Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Yesterday I asked AI where to buy caviar in Greenwich, London. It referred me to the Greenwich Caviar Company of Connecticut.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
I was referring to their lack of ability to capitalise on the post-election chaos, not their performance in the election itself.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
Two big parties are at historic lows simultaneously, yet the Lib Dems are utterly unable to seize this golden opportunity.
That's not the whole picture though, Morris.
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
I was referring to their lack of ability to capitalise on the post-election chaos, not their performance in the election itself.
Hmmm....they struggle to get a hearing, it's true, but I would say that since the GE they have at least consolidated, or even maybe a bit better than that.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
Talking of Nick, he seems to have fallen sideways if not upwards again.
Well, that's it - I can officially announce my disengagement from the world has begun.
The first thing I read this morning is some nonsense about Calibri being considered a "woke" font while Times New Roman is a "manly authoritarian" font apparently. Seriously? The "Culture Wars" have crossed from stupidity to something else I can't define - when people complained about ads at Waterloo Station it was all good fun but now...well, who knows?
Then we get the list of SPOTY contenders - I've heard of McIlroy and Norris but that's about it. I don't watch women's football for the same reason I don't watch men's football anymore - I'd rather watch some other sport. Presumably they don't want anyone with "an issue" these days - they once had Frankie Dettori and he enjoyed some recreational drug taking so presumably Oisin Murphy's alcohol issues rule hime out but what about William Buick? He's just a nice chap - excellent backstory and a very good rider as he showed in Hong Kong on Wednesday.
It also seems the Monroe Doctrine is back - the precursor to the Brezhnev Doctrine. "Spheres of influence" - like footballs and rugby balls, I presume.
Yes the "Monroe Doctrine" isn't really very different to the Putin doctrine. Nearby countries do not get full sovereignty, they have to bend to the will of their big neighbour.
Apparently Calibri is easier for visually impaired people to read than TNR, hence it is "Woke".
The BBC has been woke for a long long time.
The fonts on the BBC Micro were designed to be easier to read than all the computo-fonts around at the time, by dint of having iirc 2 pixels of width in the vertical strokes.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
Of course another approach is to wait until the electorate realises all the other Parties are batshit crazy.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Seems to be a British Leyland ethos going on there.. *very proud*
The most moreish thing I have had this Advent has been a National Trust olive and smokey bacon flavoured "kiln roasted mixed nuts" (cashews, almonds, peanuts) thing called Pigs in Blankets which comes in a jamjar at a slightly eye-watering price (£7.50 for 150g).
It is dated OK until June 2026. My personal item lasted slightly under 24 hours.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The YouTuber "The Chieftain" used to say that you never saw a vice in a US tank factory because the only time you need a vice is when a part is wrong, and they were so standardised they were never wrong. GDLS seem to have forgotten this.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
Of course another approach is to wait until the electorate realises all the other Parties are batshit crazy.
Now is the time for sanity to return to British politics! (while somersaulting down a water slide in a wetsuit)
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
I supported the coalition, and it has since proven to be the best government of recent decades. There was no viable alternative other than a further GE in 2010. With the exception of Vince Cable the Lib Dem ministers performed well.
Once Nick Clegg became a private citizen in 2017 instead of an elected Lib Dem, he could do as he pleased.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
Two big parties are at historic lows simultaneously, yet the Lib Dems are utterly unable to seize this golden opportunity.
That's not the whole picture though, Morris.
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
The LDs did well at the election last year by concentrating their vote, mostly in the Gail's and Waitrose belt. Electorally, it is surely best for them to put their efforts into this, and to their good second places, rather than going for a few extra percent spread across the country
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Yesterday I asked AI where to buy caviar in Greenwich, London. It referred me to the Greenwich Caviar Company of Connecticut.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
Meanwhile current LLMs are getting 9/12 on the Putnam.
Things have radically advanced over the last 2 years.
The most moreish thing I have had this Advent has been a National Trust olive and smokey bacon flavoured "kiln roasted mixed nuts" (cashews, almonds, peanuts) thing called Pigs in Blankets which comes in a jamjar at a slightly eye-watering price (£7.50 for 150g).
It is dated OK until June 2026. My personal item lasted slightly under 24 hours.
Mm, looks good. The piggy bit seems to be the bacon-type flavour rather than a company name
I see it's not in fact specific to NT so (a) easier to find and (b) it won't trigger our wokefinders-general and major-general, or at least not very much, which you may or may not be disappointed about.
Even hungrier now. Off to find my Quorn pastie and Baxters country vegetable soup.
"My predictions for 2026 are that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by his own party, and that his successor – possibly Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner – will soon be exposed as equally useless, and the public will turn against them. This will push our politics to breaking point. It will demonstrate that policy tweaks or the reshuffling of personnel, even PMs, won’t work for Labour, just as it failed under the Tories."
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
I think the Lib Dems approach to campaigning is ground up rather than top down. On the one hand it probably creates a more sustainable base for them; on the other it means they miss out if the tectonic plates do shift.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
Two big parties are at historic lows simultaneously, yet the Lib Dems are utterly unable to seize this golden opportunity.
That's not the whole picture though, Morris.
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
The LDs did well at the election last year by concentrating their vote, mostly in the Gail's and Waitrose belt. Electorally, it is surely best for them to put their efforts into this, and to their good second places, rather than going for a few extra percent spread across the country
If the Lib Dems do well in the Waitrose belt, why not similarly well in the Booths belt? Surely Booths is Waitrose for the North?
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds like they've looked at the Nimrod MRA4 and decided that's an excellent template for how to spend lots and lots of taxpayer's money and get nothing useful as a result.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
Of course another approach is to wait until the electorate realises all the other Parties are batshit crazy.
Now is the time for sanity to return to British politics! (while somersaulting down a water slide in a wetsuit)
TBF he's an improvement on some past LD leaders (even if he blotted his address with the PO affair). As I am reminded by reading Thomas Grant's rather good book on a selection of trials at the Old Bailey, including the one involving Rinka the very late Great Dane (I know, I know, not LDs then). Now off to find a copy of Auberon Waugh's book thereupon.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds like they've looked at the Nimrod MRA4 and decided that's an excellent template for how to spend lots and lots of taxpayer's money and get nothing useful as a result.
