A referendum in Switzerland to decide whether to introduce electronic identity cards is taking place, with initial projections suggesting voters are evenly split.
It is the second nationwide ballot on the issue, after the idea was rejected in 2021 over data protection concerns and unease over the proposed system being largely run by private firms.
Under the revised proposal, the new system would remain entirely optional and in public hands, with data stored on users' smartphones rather than centrally.
Interesting and the word optional is the key difference between Starmer mandating them [I expect the idea will be quietly dropped in the fullness of time]
Here is what the government has said about its plans so far;
Of course there will be some spin here. But it's a very long way from the proposal to the scheme that people are filling a petition out against. As far as I can tell from the government explainer, the only situation where it will be essential is for people taking up new jobs. In theory, those checks should already be happening, and they are a bit of a pain, as @eek has pointed out.
The problem with that is mission creep and I really do not expect it to become law
Next time I’m in Llandudno - I will take you to a council estate where I can guarantee 50% won’t have the passport required to meet the employment requirement of a national firm.
But hey you are more concerned about x then making it possible to get a job.
Worse the database is going to be implemented anyway so let’s give people the small benefits that can be derived from it
Which takes us back to how warped and unhinged the national conversation is.
The way to think about this plan is using technology to make life easier for citizens. Whenever you move house, change jobs, do significant financial transactions or vote in person, you have to prove your identity. At the monent, that involves various degrees of clunkiness- it's not too bad if you have a passport and/or driving licence, but plenty of people don't. (And even then, the paper bank statement/utility bills thing is getting tricky.) Having a thing that you can show that proves who you are and not much else is the sort of incremental improvement that makes everyone's lives a bit better and makes the national administration a bit smoother that governments ought to be doing.
We can't talk about it that way, because all the media want to ask about is the alleged migration crisis. This will probably help a bit there (at the moment, ID checks are more faff than they are worth for microbusinesses, and more faff than they are worth to investigate for the government... streamlining the process should help), but they aren't the real benefit.
So yeah, it's probably fine, and a lot of the shroud-waving about tech conspiracies is misdirected. But some people have such an intense Starmer hatred that anything he proposes must be evil.
Which isn't to say that I wouldn't rather someone better was doing the job. But PM isn't really the sort of role where you can run a recruitment process and decide not to appoint.
It's fortunate that I'm not looking for work as I have neither a driving licence or a valid passport. All I have is an OAP bus pass, with a 20+ year old photo!
I'm impressed you could get an OAP bus pass at 20+. Most people have to wait until 60.
A referendum in Switzerland to decide whether to introduce electronic identity cards is taking place, with initial projections suggesting voters are evenly split.
It is the second nationwide ballot on the issue, after the idea was rejected in 2021 over data protection concerns and unease over the proposed system being largely run by private firms.
Under the revised proposal, the new system would remain entirely optional and in public hands, with data stored on users' smartphones rather than centrally.
Interesting and the word optional is the key difference between Starmer mandating them [I expect the idea will be quietly dropped in the fullness of time]
Here is what the government has said about its plans so far;
Of course there will be some spin here. But it's a very long way from the proposal to the scheme that people are filling a petition out against. As far as I can tell from the government explainer, the only situation where it will be essential is for people taking up new jobs. In theory, those checks should already be happening, and they are a bit of a pain, as @eek has pointed out.
The problem with that is mission creep and I really do not expect it to become law
Next time I’m in Llandudno - I will take you to a council estate where I can guarantee 50% won’t have the passport required to meet the employment requirement of a national firm.
But hey you are more concerned about x then making it possible to get a job.
Worse the database is going to be implemented anyway so let’s give people the small benefits that can be derived from it
Which takes us back to how warped and unhinged the national conversation is.
The way to think about this plan is using technology to make life easier for citizens. Whenever you move house, change jobs, do significant financial transactions or vote in person, you have to prove your identity. At the monent, that involves various degrees of clunkiness- it's not too bad if you have a passport and/or driving licence, but plenty of people don't. (And even then, the paper bank statement/utility bills thing is getting tricky.) Having a thing that you can show that proves who you are and not much else is the sort of incremental improvement that makes everyone's lives a bit better and makes the national administration a bit smoother that governments ought to be doing.
We can't talk about it that way, because all the media want to ask about is the alleged migration crisis. This will probably help a bit there (at the moment, ID checks are more faff than they are worth for microbusinesses, and more faff than they are worth to investigate for the government... streamlining the process should help), but they aren't the real benefit.
So yeah, it's probably fine, and a lot of the shroud-waving about tech conspiracies is misdirected. But some people have such an intense Starmer hatred that anything he proposes must be evil.
Which isn't to say that I wouldn't rather someone better was doing the job. But PM isn't really the sort of role where you can run a recruitment process and decide not to appoint.
It's fortunate that I'm not looking for work as I have neither a driving licence or a valid passport. All I have is an OAP bus pass, with a 20+ year old photo!
I'm impressed you could get an OAP bus pass at 20+. Most people have to wait until 60.
Who checks though? I imagine there are quite a few teenage hackers touring London on entirely fabricated 60+ identities.
Age checking can be very tricky - I think it was my 56th birthday that a lady in Waitrose asked me to remove my mask for such purposes. Made my day! (A glum lockdown day)
(Although, more likely he will pass an Executive Order for the state to fund 1,000 more golf courses to get the American game improving.
All of which will transfer to the ownership of the Trump Presidential Library at the end of his term...)
Why the end of his term? If he's selling Pardons for a million bucks a throw whilst he's in office I don't see why he can't personally sequester all the golf courses in the USA.
That all seems a bit of a faff when an Executive Order claiming the Ryder Cup win for the USA would seem easily doable. It could be a handy dry run for overturning the 2028 election too.
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Do you want this fellow in charge of your personal data?
I would be more inclined to Electronic ID if it were optional and had nothing to do with Theil and his ilk.
Yeah, Thiel is, like many of his friends, slightly weird. And also has the capability to do immense harm.
