop RDF capabilities (which we must have?) so when we find the frequencies, we can try to track down the originating source. There are other possibilities, like usage of the mobile phone network, but that would point much more strongly towards state actors rather than idiots larking about.
Both of these would help us keep up with this rapidly-evolving technology.
OT - 311 seats almost four years from an election is a good place to be but it is an awfully long way from winning power. Even this gives Farage power at the whim of a rump of 40-odd (some very odd) Con MPS not to mention the many feckless and/or unruly Reform MPs. The chances of going the way of Johnson would be pretty high I reckon and I'm sure Nigel does too.
OT - 311 seats almost four years from an election is a good place to be but it is an awfully long way from winning power. Even this gives Farage power at the whim of a rump of 40-odd (some very odd) Con MPS not to mention the many feckless and/or unruly Reform MPs. The chances of going the way of Johnson would be pretty high I reckon and I'm sure Nigel does too.
O/t but just had a short power cut. Few minutes later cam a call from UK Power (?) to advise that we might have one, and if we did, why and it wouldn't be long.
When was the last time he faced the press - Chequers with Trump when he cut the questions ?
Is this a PM the country deserves?
You have had a one man vendetta against him since he first took office. Why not try taking a more constructive tack like suggesting something he could do to improve himself or even suggesting an alternative who would be an improvement.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
When was the last time he faced the press - Chequers with Trump when he cut the questions ?
Is this a PM the country deserves?
You have had a one man vendetta against him since he first took office. Why not try taking a more constructive tack like suggesting something he could do to improve himself or even suggesting an alternative who would be an improvement.
Resign would be excellent along with Reeves, who between them and their job destroying budget have failed the country
I do understand how hard this is for you and labour supporters who are no doubt watching in dismay at the collapse of a landslide government winning just over 12 months ago
By the way, I do not do vendetta, just say it as it is
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
ID for voting was unnecessary. We managed perfectly well without it until about 2 years ago.
I'd prefer the inked finger approach myself.
One thing I find interesting/mildly annoying. The people at the polling station are not required to show me their ID, but I must show mine. Now I believe they are acting for the state at that point and should be required, if asked, to show who they are. Just as a police officer must show a warrant card etc. Am I being unduly stupid?
Comments
"@NadiaWhittomeMP
If we're going to reheat Blair-era policies, can we please focus on lifting children out of poverty? Instead of this divisive, authoritarian nonsense."
https://x.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/1971254430441017422
They are all liars and untrustworthy and the only thing they have in common is a desire to control us and boss is around and punish us.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
Digital ID is another measure to make it tougher to work illegally here, making our borders more secure.
Ours is a fairer Britain, built on change, not division.
So we need 2 things to ensure people who can legally be employed - 1 an ID card with photo so you know who you are checking an a link to the database that them says the person with id card x can or can’t work.
That requires a single purpose database and some form of photo id.
And as others have pointed out - done properly this will save a fortune
..Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985), and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, §1. For that reason, Trump’s threatened removal of the Acting Attorney General likewise implicates “conclusive and preclusive” Presidential authority. As we have explained, the President’s power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed” may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. Myers, 272 U. S., at 106, 176; see supra, at 8. The President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)...
This article is on point.
The Supreme Court Greenlit the President’s Political Prosecutions—Even Unlawful Ones
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/09/donald-trump-political-prosecutions-supreme-court/
..Answering questions about last month’s FBI raid targeting John Bolton, his former national security adviser, Trump affirmed, “I could be the one starting it. I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer.”
Not long ago, that would have been a bold statement. After all, the Justice Department’s own website still assigns that job to the attorney general. But Trump has seized investigative and prosecutorial weapons that, in order to safeguard the rule of law, have traditionally been walled off from the president.
The Supreme Court handed him these loaded weapons. While it was little remarked upon at the time, last summer’s presidential immunity decision from the Republican wing of the Roberts’ Court gave the president the power to launch any investigation or prosecution he wanted, with real or fabricated evidence, without any repercussions. Just a year later, we are seeing the unprecedented weaponization of the DOJ.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States announced for the first time—and to the shock of much of the legal world—that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions that are part of his core presidential powers, and has presumptive immunity for all other official acts. The immediate result was to delay and ultimately derail the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. But legal scholars soon pointed out that the opinion went much further than immunity. It was not just a shield but also a sword, giving the president untouchable power to use the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute whoever he wanted—even in sham proceedings launched for political retribution...