Sounds like a report from Putin's Russia e.g. "just make it fit"
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
That’s exactly how the Process State goes. All anyone wants is sign off. The actually state of things in reality is irrelevant.
See Grenfell with metric tons of documents saying that it was fireproof, awesome etc.
Or Sharon Shoesmith protesting that the paperwork in her department was perfect.
What you need is simpler documentation combined with inspection and imposing standards.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
I supported the coalition, and it has since proven to be the best government of recent decades. There was no viable alternative other than a further GE in 2010. With the exception of Vince Cable the Lib Dem ministers performed well.
Once Nick Clegg became a private citizen in 2017 instead of an elected Lib Dem, he could do as he pleased.
The LibDems did in coalition what they do everywhere, they split their positions on a ward by ward, constituency by constituency basis. They can't hold a line because they have no line. They are both for and against everything simultaneously. You are right that the Coalition years had some good LibDem ministers, but again they did what they always did, tried to blame the government for things they were responsible for, and it backfired on them. Though their goose was cooked on tuition fees.
"My predictions for 2026 are that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by his own party, and that his successor – possibly Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner – will soon be exposed as equally useless, and the public will turn against them. This will push our politics to breaking point. It will demonstrate that policy tweaks or the reshuffling of personnel, even PMs, won’t work for Labour, just as it failed under the Tories."
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds like they've looked at the Nimrod MRA4 and decided that's an excellent template for how to spend lots and lots of taxpayer's money and get nothing useful as a result.
Sounds like a report from Putin's Russia e.g. "just make it fit"
Yup
Even in the Goode Olde Days when hand fitting was a thing (ask anyone who’s restored a Spitfire) there were tolerances and standards.
In late 1918 a bunch of apprentices at Sopwith got a bit keen and installed all the wings on some Salamander ground attack aircraft. The problem was that they installed standard Snipe wings. Which weren’t strong enough. The mistake happened because the wings were perfectly interchangeable, having been made on a jig. Just needed bolting on.
The modern problem is the belief that paperwork has a power, by itself. So the answer to all problems is more paperwork.
An actual inspector, standing on the Ajax production line would see the truth in minutes.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
That’s exactly how the Process State goes. All anyone wants is sign off. The actually state of things in reality is irrelevant.
See Grenfell with metric tons of documents saying that it was fireproof, awesome etc.
Or Sharon Shoesmith protesting that the paperwork in her department was perfect.
What you need is simpler documentation combined with inspection and imposing standards.
Oh the cladding testing is simple. Put person at top of firestation staircase. Take pieces of cladding from the building and set on fire at bottom of staircase. 25 minutes later allow them to descend the stairs
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
There are really 2 ways to improve a political parties vote.
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
One sniff of the barmaid's apron and the LibDems ditched their principles to strengthen Nick Clegg's cv for the multi-million pound Facebook job.
I supported the coalition, and it has since proven to be the best government of recent decades. There was no viable alternative other than a further GE in 2010. With the exception of Vince Cable the Lib Dem ministers performed well.
Once Nick Clegg became a private citizen in 2017 instead of an elected Lib Dem, he could do as he pleased.
The LibDems did in coalition what they do everywhere, they split their positions on a ward by ward, constituency by constituency basis. They can't hold a line because they have no line. They are both for and against everything simultaneously. You are right that the Coalition years had some good LibDem ministers, but again they did what they always did, tried to blame the government for things they were responsible for, and it backfired on them. Though their goose was cooked on tuition fees.
Tuition fees were a horrible mistake, but the Tories did make it their business to attack their partners. Which is why Labour’s big problem in 2015 was the SNP. Not the Tories.
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
Ah, but is it a sport? The Olympics Committee seems to think not. Shameful decision imo, but .....
Given some of the crap they have as Olympic sports it should be well up there
I've never forgiven them for synchronised swimming. Sport? My arse, it is,
See also horse dancing/prancing.
Anything judged by a panel should be excluded. We could have an arty-farty olympics for all those not-really-sports 'sports'.
It’s very easy to dismiss it as “horse-dancing/prancing” but having had to do it as part of eventing it’s physically demanding, more so than many Olympic sports such as archery, shooting, curling and whilst your gun or bow are predictable and can be calibrated, your tool in dressage is something that however much you train it is unpredictable.
So it’s one thing to mock it if you haven’t done it but it’s difficult. Its roots are also military like a number of Olympic sports as it was spawned from the demonstration of the control of a horse which was vital in battle so not a bit wussy either.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
Two big parties are at historic lows simultaneously, yet the Lib Dems are utterly unable to seize this golden opportunity.
That's not the whole picture though, Morris.
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
The LDs did well at the election last year by concentrating their vote, mostly in the Gail's and Waitrose belt. Electorally, it is surely best for them to put their efforts into this, and to their good second places, rather than going for a few extra percent spread across the country
If the Lib Dems do well in the Waitrose belt, why not similarly well in the Booths belt? Surely Booths is Waitrose for the North?
From my experience of living in North Yorkshire and then Dorset, the middle classes in the north are way more socially conservative than those of the south.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h I don't believe the Greens alone can be the main Left party. Too weird. Low 20s% max. YourParty's destroyed itself. So if Labour continues to collapse, what options are there for being the main Left party other than the Tories or the Lib Dems? Some new Green-Labour merged entity?
Reform leading the polls all year = too weird Lab & Cons constantly in the teens = too weird Greens jostling for second place in polls = too weird
We’re in a world of weird.
Yes, weird. Among the weirdnesses is that the LDs show no sign at all of spreading their support in winnable ways beyond the territory - 100 seats max - they occupy. This is a fairly long term phenomenon. Leaving only the Greens on the left to clean up. Which they won't. There is a ceiling on Greens as a government because of human nature.
Which, applying Sherlock's doctrine about improbabilities, means there is a high chance that Labour will not, in the medium to long run, collapse.
I think the best policy for Lab and Con for now is to be content with places somewhere between second and fourth, and wait for fallers at the Foinavon fence.
The inability of LD to capitalise on the present chaos is the dog that didn't bark
Seventy two seats, and regular pick ups in council by elections, Viewcode. How loud does your dog bark?
Two big parties are at historic lows simultaneously, yet the Lib Dems are utterly unable to seize this golden opportunity.
That's not the whole picture though, Morris.