I don't like people who could cause immense harm obsessing with the eschaton and katechon.
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God. I am descended from you, and exist in your future. Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I stayed a Saturday night in Banbury town centre a couple of years back. Sleepy Oxfordshire, it ain’t. Heavy drinking, blokes staggering about drunk from mid evening onwards, urinating in doorways, vomit in the street, often looking as if a fight is about to break out. Young women with a fashion sense that would do Loughton proud. Avoid.
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
I have been a subscriber the The Economist for decades, but increasingly it is becoming unreadable. They used to be generally astute, now they are not even as astute as other media outlets. When they write about subjects I know a bit about, they make often fairly elementary errors. I'll give it a few months for old times sake, but I can increasingly do without yet another load of partisan biased, borderline silly journalism. If I want a pretentious right wing comic, there's always The Spectator.
I was a subscriber between about 2002 and 2020. I agree with you about its decline.
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I stayed a Saturday night in Banbury town centre a couple of years back. Sleepy Oxfordshire, it ain’t. Heavy drinking, blokes staggering about drunk from mid evening onwards, urinating in doorways, vomit in the street, often looking as if a fight is about to break out. Avoid.
I've walked through Banbury a few times, and started walks there, always in the daytime. Which can show you how impressions differ, as I saw it as a quiet, provincial town. True, some parts along the canal were decayed, but that's often the case for canals.
My best memory is of heading out of town one morning, and seeing a young man in a suit unicycling into work...
Gosh, there's some snowflakes on here. Of course Reform are Labour's 'enemy', just as the Tories have always been Labour's enemy. And vice versa. It's political, not personal, obviously.
Time for Starmer to ramp it up. Give all the racists both barrels. Time to let people take sides. If he does it now he's got it in the bag. I've just listened to a prog about the flag war which is happening in Leeds.
.......It's essential he doesn't equivocate. The moral high ground is waiting for him. The Flag flyers of Leeds were morons and racists. No apology to any of them required. Just a bit of backbone to keep some of his Red Wall MPs on board -(though in truth I don't think he needs them).
The problem is people are taking sides and it's Farage's
The more Starmer attacks Farage as the enemy, the more he loses because he is taking on between 30-34% of the public including ex labour voters
You really do not understand what is at play here do you ?
So what would you have Starmer do?
Tell France to stop the boats from departing from their beaches.
Gosh, there's some snowflakes on here. Of course Reform are Labour's 'enemy', just as the Tories have always been Labour's enemy. And vice versa. It's political, not personal, obviously.
Time for Starmer to ramp it up. Give all the racists both barrels. Time to let people take sides. If he does it now he's got it in the bag. I've just listened to a prog about the flag war which is happening in Leeds.
.......It's essential he doesn't equivocate. The moral high ground is waiting for him. The Flag flyers of Leeds were morons and racists. No apology to any of them required. Just a bit of backbone to keep some of his Red Wall MPs on board -(though in truth I don't think he needs them).
The problem is people are taking sides and it's Farage's
The more Starmer attacks Farage as the enemy, the more he loses because he is taking on between 30-34% of the public including ex labour voters
You really do not understand what is at play here do you ?
So what would you have Starmer do?
Tell France to stop the boats from departing from their beaches.
And when the French say Non! ?
Would you prefer us to go to war with France, or drown all the migrants?
Gosh, there's some snowflakes on here. Of course Reform are Labour's 'enemy', just as the Tories have always been Labour's enemy. And vice versa. It's political, not personal, obviously.
Time for Starmer to ramp it up. Give all the racists both barrels. Time to let people take sides. If he does it now he's got it in the bag. I've just listened to a prog about the flag war which is happening in Leeds.
.......It's essential he doesn't equivocate. The moral high ground is waiting for him. The Flag flyers of Leeds were morons and racists. No apology to any of them required. Just a bit of backbone to keep some of his Red Wall MPs on board -(though in truth I don't think he needs them).
The problem is people are taking sides and it's Farage's
The more Starmer attacks Farage as the enemy, the more he loses because he is taking on between 30-34% of the public including ex labour voters
You really do not understand what is at play here do you ?
So what would you have Starmer do?
Tell France to stop the boats from departing from their beaches.
And when the French say Non! ?
Would you prefer us to go to war with France, or drown all the migrants?
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I remember going there in the 1990s and thinking it a bit of a dump. I'd put Banbury and Torquay as the two places whose idea is most removed from its reality.
Gosh, there's some snowflakes on here. Of course Reform are Labour's 'enemy', just as the Tories have always been Labour's enemy. And vice versa. It's political, not personal, obviously.
Time for Starmer to ramp it up. Give all the racists both barrels. Time to let people take sides. If he does it now he's got it in the bag. I've just listened to a prog about the flag war which is happening in Leeds.
.......It's essential he doesn't equivocate. The moral high ground is waiting for him. The Flag flyers of Leeds were morons and racists. No apology to any of them required. Just a bit of backbone to keep some of his Red Wall MPs on board -(though in truth I don't think he needs them).
The problem is people are taking sides and it's Farage's
The more Starmer attacks Farage as the enemy, the more he loses because he is taking on between 30-34% of the public including ex labour voters
You really do not understand what is at play here do you ?
So what would you have Starmer do?
Tell France to stop the boats from departing from their beaches.
And when the French say Non! ?
Would you prefer us to go to war with France, or drown all the migrants?
Always been puzzled by this argument. If an American can learn to drive on British roads, then so can an AI that is able to drive on US roads.
People seem to think an AI is just a blank void that gets filled up with training, but that's not true. A lot of the behaviour is hard-coded in to the model when it is created. Most of that would need to be manually recreated to suit British roads, and the training data itself would also be mostly worthless given the obvious differences between US and UK roads.
Can US style full self-driving be replicated in the UK? Yes, but it's almost a case of starting from scratch. The main thing that would transfer over is institutional memory among the developers of difficult corner cases they had to deal with in the US, some of which would apply on this side of the Atlantic.