The driving license database is poor.
The passport data is probably the best. Though passports have been issued to people with no right to one.
72 more to go.
Honestly, another process state invention that will create jobs for the bureaucrats, give them more things to cock up, and do nothing to stop small boats and illegal working.
We simply have to introduce offshore processing. And £500k fines for employing illegal workers. Combined with incentivising illegal workers to dob in their employers.
The rationale was to discourage poorer, Labour-leaning voters who are less likely to have passports and driving licences by making them jump through hoops to get an ID certificate. (And Jacob Rees-Mogg, in his role as Minister for saying the quiet bits out loud, confirmed this.)
If every voter already had an ID card, there would be no point in requiring ID cards at polling stations.
One thing I find interesting/mildly annoying. The people at the polling station are not required to show me their ID, but I must show mine. Now I believe they are acting for the state at that point and should be required, if asked, to show who they are. Just as a police officer must show a warrant card etc. Am I being unduly stupid?
According to Euractiv, Poland is preparing amendments to its law on the deployment of military units abroad, so that its forces would be granted the right to shoot down Russian assets on Ukrainian territory — including drones and possibly even missiles — without prior approval from NATO or the European Union.
https://x.com/visionergeo/status/1971163865976061984
I doubt anyone not gaming the system in some way has anything to fear.
I'm definitely NOT a "small boats person"!
Farage will presumably say he'll scrap it on taking office?
Burnham is basically a mirror image of Truss, except that instead of spunking the cash on tax cuts (potential for creating at least some growth) he wants to spunk it yet more pointless government spending.
When the next budget spooks the markets, he'll have to go cap in hand to the Tories and LDs to form a unity government....
I've just signed the petition.
First one I've ever signed!
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1971508218477105602
In Europe it would be not unusual for a party to go backwards in votes/seats but remain in power through a coalition.
It's not antidemocratic.
@nickeardleybbc
Some sad political news. Former Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell has died.
A huge political figure over several decades - and a very kind and thoughful man.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey: “All of us in the Liberal Democrat family and beyond will miss him terribly"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8j7jnjd6ro
This should serve as an urgent warning.
And not taking questions
When was the last time he faced the press - Chequers with Trump when he cut the questions ?
Is this a PM the country deserves?
https://x.com/KHoholenko/status/1971410320393752962
Unarmed, they wouldn't that do much damage anyway.
Carrying ordnance, then shooting them down is probably safer than the potential alternative.
You don't prepare for war by putting every single armed forces commander - including those from every global deployment - in one location.
A senior Pentagon correspondent told the WP: "I have never seen anything like this in my 30 years of reporting on the US military. We may be on the brink of war."
https://x.com/JewishWarrior13/status/1971224525284225061
In fact the only precedents are folk like Saddam summoning all their generals in order to get loyalty oaths and/or purge them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce846r2drg8o
The Hezbollah flag charge seems to have been thrown out on technical grounds although the BBC story is unclear about the details.
Here's what I might do:
1) Leverage Ukrainian experience to develop interceptor drones, capable of either knocking the target out of the sky (preferably at a safe place) or capturing them. This would require tracking tech that will still be needed for a shoot-out-of-the-sky approach.
2) Develop RDF capabilities (which we must have?) so when we find the frequencies, we can try to track down the originating source. There are other possibilities, like usage of the mobile phone network, but that would point much more strongly towards state actors rather than idiots larking about.
Both of these would help us keep up with this rapidly-evolving technology.
Terrorism case against Kneecap rapper thrown out by court over technical error in way charge was brought
https://x.com/bbcbreaking/status/1971513596799558043?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Bit presumptuous of you, though.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
But still working.
Air Force AI Targeting Tests Show Promise, Despite Hallucinations
https://www.twz.com/news-features/air-force-ai-teaming-tests-show-promise-despite-hallucinations
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Morris Oxford ?
I do understand how hard this is for you and labour supporters who are no doubt watching in dismay at the collapse of a landslide government winning just over 12 months ago
By the way, I do not do vendetta, just say it as it is