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
The LDs did well at the election last year by concentrating their vote, mostly in the Gail's and Waitrose belt. Electorally, it is surely best for them to put their efforts into this, and to their good second places, rather than going for a few extra percent spread across the country
If the Lib Dems do well in the Waitrose belt, why not similarly well in the Booths belt? Surely Booths is Waitrose for the North?
Maybe because it's less urban and more rural, not full of people who commute to London, or did before WFH. Cumbria is a different place to Surrey and has more people who will vote Labour
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
That’s exactly how the Process State goes. All anyone wants is sign off. The actually state of things in reality is irrelevant.
See Grenfell with metric tons of documents saying that it was fireproof, awesome etc.
Or Sharon Shoesmith protesting that the paperwork in her department was perfect.
What you need is simpler documentation combined with inspection and imposing standards.
Oh the cladding testing is simple. Put person at top of firestation staircase. Take pieces of cladding from the building and set on fire at bottom of staircase. 25 minutes later allow them to descend the stairs
Just had an interesting start to the afternoon. Automated text from school that my daughter (14) is not in class. Ring school, they don't know where she is (they are allowed out at lunchtime and she does sometimes). She doesn't truant and wouldn't dream of wandering off. She's not answering her phone. So I get in the car to drive the 10 miles to where here school is to start looking round the village.
Just as I set off the phone rings. She is in class. New supply teacher hadn't processed the register quickly enough and everyone in her class had been reported missing.
The sad truth in Scotland is one of these blithering incompetents is going to form our next government. The choice is genuinely abysmal. The SNP government has staggered from one fiasco to another for years now and seems to have almost no interest in the real problems facing Scotland, let alone any solutions. Labour are absolutely nowhere and blighted by the appalling performance of both Starmer and Reeves. I do not even know who is leading Reform in Scotland, they have made zero impact. Our Greens make those south of the border look sane (well, almost) and business like. The Tories really don't seem to have any idea as to how Scotland's myriad of problems should be addressed either and struggle to even be heard. I believe that there is a Lib Dem party too. Somewhere.
In my adult life I have never felt so dismayed and disheartened by our political options. I cannot recall a time when I did not agree with at least some of what several of the mainstream parties were saying. The idea of another SNP government, potentially with a majority, whinging on about independence and trying desperately to engage a scunnered nation in yet another grievance is nothing short of desperate but where the hell are the alternatives?
Just had an interesting start to the afternoon. Automated text from school that my daughter (14) is not in class. Ring school, they don't know where she is (they are allowed out at lunchtime and she does sometimes). She doesn't truant and wouldn't dream of wandering off. She's not answering her phone. So I get in the car to drive the 10 miles to where here school is to start looking round the village.
Just as I set off the phone rings. She is in class. New supply teacher hadn't processed the register quickly enough and everyone in her class had been reported missing.
Gits. Was genuinely concerned there.
Annoying but I have to say that sounds an excellent system if it is used right.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds like they've looked at the Nimrod MRA4 and decided that's an excellent template for how to spend lots and lots of taxpayer's money and get nothing useful as a result.
Sounds like a report from Putin's Russia e.g. "just make it fit"
Yup
Even in the Goode Olde Days when hand fitting was a thing (ask anyone who’s restored a Spitfire) there were tolerances and standards.
In late 1918 a bunch of apprentices at Sopwith got a bit keen and installed all the wings on some Salamander ground attack aircraft. The problem was that they installed standard Snipe wings. Which weren’t strong enough. The mistake happened because the wings were perfectly interchangeable, having been made on a jig. Just needed bolting on.
The modern problem is the belief that paperwork has a power, by itself. So the answer to all problems is more paperwork.
An actual inspector, standing on the Ajax production line would see the truth in minutes.
This applies in so many areas, Malmesbury.
The Due Diligence team appraising the firm I once worked for spent six months compiling reports on our financial position. The paperwork would have filled a large warehouse. The sale went ahead and within days the purchasers realised their mistake. We all knew the true state of the company, of course, and had the DD people asked the milkman they would have known too. He hadn't been paid in nine months.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
And when they do spend it’s all about the jobs, not what they are buying.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
Just had an interesting start to the afternoon. Automated text from school that my daughter (14) is not in class. Ring school, they don't know where she is (they are allowed out at lunchtime and she does sometimes). She doesn't truant and wouldn't dream of wandering off. She's not answering her phone. So I get in the car to drive the 10 miles to where here school is to start looking round the village.
Just as I set off the phone rings. She is in class. New supply teacher hadn't processed the register quickly enough and everyone in her class had been reported missing.
Gits. Was genuinely concerned there.
Annoying but I have to say that sounds an excellent system if it is used right.
System is fab! School is fab! Just one of those 'no sorry, we've found her right where she was supposed to be' things
"My predictions for 2026 are that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by his own party, and that his successor – possibly Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner – will soon be exposed as equally useless, and the public will turn against them. This will push our politics to breaking point. It will demonstrate that policy tweaks or the reshuffling of personnel, even PMs, won’t work for Labour, just as it failed under the Tories."
Just had an interesting start to the afternoon. Automated text from school that my daughter (14) is not in class. Ring school, they don't know where she is (they are allowed out at lunchtime and she does sometimes). She doesn't truant and wouldn't dream of wandering off. She's not answering her phone. So I get in the car to drive the 10 miles to where here school is to start looking round the village.
Just as I set off the phone rings. She is in class. New supply teacher hadn't processed the register quickly enough and everyone in her class had been reported missing.
Gits. Was genuinely concerned there.
So the system has no internal checks against reporting a whole class missing (say on a school trip to rob a museum) and no cc to someone, like the deputy head of attendance, who might have spotted an anomaly.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds like they've looked at the Nimrod MRA4 and decided that's an excellent template for how to spend lots and lots of taxpayer's money and get nothing useful as a result.
Sounds like a report from Putin's Russia e.g. "just make it fit"
Yup
Even in the Goode Olde Days when hand fitting was a thing (ask anyone who’s restored a Spitfire) there were tolerances and standards.
In late 1918 a bunch of apprentices at Sopwith got a bit keen and installed all the wings on some Salamander ground attack aircraft. The problem was that they installed standard Snipe wings. Which weren’t strong enough. The mistake happened because the wings were perfectly interchangeable, having been made on a jig. Just needed bolting on.
The modern problem is the belief that paperwork has a power, by itself. So the answer to all problems is more paperwork.