The UK and Ireland is not a big enough market to warrant this level of investment right away, so we're likely to get self-driving a fair bit later than the US, China and mainland Europe. I do not expect to be walking out of my home in rural Scotland and getting into a fully self-driving car any time before about 2040.
And, of course, most people don't live in rural Scotland.
You can't train self-drivng AI on Street View any more than you could do it on paper maps. Just showing it a road layout (and in the case of Street View an often inaccurate one) is little use. It's much like training a human driver, you can't do it to any degree with maps, we get them out on the road to experience real situations.
It needs human monitored cars to be sent out to find where and when the AI can't deal with situations and teach the model to account for that. It needs data from humans driving normal cars (Tesla thought that would be enough on its own - it isn't).
It's a colossal amount of work, much of which gets thrown away when you transplant the AI to a new market. The main way companies in this space minimise the work is to restrict their cars to a small geographical area, which is why we get endless 'trials' of self-driving cars in small areas of cities where training the AI on all the quirks of the road layout is easier.
I mentioned my rural location because it highlights one of the issues facing self-driving - in terms of road layouts and traffic rural areas are much easier for an AI. If I want to go to the train station I use it's a 20 minute journey with two left turns and one right turn, on roads that are mostly empty. But an AI will get little or no training benefit from a journey that simple, so for that reason these areas will be ignored until the AIs are completely trained and the self-drive car network is big enough for rural journeys to at least not lose too much money.
I am in San Francisco (well, the wider Bay Area). There are many Waymos and it’s weird seeing them driving along, but they seem to work. They drive around very smoothly. I haven’t tried going in one yet.
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I remember going there in the 1990s and thinking it a bit of a dump. I'd put Banbury and Torquay as the two places whose idea is most removed from its reality.
Don't go to Paignton, then. Makes Torquay seem like Mayfair.
(The only reason to go to Paignton is that it's where the steam train to Dartmouth starts.)
Gosh, there's some snowflakes on here. Of course Reform are Labour's 'enemy', just as the Tories have always been Labour's enemy. And vice versa. It's political, not personal, obviously.
Time for Starmer to ramp it up. Give all the racists both barrels. Time to let people take sides. If he does it now he's got it in the bag. I've just listened to a prog about the flag war which is happening in Leeds.
.......It's essential he doesn't equivocate. The moral high ground is waiting for him. The Flag flyers of Leeds were morons and racists. No apology to any of them required. Just a bit of backbone to keep some of his Red Wall MPs on board -(though in truth I don't think he needs them).
The problem is people are taking sides and it's Farage's
The more Starmer attacks Farage as the enemy, the more he loses because he is taking on between 30-34% of the public including ex labour voters
You really do not understand what is at play here do you ?
No! Starmer needs to attack Farage. He needs to call him out on the tacit pro-Trump anti Vax and quack doctor RFK Jnr health agenda, he needs to call out Reform for the casual and direct racism and Islamophobia. Starmer needs to call Farage's view on Putin and Ukraine. Where they stand on Netanyahu genocide. He needs to call out their funding model for the NHS. He needs to call out their tax cut and service provision agenda.
One of the reasons Reform are so far ahead is they have been given a free ride by politicians and the media.
Your party is delusional and still under the misapprehension that Reform would be a handy junior partner in a ConRef coalition should the Tories fall short of a majority next time. As it stands they will be Farage's little helpers. The Tories should be telling their voters what a Farage Government means to the UK. They are not your friends!
When have I ever said Farage and Reform are my friends ?
I expect Badenoch to layout clear blue water at the conference next week
And I simply do not accept Reform have been given a free ride by the media
I expected a poll drop after their distasteful deportation policy announcements, but Mandelson overtook the news media with more labour sleeze
Of course Starmer should reject Farage and Reform but he is making a mistake calling them and their voters the enemy
Oh and sorry I forgot. Reform have had the easiest of easy rides. Farage's tacit agreement with Trump that Paracetamol is bad during pregnancy was not called out once by the BBC. It did get a brief outing on ITV. And on here, when the swans story is countered, multiple posters put up an article from 1953 to prove it to be true. I am sure swan tastes like chicken.
I don't know about carrying the Ming vase, but Chris Mason is providing the labour to move it on Farage's behalf.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
Do you want this fellow in charge of your personal data?
I would be more inclined to Electronic ID if it were optional and had nothing to do with Theil and his ilk.
Yeah, Thiel is, like many of his friends, slightly weird. And also has the capability to do immense harm.
I don't like people who could cause immense harm obsessing with the eschaton and katechon.
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God. I am descended from you, and exist in your future. Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
I am currently sitting within two feet of a complete[1] paperback set of The Laundry Files.
[1] except for "Escape from Yokai Land", which wasn't published in paperback (in the UK?)
A referendum in Switzerland to decide whether to introduce electronic identity cards is taking place, with initial projections suggesting voters are evenly split.
It is the second nationwide ballot on the issue, after the idea was rejected in 2021 over data protection concerns and unease over the proposed system being largely run by private firms.
Under the revised proposal, the new system would remain entirely optional and in public hands, with data stored on users' smartphones rather than centrally.
Interesting and the word optional is the key difference between Starmer mandating them [I expect the idea will be quietly dropped in the fullness of time]
Here is what the government has said about its plans so far;
Of course there will be some spin here. But it's a very long way from the proposal to the scheme that people are filling a petition out against. As far as I can tell from the government explainer, the only situation where it will be essential is for people taking up new jobs. In theory, those checks should already be happening, and they are a bit of a pain, as @eek has pointed out.
The problem with that is mission creep and I really do not expect it to become law
Next time I’m in Llandudno - I will take you to a council estate where I can guarantee 50% won’t have the passport required to meet the employment requirement of a national firm.
But hey you are more concerned about x then making it possible to get a job.
Worse the database is going to be implemented anyway so let’s give people the small benefits that can be derived from it
Which takes us back to how warped and unhinged the national conversation is.
The way to think about this plan is using technology to make life easier for citizens. Whenever you move house, change jobs, do significant financial transactions or vote in person, you have to prove your identity. At the monent, that involves various degrees of clunkiness- it's not too bad if you have a passport and/or driving licence, but plenty of people don't. (And even then, the paper bank statement/utility bills thing is getting tricky.) Having a thing that you can show that proves who you are and not much else is the sort of incremental improvement that makes everyone's lives a bit better and makes the national administration a bit smoother that governments ought to be doing.
We can't talk about it that way, because all the media want to ask about is the alleged migration crisis. This will probably help a bit there (at the moment, ID checks are more faff than they are worth for microbusinesses, and more faff than they are worth to investigate for the government... streamlining the process should help), but they aren't the real benefit.
So yeah, it's probably fine, and a lot of the shroud-waving about tech conspiracies is misdirected. But some people have such an intense Starmer hatred that anything he proposes must be evil.
Which isn't to say that I wouldn't rather someone better was doing the job. But PM isn't really the sort of role where you can run a recruitment process and decide not to appoint.
It's fortunate that I'm not looking for work as I have neither a driving licence or a valid passport. All I have is an OAP bus pass, with a 20+ year old photo!
I'm impressed you could get an OAP bus pass at 20+. Most people have to wait until 60.
I think the 60yr bus pass is in Wales, Scotland and NI but not England. Happy to be contradicted
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I remember going there in the 1990s and thinking it a bit of a dump. I'd put Banbury and Torquay as the two places whose idea is most removed from its reality.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I remember going there in the 1990s and thinking it a bit of a dump. I'd put Banbury and Torquay as the two places whose idea is most removed from its reality.
Weymouth is another such
Banbury should be really lovely. Something has gone wrong that it isn't.
(If you've never been, you might think all Oxfordshire towns are wealthy; Banbury's actually pretty rough.)
I stayed a Saturday night in Banbury town centre a couple of years back. Sleepy Oxfordshire, it ain’t. Heavy drinking, blokes staggering about drunk from mid evening onwards, urinating in doorways, vomit in the street, often looking as if a fight is about to break out. Young women with a fashion sense that would do Loughton proud. Avoid.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Less than you think it does.
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
Dan Hodges is neither Tory nor Labour. He is someone who wants to get read and clicks, and it is therefore easier to be against whatever the current government proposes than for it. Being contrarian is quite easy...
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Less than you think it does.
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
I agree about Lucy Powell but Phillipson is Starmer and the cabinets preferred candidate so it would de facto challenge Starmer's authority
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
If Powell wins? Nothing. She doesn’t have a radically different position to Starmer. The Deputy Leader role has long had this position of being separate to the Leader’s power. There’s nothing new about that.
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Less than you think it does.
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
I agree about Lucy Powell but Phillipson is Starmer and the cabinets preferred candidate so it would de facto challenge Starmer's authority
Yes, but that’s how the role works in the Labour Party.
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
If Powell wins? Nothing. She doesn’t have a radically different position to Starmer. The Deputy Leader role has long had this position of being separate to the Leader’s power. There’s nothing new about that.
Except she is Burnham's choice and it will be seen as yet more evidence Starmer is losing control
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
I can't agree. If Tony Blair c1994 was sitting in the wings I'd agree. But what they don't need is a leadership election between nonentities or they go down the u-bend the Tories did.
Get on the side of the angels and everything else will fall into place. Stop worrying about what the Telegraph and the Mail are saying and start doing things his way and take on Farage without qualification. He has already started though few have noticed. The UK want leadership and he's as good as anyone at the moment
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
Dan Hodges is neither Tory nor Labour. He is someone who wants to get read and clicks, and it is therefore easier to be against whatever the current government proposes than for it. Being contrarian is quite easy...
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
Dan Hodges is neither Tory nor Labour. He is someone who wants to get read and clicks, and it is therefore easier to be against whatever the current government proposes than for it. Being contrarian is quite easy...
No it isn't.
If you get enough likes for your post, then it indicates that your view is the mainstream, and therefore you're not being contrarian...
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Less than you think it does.
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
Curtain twitchers who want to see Starmer drama will see drama for Starmer. But some people will see tears for Kier in anything that happens or is rumoured to happen.
I'm sure that the leadership would rather have Phillipson than Powell. But far worse things happen at sea. The really anti-leadership candidates got nowhere.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 40s The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
He loves the dramatic though as he's wrong more often than right it isn't worth anything
When Hodges was pro-Labour he was ridiculed on here. Now he's a Tory he is a sage voice.
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
I can't agree. If Tony Blair c1994 was sitting in the wings I'd agree. But what they don't need is a leadership election between nonentities or they go down the u-bend the Tories did.
Get on the side of the angels and everything else will fall into place. Stop worrying about what the Telegraph and the Mail are saying and start doing things his way and take on Farage without qualification. He has already started though few have noticed. The UK want leadership and he's as good as anyone at the moment
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
Certainly bond rates are worse than when Truss was in office
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
As far as I can see, only 2 people in the world think Truss was anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Those people are you and Liz Truss.
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
As far as I can see, only 2 people in the world think Truss was anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Those people are you and Liz Truss.
The difference is she was sent packing after 6 weeks
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
FTSE at all time high under Starmer and Reeves.
I think you'll find it's meant to be at an all time high. What next for Starmer and Reeves' list of achievements? Televisions are bigger and there are more crisp flavours?
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
Always been puzzled by this argument. If an American can learn to drive on British roads, then so can an AI that is able to drive on US roads.
People seem to think an AI is just a blank void that gets filled up with training, but that's not true. A lot of the behaviour is hard-coded in to the model when it is created. Most of that would need to be manually recreated to suit British roads, and the training data itself would also be mostly worthless given the obvious differences between US and UK roads.
Can US style full self-driving be replicated in the UK? Yes, but it's almost a case of starting from scratch. The main thing that would transfer over is institutional memory among the developers of difficult corner cases they had to deal with in the US, some of which would apply on this side of the Atlantic.