An actual inspector, standing on the Ajax production line would see the truth in minutes.
This applies in so many areas, Malmesbury.
The Due Diligence team appraising the firm I once worked for spent six months compiling reports on our financial position. The paperwork would have filled a large warehouse. The sale went ahead and within days the purchasers realised their mistake. We all knew the true state of the company, of course, and had the DD people asked the milkman they would have known too. He hadn't been paid in nine months.
Indeed
The bullshit paperwork *hides* the truth. The emperor has no clothes, but there’s a rampart of files - up to his chin….
The sad truth in Scotland is one of these blithering incompetents is going to form our next government. The choice is genuinely abysmal. The SNP government has staggered from one fiasco to another for years now and seems to have almost no interest in the real problems facing Scotland, let alone any solutions. Labour are absolutely nowhere and blighted by the appalling performance of both Starmer and Reeves. I do not even know who is leading Reform in Scotland, they have made zero impact. Our Greens make those south of the border look sane (well, almost) and business like. The Tories really don't seem to have any idea as to how Scotland's myriad of problems should be addressed either and struggle to even be heard. I believe that there is a Lib Dem party too. Somewhere.
In my adult life I have never felt so dismayed and disheartened by our political options. I cannot recall a time when I did not agree with at least some of what several of the mainstream parties were saying. The idea of another SNP government, potentially with a majority, whinging on about independence and trying desperately to engage a scunnered nation in yet another grievance is nothing short of desperate but where the hell are the alternatives?
Humbug.
Leaving aside party politics, there does seem to be an increasing problem that very few, if any, of our leaders have any sort of hinterland, and increasingly they've only been in politics for five minutes. It probably applies to our civil servants as well. They know little of their fellow Britons' lives, have no guiding principles, and even if they did have any ideas, they've no idea how to get them through the system so are left raging at the blob.
The sad truth in Scotland is one of these blithering incompetents is going to form our next government. The choice is genuinely abysmal. The SNP government has staggered from one fiasco to another for years now and seems to have almost no interest in the real problems facing Scotland, let alone any solutions. Labour are absolutely nowhere and blighted by the appalling performance of both Starmer and Reeves. I do not even know who is leading Reform in Scotland, they have made zero impact. Our Greens make those south of the border look sane (well, almost) and business like. The Tories really don't seem to have any idea as to how Scotland's myriad of problems should be addressed either and struggle to even be heard. I believe that there is a Lib Dem party too. Somewhere.
In my adult life I have never felt so dismayed and disheartened by our political options. I cannot recall a time when I did not agree with at least some of what several of the mainstream parties were saying. The idea of another SNP government, potentially with a majority, whinging on about independence and trying desperately to engage a scunnered nation in yet another grievance is nothing short of desperate but where the hell are the alternatives?
Humbug.
Leaving aside party politics, there does seem to be an increasing problem that very few, if any, of our leaders have any sort of hinterland, and increasingly they've only been in politics for five minutes. It probably applies to our civil servants as well. They know little of their fellow Britons' lives, have no guiding principles, and even if they did have any ideas, they've no idea how to get them through the system so are left raging at the blob.
… and have no idea they *are* The Blob they are raging about.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
And when they do spend it’s all about the jobs, not what they are buying.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
Still is, if you listen to the local MPs. (There are probably a few thousand more jobs across the UK involved in the supply chain - but that would have been the same if they'd picked the BAE CV90 back in 2010/12.)
I get the impression that one of the the reasons GDLS got the contract was related to the tactical comms system they supply with it (which if had been delivered a decade ago might have been state of the art). It certainly made no sense at all to award a production contract to an unproven platform which have to be heavily modified to meet UK requirements.
I wouldn't suggest an enquiry, as we wouldn't learn anything for a decade, if then, but the entire program seems to be an object lesson in how not to do defence procurement.
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Yesterday I asked AI where to buy caviar in Greenwich, London. It referred me to the Greenwich Caviar Company of Connecticut.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
I have gone from never using them, to sometimes using them but never relying upon them.
I use it sometimes to do the 'busywork' for me, with clear prompts on what I want, which I can then read through to check that it is accurate. Very often it isn't, but I can spot that and either fix it myself or tell it what's wrong and tell it to fix it, which it normally does on the second go around.
Anyone relying on AI for any actual 'intelligence' is on a hiding to nothing, but as a tool it can be useful. No more and no less than a tool to be used by a skilled practitioner though, and like any tool a bad worker is one who blames his tools.
The headline "Sandie Peggie judgment to be revised over ‘made-up AI quote’" does not reflect the article as follows.
The judgement was revised at 2pm today, not "to be revised"
The article does not provide any proof that the quote was AI-generated. It does list accusations to that effect or others from Maya Forstater (chief executive Sex Matters) and Michael Foran (gender-critical lawyer Oxford University)
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
And when they do spend it’s all about the jobs, not what they are buying.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
Still is, if you listen to the local MPs. (There are probably a few thousand more jobs across the UK involved in the supply chain - but that would have been the same if they'd picked the BAE CV90 back in 2010/12.)
I get the impression that one of the the reasons GDLS got the contract was related to the tactical comms system they supply with it (which if had been delivered a decade ago might have been state of the art). It certainly made no sense at all to award a production contract to an unproven platform which have to be heavily modified to meet UK requirements.
I wouldn't suggest an enquiry, as we wouldn't learn anything for a decade, if then, but the entire program seems to be an object lesson in how not to do defence procurement.
“heavily modified to meet UK requirements.”
Why are our requirements different to the CV90? Which has been destroying T-90 tanks in Ukraine (auto cannon vs turret ring)
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
And when they do spend it’s all about the jobs, not what they are buying.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
Still is, if you listen to the local MPs. (There are probably a few thousand more jobs across the UK involved in the supply chain - but that would have been the same if they'd picked the BAE CV90 back in 2010/12.)
I get the impression that one of the the reasons GDLS got the contract was related to the tactical comms system they supply with it (which if had been delivered a decade ago might have been state of the art). It certainly made no sense at all to award a production contract to an unproven platform which have to be heavily modified to meet UK requirements.
I wouldn't suggest an enquiry, as we wouldn't learn anything for a decade, if then, but the entire program seems to be an object lesson in how not to do defence procurement.
“heavily modified to meet UK requirements.”
Why are our requirements different to the CV90? Which has been destroying T-90 tanks in Ukraine (auto cannon vs turret ring)
To justify the existence and jobs of a whole set of designers/ engineers.
Granted there is a need to have a continual set of work to keep important people occupied and busy but outside of military hardware firms just make them redundant as soon as the work runs out and then panic when more work arrives that there no longer have people to do the work
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Yesterday I asked AI where to buy caviar in Greenwich, London. It referred me to the Greenwich Caviar Company of Connecticut.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
I have gone from never using them, to sometimes using them but never relying upon them.
I use it sometimes to do the 'busywork' for me, with clear prompts on what I want, which I can then read through to check that it is accurate. Very often it isn't, but I can spot that and either fix it myself or tell it what's wrong and tell it to fix it, which it normally does on the second go around.
Anyone relying on AI for any actual 'intelligence' is on a hiding to nothing, but as a tool it can be useful. No more and no less than a tool to be used by a skilled practitioner though, and like any tool a bad worker is one who blames his tools.
I use them every day. But I always look back at the original sources to make sure they say what the AI says they said. Because otherwise awks.
"My predictions for 2026 are that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by his own party, and that his successor – possibly Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner – will soon be exposed as equally useless, and the public will turn against them. This will push our politics to breaking point. It will demonstrate that policy tweaks or the reshuffling of personnel, even PMs, won’t work for Labour, just as it failed under the Tories."
Telegraph
"Equally useless" makes me laugh, there must be some other people called Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner in the Labour Party that I am unaware of. Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
Littler is the only person there who turned his sport upside down by his talent.
It’s a pub game, so not a real sport.
Can't see that it requires any less hand-eye co-ordination than say archery or golf?
Darts is more of a sport than F1 is.
One of the criteria citied often of whether something is a sport or not is 'Can you play it in a pub'.
Looking forward to next year's race in the Dog and Duck.
Bosanquet (who invented the googly) drew a distinction between games where the ball is still (golf, billiards) and where it is in motion (cricket, football). Extrapolating from that would place darts and archery in the still camp.
There's no clear defining line, but rather a range from the more pure end (athletics) to the peculiar (breakdancing). Olympic sport introduces a further refinement in that it suggests some connection with the ancient games. This brings dressage safely within the fold because equestrianism generally was such a big part of the games back then, even though many today scoff at horses dancing. Many other sports however that we accept at normal would have puzzled the ancient Greeks. Syncronised swimming puzzles me, by any criterion.
Just wondering how popular the pankration* and the chariot racing** would be.
*their form of MMA **IIRC it was the *owner* who got the prize?
Chariot racing was an Olympic sport that was open to women, in the ancient world.
Other than that, womens' sports and gladiatorial contests were considered a form of porn.
Sean, you're a classics whizz. Save me the bother of looking it up. Wasn't it the success of a female charioteer that caused the introduction of a men only rule?
I think it was Cynisca, the sister of King Agesilaos of Sparta, who won a load of prizes for chariot racing, as owner and trainer, in the 390's. But, no woman was allowed to drive a chariot, at the contest. The fact that elite Spartan women took part in their own athletic contests, naked, was a source of fascination to the Greeks.
Thank you, Sean. You are so much better than AI.
I wonder that Robert Smithson has not tried to market you.
Thanks.
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
Yesterday I asked AI where to buy caviar in Greenwich, London. It referred me to the Greenwich Caviar Company of Connecticut.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
I have gone from never using them, to sometimes using them but never relying upon them.
I use it sometimes to do the 'busywork' for me, with clear prompts on what I want, which I can then read through to check that it is accurate. Very often it isn't, but I can spot that and either fix it myself or tell it what's wrong and tell it to fix it, which it normally does on the second go around.
Anyone relying on AI for any actual 'intelligence' is on a hiding to nothing, but as a tool it can be useful. No more and no less than a tool to be used by a skilled practitioner though, and like any tool a bad worker is one who blames his tools.
I use them every day. But I always look back at the original sources to make sure they say what the AI says they said. Because otherwise awks.
I don't - though occasionally when I am Google searching, the little pet AI at the top points to something I didn't know, though the last time I [edit] ran a Google search, the little AI confabulated hopelessly (clearly making up a story just on a guess).
But, as you say, always check. Actually Google Books is better for that as it automatically generates the primary source as well (if not locked obvs).
Not looking forward to the future when every source from 2024 onwards has to be regarded with even more suspicion than any source was before. It's getting like that on Amazon Books already.
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
That is interesting. What is the consent required for that?
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
That is interesting. What is the consent required for that?
Who is sanity checking what is documented - in case it doesn’t reflect what was said?
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection. · Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue. · Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems. · Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Sounds to me like GDLS are cutting through all of the "process state" bullshit so detested by our right wing chums on here.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
The second bit of that's a non sequitur. It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
And when they do spend it’s all about the jobs, not what they are buying.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
Still is, if you listen to the local MPs. (There are probably a few thousand more jobs across the UK involved in the supply chain - but that would have been the same if they'd picked the BAE CV90 back in 2010/12.)
I get the impression that one of the the reasons GDLS got the contract was related to the tactical comms system they supply with it (which if had been delivered a decade ago might have been state of the art). It certainly made no sense at all to award a production contract to an unproven platform which have to be heavily modified to meet UK requirements.
I wouldn't suggest an enquiry, as we wouldn't learn anything for a decade, if then, but the entire program seems to be an object lesson in how not to do defence procurement.
“heavily modified to meet UK requirements.”
Why are our requirements different to the CV90? Which has been destroying T-90 tanks in Ukraine (auto cannon vs turret ring)
It seems to be "you can only have this one".
"But we need this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this."
So we end up with the biggest, most overweight, most kludged, most complicated, Swiss Army Knife in the world.
Plus "But we have to get away from reliance on, and being BFONTed * by, BAE,"
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
That is interesting. What is the consent required for that?
I don't know what the legal requirements are. We get a popup at the start of the call saying if we continue to attend we consent to the recording or words to that effect
EDIT: I should point out our leadership are all in on AI. They would really like to replace us with robots.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
I'd love to see AI trying to cope with a Scotsman describing how the docter cannae ken haw sair ma baws aer. That would be fascinating.