The UK and Ireland is not a big enough market to warrant this level of investment right away, so we're likely to get self-driving a fair bit later than the US, China and mainland Europe. I do not expect to be walking out of my home in rural Scotland and getting into a fully self-driving car any time before about 2040.
And, of course, most people don't live in rural Scotland.
You can't train self-drivng AI on Street View any more than you could do it on paper maps. Just showing it a road layout (and in the case of Street View an often inaccurate one) is little use. It's much like training a human driver, you can't do it to any degree with maps, we get them out on the road to experience real situations.
It needs human monitored cars to be sent out to find where and when the AI can't deal with situations and teach the model to account for that. It needs data from humans driving normal cars (Tesla thought that would be enough on its own - it isn't).
It's a colossal amount of work, much of which gets thrown away when you transplant the AI to a new market. The main way companies in this space minimise the work is to restrict their cars to a small geographical area, which is why we get endless 'trials' of self-driving cars in small areas of cities where training the AI on all the quirks of the road layout is easier.
I mentioned my rural location because it highlights one of the issues facing self-driving - in terms of road layouts and traffic rural areas are much easier for an AI. If I want to go to the train station I use it's a 20 minute journey with two left turns and one right turn, on roads that are mostly empty. But an AI will get little or no training benefit from a journey that simple, so for that reason these areas will be ignored until the AIs are completely trained and the self-drive car network is big enough for rural journeys to at least not lose too much money.
I am in San Francisco (well, the wider Bay Area). There are many Waymos and it’s weird seeing them driving along, but they seem to work. They drive around very smoothly. I haven’t tried going in one yet.
You should
It's a great experience.
BUT.
It doesn't go on the freeway. And it doesn't go to the airport.
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Less than you think it does.
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
Curtain twitchers who want to see Starmer drama will see drama for Starmer. But some people will see tears for Kier in anything that happens or is rumoured to happen.
I'm sure that the leadership would rather have Phillipson than Powell. But far worse things happen at sea. The really anti-leadership candidates got nowhere.
It is not really Match of the Day. He's pre-empted Lucy by unhitching the Deputy Prime Minister role from the party role.
On the other hand Burnham must be absolutely f*****' stupid. An interview with the unhinged headlines Daily Telegraph and he's done irreparable damage to Starmer and soiled himself at the same time. The nation dodged a bullet. What a winker.
Always been puzzled by this argument. If an American can learn to drive on British roads, then so can an AI that is able to drive on US roads.
People seem to think an AI is just a blank void that gets filled up with training, but that's not true. A lot of the behaviour is hard-coded in to the model when it is created. Most of that would need to be manually recreated to suit British roads, and the training data itself would also be mostly worthless given the obvious differences between US and UK roads.
Can US style full self-driving be replicated in the UK? Yes, but it's almost a case of starting from scratch. The main thing that would transfer over is institutional memory among the developers of difficult corner cases they had to deal with in the US, some of which would apply on this side of the Atlantic.
The UK and Ireland is not a big enough market to warrant this level of investment right away, so we're likely to get self-driving a fair bit later than the US, China and mainland Europe. I do not expect to be walking out of my home in rural Scotland and getting into a fully self-driving car any time before about 2040.
And, of course, most people don't live in rural Scotland.
You can't train self-drivng AI on Street View any more than you could do it on paper maps. Just showing it a road layout (and in the case of Street View an often inaccurate one) is little use. It's much like training a human driver, you can't do it to any degree with maps, we get them out on the road to experience real situations.
It needs human monitored cars to be sent out to find where and when the AI can't deal with situations and teach the model to account for that. It needs data from humans driving normal cars (Tesla thought that would be enough on its own - it isn't).
It's a colossal amount of work, much of which gets thrown away when you transplant the AI to a new market. The main way companies in this space minimise the work is to restrict their cars to a small geographical area, which is why we get endless 'trials' of self-driving cars in small areas of cities where training the AI on all the quirks of the road layout is easier.
I mentioned my rural location because it highlights one of the issues facing self-driving - in terms of road layouts and traffic rural areas are much easier for an AI. If I want to go to the train station I use it's a 20 minute journey with two left turns and one right turn, on roads that are mostly empty. But an AI will get little or no training benefit from a journey that simple, so for that reason these areas will be ignored until the AIs are completely trained and the self-drive car network is big enough for rural journeys to at least not lose too much money.
I am in San Francisco (well, the wider Bay Area). There are many Waymos and it’s weird seeing them driving along, but they seem to work. They drive around very smoothly. I haven’t tried going in one yet.
You should
It's a great experience.
BUT.
It doesn't go on the freeway. And it doesn't go to the airport.
So, it's not for every journey.
I've actually GOT to go in a Waymo next week. Editor's orders. In LA or SF
But first I have to test the Airpods 3 Babelfish function, in Italy
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Straw in the wind: The Economist rather has it in for Starmer at the moment and suggest this week he might do a Keegan and decide he just isn't quite good enough and go.
To go soon would have a double effect; he would be free at one bound of a job he isn't great at and (if it is true he can't stand Burnham) he would dish Burnham's chances almost absolutely until after 2028/9.
This is not a prediction.
Where is there any evidence that Starmer believes he can't do the job and will admit to it?
With current PMs it is in the nature of the job that there isn't direct evidence until there is, at which point he is no longer PM.
Sunak I think packed it in without admitting that really the job wasn't for him but I think he realised it wasn't. But the rest weren't going anywhere without being shoved and even to this day are arguing I was well go at the job or the deep state stopped me being well good.
He did the most cowardly thing of all - he plunged the Tory Party into an unnecessary General Election and the country into the disaster of the Starmer Government, precisely because he couldn't admit it wasn't for him.
Hardly cowardly. He went in July with an election needed by December at the latest and the public resolved to kick the Tories out regardless.