Personally I would only be comfortable with this kind of system if the AI is completely off-line. A black box that sits in the corner and spits out a hard copy at the end of the consultation. But that would be expensive, so any NHS implementation would certainly be cloud-based and thus ripe for penetration by some enterprising Russian.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
That is interesting. What is the consent required for that?
I don't know what the legal requirements are. We get a popup at the start of the call saying if we continue to attend we consent to the recording or words to that effect
EDIT: I should point out our leadership are all in on AI. They would really like to replace us with robots.
An AI summary isn't a recording, it is a derivative from it at best.
I think the idea is to get rid of secretaries and to deal with patient enquiries via AI chatbots. This is all in alignment with Streetings 10 year plan for the NHS.
Considering the current steam driven NHS IT infrastructure I think it is a tad optomistic, but is it a good idea in the first place?
Looking for a Christmas present? Then, for a certain kind of reader, you might consider Francis Bok’s Escape from Slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bok
Warning: Some commenters here would be disturbed to learn about this part of George W. Bush's presidency, or the help North Dakota Lutherans gave to Bok.
And I fear that many politicians, here and in the UK, would rather not think about modern slavery, because they might be asked what they are doing about it.
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
Truss's problem was that she thought simply cutting taxes would solve the country's problems, and the bond markets disagreed with her. The deeper problem was that she was wrong on the substance of the issue, while the bond markets were right. Starmer lacks the ability to explain to us how he really sees the world, but his government unlike Truss's does have a credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up. A PM whose views are unclear is still a lot better than one whose views are clear and wrong, IMHO.
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
A totally rational response to an economic plan presented by a transparently irrational PM backed by the intellectual heft of the IEA, "hard fuck no!"
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
True dat. It was a leap of faith on her part that growth would appear. It may have. It may not have. But the fact that the City freaked out and killed her was an indication of who holds the power.
Whether it is Truss and the City, Starmer and the SC, or Burnham and the hedge funds, our politicians have become infantilised, lacking the power to change things or even to realise that things can be changed.
The latest example is Starmer's request that the EHRC be changed so that he can do things. Does he even realise he's Prime Minister? Or does he just sit upright fully dressed in the dark, waiting for somebody to switch him on so he can perform his daily tasks?
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
That is interesting. What is the consent required for that?
Who is sanity checking what is documented - in case it doesn’t reflect what was said?
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
No, the Truss problem was she had removed the Treasury's chief and sidestepped the OBR, leading to market suspicion there must be something bad somewhere that Truss was deliberately hiding from ‘the adults in the room’. This is why Rachel Reeves won't order lunch without noisily flying kites and consulting the OBR.
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
Truss's problem was that she thought simply cutting taxes would solve the country's problems, and the bond markets disagreed with her. The deeper problem was that she was wrong on the substance of the issue, while the bond markets were right. Starmer lacks the ability to explain to us how he really sees the world, but his government unlike Truss's does have a credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up. A PM whose views are unclear is still a lot better than one whose views are clear and wrong, IMHO.
Unsarcastically: what is this "credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up". By when does Starmer plan to drop the deficit to zero?
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
No, the Truss problem was she had removed the Treasury's chief and sidestepped the OBR, leading to market suspicion there must be something bad somewhere that Truss was deliberately hiding from ‘the adults in the room’. This is why Rachel Reeves won't order lunch without noisily flying kites and consulting the OBR.
She also had no mandate to any of what she proposed. None of it was in any manifesto.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
One of my colleagues does this. I can't look at the output without opening another account. So I don't.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
I'll read the summary if I missed the meeting. Or listen to the recording at 200% speed.
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
My understanding is that Truss's downfall was her inability to produce figures in support of the plan. This freaked out the City.
No, the Truss problem was she had removed the Treasury's chief and sidestepped the OBR, leading to market suspicion there must be something bad somewhere that Truss was deliberately hiding from ‘the adults in the room’. This is why Rachel Reeves won't order lunch without noisily flying kites and consulting the OBR.
She also had no mandate to any of what she proposed. None of it was in any manifesto.
She's allowed to do that as PM. It's up to Parliament to hold her to account. And we're back to the infantilisation of MPs again...
Labour may yet demonstrate that Liz Truss is not the worst possible PM.
In all honesty, we are pretty much there already.
Truss had a belief regarding what was wrong with the country and a plan to cure it. Her downfall was her inability to get anybody to agree to it enough to ride out the initial turbulence.
Starmer has no beliefs regarding what was wrong with the country and no plan to cure it. He sees his job as carrying out the law regardless of whether it is right, wrong, or orthogonal to the problem. His downfall is his mental inability to realise this.
Truss's problem was that she thought simply cutting taxes would solve the country's problems, and the bond markets disagreed with her. The deeper problem was that she was wrong on the substance of the issue, while the bond markets were right. Starmer lacks the ability to explain to us how he really sees the world, but his government unlike Truss's does have a credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up. A PM whose views are unclear is still a lot better than one whose views are clear and wrong, IMHO.
Unsarcastically: what is this "credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up". By when does Starmer plan to drop the deficit to zero?
FWIW the deficit is forcast by the OBR to be 1% by 2031 and on a reducing course.
Whether it is worth more than my granny's tea leaves, I leave to the reader.
On the subject of AI, several NHS Trusts near me are planning to use AI to listen to consultations in outpatients, and produce a summary for the electronic notes and for the patient in printed or electronic form.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
All of our team calls are already recorded and summarized by AI. I am not aware of anybody that has ever looked at one of the recording, or read the summary.
My last workplace uses Copilot to summarise Teams calls. The summaries are accurate and on balance useful. They are massively verbose when all you want is a few bullet points. On the other hand not having to take notes allows you to focus on running the meeting. And the summaries are better than no notes at all.
An AI summary isn't a recording, it is a derivative from it at best.
Correct. We do both, so you can read the AI summary or listen to the recording.
Interesting. Many moons ago when AI was still thirty years away part of a contract I had was to sit and take notes/do recordings of a client's three day 'think big' sessions and then go away and summarise what was said and the outputs etc. I would spend hours playing back the tapes and making further notes and conclusions.
I guess that part of my work would now be in peril.
Comments
The problem with AI is that time and again, it gives plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers. I asked AI to describe the fortress of Masada, and it came back with an answer that was perfect, save for one minor point. It said that Herod the Great built the fortress in 100 BC, 28 years before he was born.
You can usually get an adequate historical answer, if you ask AI a question, for which there is a lot of online content. The less content, the more inaccurate it will be.
But, lazy students will just treat AI as gospel, and get failed accordingly. To my mind, AI should be treated like Sat Nav, or calculators. You should have a fair idea already what the answer should be, and if it comes back with something that doesn't seem right, you should verify it yourself.
ETA the interesting although now slightly old example is when Sixty Symbols tested AI on A-level physics questions. On one, it got the maths right but the physics wrong; on another, the physics right but stuffed up the calculation. If you cannot trust the computer to count the beans, what's the point?
1) stick to the same principles as before and try to win people over to those ideas.
2) change the nature of the party to attract new members.
The first is the LD approach, the second is the Green/Labour approach. The risk of the second approach is that it gains an influx of entryists who were not interested by the original platform/leader and alienates existing supporters.
https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1999082750012448969
“I’m pretty frustrated, to be honest…I feel like on one hand, since we’ve come into govt we’ve actually done a huge amount that we said we’d do…
“But that’s not reflected in the polls, & I don’t think it’s even reflected in our storytelling. I think we sell ourselves short”
Just because they are not polling at Reform levels doesn't mean to say the LDs are not doing ok. I would say their support goes rather deeper and is more securely grounded. What's more, in a general Election scenario I think they are likely to come across as altogether more credible than most other parties, and certainly Reform.
I don't want this to sound like a Party Broadcast. I'm not a member, nor even a natural supporter, but I do see them a suitable vehicle for sensible opposition to the Government. I would however be very wary of making any predictions as to how the next GE is likely to shake out. I can't recall a time of greater fluidity in UK politics. I certainly wouldn't be making any bets, and that includes betting against the LDs.
https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1999095846353121456
Detailed Employee Account: Systemic Issues within the General Dynamics Ajax Programme
As a long-serving General Dynamics employee working directly on the Ajax vehicle programme, I feel compelled to document the profound systemic and cultural failures I have witnessed. My surprise is not that the programme has encountered technical challenges, but that the sheer scale and nature of the issues—many stemming from managerial pressure and a culture of corner-cutting—have not been brought to light earlier in a meaningful way.
The problems extend far beyond design flaws. On the shop floor, we operate under intense pressure from management to meet deadlines, often at the expense of procedure and safety. The prevailing directive from certain managers is to "just make it fit," with instructions to "do what you got to do—grind it, cut it, hammer it in, or boot it." This ethos of force-fitting components directly contradicts engineering standards and creates inherent vulnerabilities in the vehicle's integrity.
I have observed managers and quality personnel witnessing these practices without intervention, effectively endorsing them. Specific, recurring failures include:
· Critical Safety Omissions: Armour bolts left unfitted behind the VIP bin, compromising ballistic protection.
· Persistent Functional Failures: The driver's hatch mechanism continues to fail despite being a known, long-standing issue.
· Chronic Leaks: Fuel and hydraulic leaks are commonplace, indicating persistent sealing or subsystem integration problems.
· Falsified Safety Records: Most alarmingly, I have seen safety notices stamped off as completed. Upon physical verification, the required work had not been done. A grave example is within the Ajax battery compartment, a high-risk area that remains live even after isolation. Signing off on unperformed work here is not just negligent; it is dangerously irresponsible.
The logistical and support side of the programme is equally broken. We face severe parts shortages. To keep the current production line moving, we have been systematically cannibalising vehicles from a storage fleet of approximately 50 trucks in Llanelli. These vehicles haven't been started in years, their batteries are long dead, and we strip them for components because new parts are simply unavailable. This is not sustainable manufacturing; it is a desperate and inefficient salvage operation that underscores a profound failure in supply chain management.
Perhaps most disheartening is the cultural corrosion. A specific example that shocked me was witnessing a former 2ic (second-in-command) at the Merthyr site rapidly abandon his principles upon accepting a managerial position within General Dynamics...
Labour make them seem overachievers
Outside GEs, they always have a problem.
PMA Accountants
@PMA_Accountants
·
11h
Nick Clegg takes role at London-based venture capitalists Hiro Capital https://theguardian.com/politics/2025/
https://x.com/PMA_Accountants/status/1998932323618726025?s=20
The fonts on the BBC Micro were designed to be easier to read than all the computo-fonts around at the time, by dint of having iirc 2 pixels of width in the vertical strokes.
Also, any suggestion that we increase defence spending should just be met with the word, "Ajax."
I'm really not sure what is going on with the current lot. Maybe they need to give Alastair Campbell a call.
*very proud*
The most moreish thing I have had this Advent has been a National Trust olive and smokey bacon flavoured "kiln roasted mixed nuts" (cashews, almonds, peanuts) thing called Pigs in Blankets which comes in a jamjar at a slightly eye-watering price (£7.50 for 150g).
It is dated OK until June 2026. My personal item lasted slightly under 24 hours.
(while somersaulting down a water slide in a wetsuit)
Once Nick Clegg became a private citizen in 2017 instead of an elected Lib Dem, he could do as he pleased.
Things have radically advanced over the last 2 years.
https://olivesetal.co.uk/collections/nuts-snacks/products/pigs-in-blankets-roasted-nuts
https://shop.nationaltrust.org.uk/pigs-in-blankets-mixed-nuts.html
I see it's not in fact specific to NT so (a) easier to find and (b) it won't trigger our wokefinders-general and major-general, or at least not very much, which you may or may not be disappointed about.
Even hungrier now. Off to find my Quorn pastie and Baxters country vegetable soup.
"My predictions for 2026 are that Sir Keir Starmer will be ousted by his own party, and that his successor – possibly Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner – will soon be exposed as equally useless, and the public will turn against them. This will push our politics to breaking point. It will demonstrate that policy tweaks or the reshuffling of personnel, even PMs, won’t work for Labour, just as it failed under the Tories."
Telegraph
See Grenfell with metric tons of documents saying that it was fireproof, awesome etc.
Or Sharon Shoesmith protesting that the paperwork in her department was perfect.
What you need is simpler documentation combined with inspection and imposing standards.
Though their goose was cooked on tuition fees.
Even in the Goode Olde Days when hand fitting was a thing (ask anyone who’s restored a Spitfire) there were tolerances and standards.