Lucky has some sauce beating up on Big Rish, or Starmer for that matter, when he spent 49 days eulogising Truss and her "most Conservative budget since 1986".
Truss failed because she tried to do something necessary in the wrong way. Sunk never tried to do anything. He was a useless timeserver when the country needed change. Granted the Government we have now has made him look better by comparison, but that doesn't make it any better.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
Sunak was OK. He made some howling errors like canning HS2 and the ludicrous NI cut election bribes, but blimey, to blow the nation up in what? 49 days takes some beating. Starmer's trying hard but he hasn't got that close in 14 months.
She didn't 'blow up the nation' you silly man. The economy didn't crash, and even the New Statesman podcast now acknowledges the Bank's role in the minibudget market turbulence.
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
only because they got rid of her before she could screw anything else up
Still trying to ride the Truss hobbyhorse when by every possible measure your bunch of muppets has done worse - sad really, but it's all you have isn't it ducks?
You've slagged off Sunak, You've slagged off Starmer. By any metric you choose Truss takes the title as the most useless Prime Minister over 49 days.
Those who have decided to vote for Reform have made their minds up. The battle now is to get some of the remaining 65-72% of voters who haven’t.
Yes, but some of those saying they will vote Reform are just responding to the pollster as a protest, like a by-election vote, and I reckon a good number of the others won’t make it to the polling station when it comes to it.
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
The clothes were the only reason I could be bothered to play golf when younger. I could turn up dressed like a Sapeur and nobody would bat an eyelid.
Those who have decided to vote for Reform have made their minds up. The battle now is to get some of the remaining 65-72% of voters who haven’t.
Yes, but some of those saying they will vote Reform are just responding to the pollster as a protest, like a by-election vote, and I reckon a good number of the others won’t make it to the polling station when it comes to it.
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Presume you've not been before?
So you must do some sightseeing, not just booze and nightlife and shopping
1. Tour the old city. See the lover's swing and a temple
2. Take a public boat down the river (more fun than posh and private). Get off at the stop for the Mandarin Oriental and have a drink at the Bamboo Bar
4. Do at least one rooftop bar, they are sensational: Skybar at Lebua is the most famous and impressive., Above 11 is intimate and fun
5. You have to do SOME sleaze: Nana Plaza is the most furiously naughty
6. Or Soi Cowboy, which has the most neon - you must see this at night
7. Sukhumvit Road at night - especially sois 8 and 11- is delightful and exciting
8. Go shopping at Siam Square and marvel at the hi-so Thai Chinese poshos - and their kids - buying Maseratis, or just parading. Check the food court
9. Avoid anywhere that involves a car journey, if you can. Traffic is horrific. Take skytrains or use a tuk tuk
10. Check this list of places to eat, it will all be good
That's not the point. Labour need to drive their voters back from NOTA or the other left-wing parties. Cementing their position as the anti-Farage protest vote (they have sunk to those depths) is absolutely essential to avoid annihilation.
This is true for the Conservatives too if they want to actually exist in the future (e.g. retain people like BigG and some of my relatives). They know this but can't come to terms with it yet.
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Presume you've not been before?
So you must do some sightseeing, not just booze and nightlife and shopping
1. Tour the old city. See the lover's swing and a temple
2. Take a public boat down the river (more fun than posh and private). Get off at the stop for the Mandarin Oriental and have a drink at the Bamboo Bar
4. Do at least one rooftop bar, they are sensational: Skybar at Lebua is the most famous and impressive., Above 11 is intimate and fun
5. You have to do SOME sleaze: Nana Plaza is the most furiously naughty
6. Or Soi Cowboy, which has the most neon - you must see this at night
7. Sukhumvit Road at night - especially sois 8 and 11- is delightful and exciting
8. Go shopping at Siam Square and marvel at the hi-so Thai Chinese poshos - and their kids - buying Maseratis, or just parading. Check the food court
9. Avoid anywhere that involves a car journey, if you can. Traffic is horrific. Take skytrains or use a tuk tuk
10. Check this list of places to eat, it will all be good
PS forgot (3) - visit the flower market at night - the world's biggest - then eat street food nearby - crab omelette - from this amazing woman. Jay Fai. You will probably have to queue but it is worth it (if she hasn't retired by then, she is old now)
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Last time I went to Bangkok I met these two beautiful women, they told me sex with them was like winning the lottery, they were right, we had six matching balls.
Mayor Eric Adams of New York City announced on Sunday that he would abandon his foundering campaign for a second term, upending the race to lead the nation’s largest city just five weeks before Election Day.
Mayor Eric Adams of New York City announced on Sunday that he would abandon his foundering campaign for a second term, upending the race to lead the nation’s largest city just five weeks before Election Day.
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Presume you've not been before?
So you must do some sightseeing, not just booze and nightlife and shopping
1. Tour the old city. See the lover's swing and a temple
2. Take a public boat down the river (more fun than posh and private). Get off at the stop for the Mandarin Oriental and have a drink at the Bamboo Bar
4. Do at least one rooftop bar, they are sensational: Skybar at Lebua is the most famous and impressive., Above 11 is intimate and fun
5. You have to do SOME sleaze: Nana Plaza is the most furiously naughty
6. Or Soi Cowboy, which has the most neon - you must see this at night
7. Sukhumvit Road at night - especially sois 8 and 11- is delightful and exciting
8. Go shopping at Siam Square and marvel at the hi-so Thai Chinese poshos - and their kids - buying Maseratis, or just parading. Check the food court
9. Avoid anywhere that involves a car journey, if you can. Traffic is horrific. Take skytrains or use a tuk tuk
10. Check this list of places to eat, it will all be good
PS visit the flower market at night - the world's biggest - then eat street food nearby - crab omelette - from this amazing woman. Jay Fai. You will probably have to queue but it is worth it (if she hasn't retired by then, she is old now)
Is the flower market this one: Pak Khlong Talat Mai Flower Market
Does the public boat down the river include a floating market? Would like to see this.
We have already booked Thai Boxing
Regarding sleaze - yes I'd already looked into this an Soi Cowboy looked a good bet - we are staying not too far from this area - are there any safety concerns or is it all quite relaxed?
When we get back to Bangkok after Chang Mai we are staying across the river from the Mandarin, at The Peninsula
Why are you so obsessed by this petition? It’s not even in the top 3 by numbers since they were introduced. And by some margin.
Weak. It's fourth, and has accumulated faster. The two Brexit ones are impotent rage from losing votes which have already happened, and the general election one is painfully, well, general.
It's been a wonderful weekend watching it. Love it. Bets going well too.
Not trying to spoil your fun! Golf can be very entertaining, and the Ryder Cup is probably the most absorbing form of it, because of the varied competititons - foursomes, Swissnicks - and also the genuine niggle between the teams
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc It; Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
@Leon Tips for Bangkok please - we are off in November - staying very near Lumpini Park, then going up to Chang Mai then back to Bangkok riverside. Me and Mrs Stocky, up for fun but not too depraved.
Presume you've not been before?
So you must do some sightseeing, not just booze and nightlife and shopping
1. Tour the old city. See the lover's swing and a temple
2. Take a public boat down the river (more fun than posh and private). Get off at the stop for the Mandarin Oriental and have a drink at the Bamboo Bar
4. Do at least one rooftop bar, they are sensational: Skybar at Lebua is the most famous and impressive., Above 11 is intimate and fun
5. You have to do SOME sleaze: Nana Plaza is the most furiously naughty
6. Or Soi Cowboy, which has the most neon - you must see this at night
7. Sukhumvit Road at night - especially sois 8 and 11- is delightful and exciting
8. Go shopping at Siam Square and marvel at the hi-so Thai Chinese poshos - and their kids - buying Maseratis, or just parading. Check the food court
9. Avoid anywhere that involves a car journey, if you can. Traffic is horrific. Take skytrains or use a tuk tuk
10. Check this list of places to eat, it will all be good
PS visit the flower market at night - the world's biggest - then eat street food nearby - crab omelette - from this amazing woman. Jay Fai. You will probably have to queue but it is worth it (if she hasn't retired by then, she is old now)
Is the flower market this one: Pak Khlong Talat Mai Flower Market
Does the public boat down the river include a floating market? Would like to see this.
We have already booked Thai Boxing
Regarding sleaze - yes I'd already looked into this an Soi Cowboy looked a good bet - we are staying not too far from this area - are there any safety concerns or is it all quite relaxed?
Bangkok is generally very safe. Maybe watch out late at night for aggressive ladyboys - I am not joking. They are tall and big and they mug people. I know
But the city is notably safer than any western city of the size, unless you use the roads (lots of accidents). Soi Cowboy is totally cool, despite the urgent sleaze
The floating markets are very very touristy, no you won't see them on the river boat
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has called for Labour to end a “climate of fear” in the party.
“One thing I am worried about is how can you have an open debate about all of those things if there’s too much of a climate of fear within our party and the way the party is being run.”
He criticises a situation where “a party member is suspended for liking a tweet by another political party, or a MP loses the whip for trying to protect disability benefits”.
He added: “If that is the way we’re doing things, where debate is being closed down, that to me is what we’ve got to change.”
Why are you so obsessed by this petition? It’s not even in the top 3 by numbers since they were introduced. And by some margin.
PETITION SIGNATURES STATUS REQUEST
Revoke Article 50 and re… 6,103,056 Closed
EU Referendum Rules tri… 4,150,262 Closed
Call a General Election (… 3,084,714 Closed
Do not introduce Digital I… 2,300,000 Open
And there you have it
There you have what? This petition has only been going for a short time. You can't compare it to closed petitions.
The point being I think that even though there is clearly considerable opposition to ID cards (as expressed through polling) these petitions serve little purpose for big issues where there is an ongoing Parliamentary debate. The key stages are a response from the Government at 10,000 signatures and a debate in Parliament at 100,000 signatures and both were already going to happen.
Where they do serve a prupose is for issues outside normal Parliamentary debate where they can inform MPs that there is an issue they have not been looking at and which might be worth debating. Otherwise they are nothing more than something to spice up our discussions and perhaps get more people aware of the issues as they make the mainstream news.
And I say that as someone who agrees with the petition and has signed it.
Andy Burnham says Keir Starmer has created a "climate of fear" within Labour
“How do we reconnect with the public if an MP loses the whip for trying to protect disability benefits or scrap two-child benefit cap… when debate is closed”
Comments
Age checking can be very tricky - I think it was my 56th birthday that a lady in Waitrose asked me to remove my mask for such purposes. Made my day! (A glum lockdown day)
Penalty awarded then reversed but very controversial
That all seems a bit of a faff when an Executive Order claiming the Ryder Cup win for the USA would seem easily doable. It could be a handy dry run for overturning the 2028 election too.
They were quite rightly getting ready to get rid of him, so he went to the Palace.
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God.
I am descended from you, and exist in your future.
Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
Another shooting at a Church in America. The building is now on fire
My best memory is of heading out of town one morning, and seeing a young man in a suit unicycling into work...
Incidentally, the crime map is often enlightening:
https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/thames-valley-police/banbury-town/?tab=CrimeMap
Would you prefer us to go to war with France, or drown all the migrants?
Its why we have Income Tax afterall.
Swiss vote for (voluntary) electronic ID cards. Much closer vote than expected.
(The only reason to go to Paignton is that it's where the steam train to Dartmouth starts.)
I don't know about carrying the Ming vase, but Chris Mason is providing the labour to move it on Farage's behalf.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
40s
The contest is basically over. With serious implications for Keir Starmer. This is a proxy leadership election. And he’s being routed.
[1] except for "Escape from Yokai Land", which wasn't published in paperback (in the UK?)