In late 1918 a bunch of apprentices at Sopwith got a bit keen and installed all the wings on some Salamander ground attack aircraft. The problem was that they installed standard Snipe wings. Which weren’t strong enough. The mistake happened because the wings were perfectly interchangeable, having been made on a jig. Just needed bolting on.
The modern problem is the belief that paperwork has a power, by itself. So the answer to all problems is more paperwork.
An actual inspector, standing on the Ajax production line would see the truth in minutes.
So it’s one thing to mock it if you haven’t done it but it’s difficult. Its roots are also military like a number of Olympic sports as it was spawned from the demonstration of the control of a horse which was vital in battle so not a bit wussy either.
Totally unscientific view but there it is.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-stand-with-nigel-farage/
https://deadlypassionsterriblejoys.substack.com/p/an-f1-fan-gift-guide-for-the-sickos
Just as I set off the phone rings. She is in class. New supply teacher hadn't processed the register quickly enough and everyone in her class had been reported missing.
Gits. Was genuinely concerned there.
In my adult life I have never felt so dismayed and disheartened by our political options. I cannot recall a time when I did not agree with at least some of what several of the mainstream parties were saying. The idea of another SNP government, potentially with a majority, whinging on about independence and trying desperately to engage a scunnered nation in yet another grievance is nothing short of desperate but where the hell are the alternatives?
Humbug.
We have a new Christmas Bond Film: You Only Leave Twice (So Far).
A City of Doncaster councillor has joined a new party after quitting Reform UK for the second time in a fortnight.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz0n8m273d1o
Do Do Do the Hokey-Cokey
We Are Here to show you how ...
It's an argument for stopping fucking up, not giving up entirely. Though some will make that argument.
The reality is that the government is pretty resistant to increasing defence spending anyway - which partly explains the reluctance to acknowledge disastrous failures in procurement, and write off large chunks of the billions we've spent,
The Due Diligence team appraising the firm I once worked for spent six months compiling reports on our financial position. The paperwork would have filled a large warehouse. The sale went ahead and within days the purchasers realised their mistake. We all knew the true state of the company, of course, and had the DD people asked the milkman they would have known too. He hadn't been paid in nine months.
Ajax was about 700 jobs in Wales. A million per worker, in cash, would have been an order of magnitude cheaper.
The bullshit paperwork *hides* the truth. The emperor has no clothes, but there’s a rampart of files - up to his chin….
https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/margraten-cemetery-controversy/
Sandie Peggie judgment to be revised over ‘made-up AI quote’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/11/sandie-peggie-judgment-to-be-revised-over-errors/ (£££)
(There are probably a few thousand more jobs across the UK involved in the supply chain - but that would have been the same if they'd picked the BAE CV90 back in 2010/12.)
I get the impression that one of the the reasons GDLS got the contract was related to the tactical comms system they supply with it (which if had been delivered a decade ago might have been state of the art). It certainly made no sense at all to award a production contract to an unproven platform which have to be heavily modified to meet UK requirements.
I wouldn't suggest an enquiry, as we wouldn't learn anything for a decade, if then, but the entire program seems to be an object lesson in how not to do defence procurement.
I use it sometimes to do the 'busywork' for me, with clear prompts on what I want, which I can then read through to check that it is accurate. Very often it isn't, but I can spot that and either fix it myself or tell it what's wrong and tell it to fix it, which it normally does on the second go around.
Anyone relying on AI for any actual 'intelligence' is on a hiding to nothing, but as a tool it can be useful. No more and no less than a tool to be used by a skilled practitioner though, and like any tool a bad worker is one who blames his tools.
Why are our requirements different to the CV90? Which has been destroying T-90 tanks in Ukraine (auto cannon vs turret ring)
Granted there is a need to have a continual set of work to keep important people occupied and busy but outside of military hardware firms just make them redundant as soon as the work runs out and then panic when more work arrives that there no longer have people to do the work
But, as you say, always check. Actually Google Books is better for that as it automatically generates the primary source as well (if not locked obvs).
Not looking forward to the future when every source from 2024 onwards has to be regarded with even more suspicion than any source was before. It's getting like that on Amazon Books already.
I am not sure how well this can work (how does it record examination findings, imaging and other investigations?), but I would be interested in PB's thoughts on consent and related issues. How would people feel about similar technology being used in other professional contexts such as discussions with lawyers, accountants, clergy and police?
The company says that the recording will be erased after 30 days (giving time for corrections to be made) and only the AI summary to be part of the records.
"But we need this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this."
So we end up with the biggest, most overweight, most kludged, most complicated, Swiss Army Knife in the world.
Plus "But we have to get away from reliance on, and being BFONTed * by, BAE,"
* ".. Dwayne".
EDIT: I should point out our leadership are all in on AI. They would really like to replace us with robots.
Personally I would only be comfortable with this kind of system if the AI is completely off-line. A black box that sits in the corner and spits out a hard copy at the end of the consultation. But that would be expensive, so any NHS implementation would certainly be cloud-based and thus ripe for penetration by some enterprising Russian.
I think the idea is to get rid of secretaries and to deal with patient enquiries via AI chatbots. This is all in alignment with Streetings 10 year plan for the NHS.
Considering the current steam driven NHS IT infrastructure I think it is a tad optomistic, but is it a good idea in the first place?
Looking for a Christmas present? Then, for a certain kind of reader, you might consider Francis Bok’s Escape from Slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bok
Warning: Some commenters here would be disturbed to learn about this part of George W. Bush's presidency, or the help North Dakota Lutherans gave to Bok.
And I fear that many politicians, here and in the UK, would rather not think about modern slavery, because they might be asked what they are doing about it.
Starmer lacks the ability to explain to us how he really sees the world, but his government unlike Truss's does have a credible plan to make the fiscal numbers add up. A PM whose views are unclear is still a lot better than one whose views are clear and wrong, IMHO.
Whether it is Truss and the City, Starmer and the SC, or Burnham and the hedge funds, our politicians have become infantilised, lacking the power to change things or even to realise that things can be changed.
The latest example is Starmer's request that the EHRC be changed so that he can do things. Does he even realise he's Prime Minister? Or does he just sit upright fully dressed in the dark, waiting for somebody to switch him on so he can perform his daily tasks?
Whether it is worth more than my granny's tea leaves, I leave to the reader.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/deficits/
I guess that part of my work would now be in peril.