Sienna Rodgers
@siennamarla
In case you missed it, the end result for local party nominations – which closed yesterday – was:
Powell 286
Phillipson 165
Powell got 8 socialist societies and 3 unions, Phillipson got 4 SS and 6 unions
https://youtu.be/7Hz6u2Slb9Q?si=vPx7Po24xo3qYvJ0
Moving on from Truss, I spotted that Burnham was the only decent Labour candidate for leader some while ago - nearly a year ago I would say. This is posted here, when nobody else had mentioned him to my knowledge.
I now bring you Sharon Graham, the head of Unite. I don't agree with much of her political prescription (though I do agree with some), because it is predicated on the idea that traditional Labour policies are what we need for growth. However, she is extremely impressive. Labour could do a great deal worse than get her into parliament and make her leader of whatever smouldering wreckage is left when Starmer has finished with them.
https://youtu.be/wrI06Qq0ZR8?si=oW1XhOrl1OcoISU9
That is actual passion and actual reasoned argument, to anyone who has forgotten what it looks like.
If Lucy Powell wins what does it do for Starmer ?
And if you had said last year that Angela Rayner would not be attending this year's labour conference, having resigned over a property tax would anyone have believed you ?
Although as to his view on Starmer I suspect he is right and the game is up. The sooner the better now.
Keir Starmer: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy".
Lucy Powell is of course an absolute competency calamity. That in itself is a problem.
Get on the side of the angels and everything else will fall into place. Stop worrying about what the Telegraph and the Mail are saying and start doing things his way and take on Farage without qualification. He has already started though few have noticed. The UK want leadership and he's as good as anyone at the moment
I'm sure that the leadership would rather have Phillipson than Powell. But far worse things happen at sea. The really anti-leadership candidates got nowhere.
Reeves is a slow burn problem
Trump will be furious
It's just that when I watch golf, and before I get into it again, I get a sense of what non-sports-fans feel "this is so absurd, grown men chasing after spherical objects. I never get that with football, rugby, cricket, tennis etc
Part of it is the absurd costumes and shoes and all that
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
It's a great experience.
BUT.
It doesn't go on the freeway. And it doesn't go to the airport.
So, it's not for every journey.
On the other hand Burnham must be absolutely f*****' stupid. An interview with the unhinged headlines Daily Telegraph and he's done irreparable damage to Starmer and soiled himself at the same time. The nation dodged a bullet. What a winker.
But first I have to test the Airpods 3 Babelfish function, in Italy
"Starmer calls Reform’s policy on immigration ‘racist’ and says Farage’s party would ‘tear country apart’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/sep/28/labour-conference-keir-starmer-latest-uk-politics-news-live-updates
Ask the media why they are fawning over a "Government in waiting" but have failed to question or cost a single Reform policy.
So you must do some sightseeing, not just booze and nightlife and shopping
1. Tour the old city. See the lover's swing and a temple
2. Take a public boat down the river (more fun than posh and private). Get off at the stop for the Mandarin Oriental and have a drink at the Bamboo Bar
4. Do at least one rooftop bar, they are sensational: Skybar at Lebua is the most famous and impressive., Above 11 is intimate and fun
5. You have to do SOME sleaze: Nana Plaza is the most furiously naughty
6. Or Soi Cowboy, which has the most neon - you must see this at night
7. Sukhumvit Road at night - especially sois 8 and 11- is delightful and exciting
8. Go shopping at Siam Square and marvel at the hi-so Thai Chinese poshos - and their kids - buying Maseratis, or just parading. Check the food court
9. Avoid anywhere that involves a car journey, if you can. Traffic is horrific. Take skytrains or use a tuk tuk
10. Check this list of places to eat, it will all be good
https://www.theworlds50best.com/discovery/sitemap/thailand/bangkok
This is true for the Conservatives too if they want to actually exist in the future (e.g. retain people like BigG and some of my relatives). They know this but can't come to terms with it yet.
Revoke Article 50 and re… 6,103,056 Closed
EU Referendum Rules tri… 4,150,262 Closed
Call a General Election (… 3,084,714 Closed
Do not introduce Digital I… 2,300,000 Open
https://guide.michelin.com/gb/en/bangkok-region/bangkok/restaurant/jay-fai
NY Times blog
Is the flower market this one: Pak Khlong Talat Mai Flower Market
Does the public boat down the river include a floating market? Would like to see this.
We have already booked Thai Boxing
Regarding sleaze - yes I'd already looked into this an Soi Cowboy looked a good bet - we are staying not too far from this area - are there any safety concerns or is it all quite relaxed?
When we get back to Bangkok after Chang Mai we are staying across the river from the Mandarin, at The Peninsula
Also I think ID cards are one of the most stupid ideas that's ever been put forward by a British government.
But the city is notably safer than any western city of the size, unless you use the roads (lots of accidents). Soi Cowboy is totally cool, despite the urgent sleaze
The floating markets are very very touristy, no you won't see them on the river boat
So it begins?
Electricity infrastructure in Russia’s Belgorod is under heavy attack now, the city is partially blacked out.
The promised Ukrainian answer to a new stage of Russia’s campaign to bomb Ukraine into the dark in winter once again?
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1972339435514818748
“One thing I am worried about is how can you have an open debate about all of those things if there’s too much of a climate of fear within our party and the way the party is being run.”
He criticises a situation where “a party member is suspended for liking a tweet by another political party, or a MP loses the whip for trying to protect disability benefits”.
He added: “If that is the way we’re doing things, where debate is being closed down, that to me is what we’ve got to change.”
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1972345917807190459
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1972345892192841863
Stabbing in the front.
Proper digital voter ID.
Where they do serve a prupose is for issues outside normal Parliamentary debate where they can inform MPs that there is an issue they have not been looking at and which might be worth debating. Otherwise they are nothing more than something to spice up our discussions and perhaps get more people aware of the issues as they make the mainstream news.
And I say that as someone who agrees with the petition and has signed it.
Matt Fitzpatrick is rolling round Bethpage 🇪🇺
5UP on Bryson DeChambeau thru seven 😍
Stop digging Andy.