Starmer

[Grumble]

Less than 2 weeks ago. lol. IMG_0526.jpeg

Does he ever stop to compare his past predictions with reality?

[philbo]

I honestly can't figure out what sort of twisted logic might make Jones think that a stonking majority would make Starmer more worried about left-wingers defecting.

I'm told he's supposed to be a clever chap, but he does seem engage mouth (well, fingers) before brain sometimes

[El Pollo Diablo]

With a majority this big it is worth giving rebels a slapping on the first day, otherwise they'll get in the habit of it.

Plus it's pretty outrageous to go against a clear manifesto and election campaign decision, just 3 weeks after standing on that manifesto.

I think in this particular case it's also because you don't vote for opposition amendments to the king's speech if you're in the governing party. It's typically treated as a confidence issue, hence the clamping down. I imagine Starmer will be more lenient in a debate on the actual matter itself.

[wilsontown]

I'd much prefer that Labour said the cap would be removed and the money to do it would be found but they would need to figure out how it would be funded. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about child poverty is saying that it must go. But then again that's pretty much exactly the sort of thing Labour said they wouldn't do during the campaign.

The 7 rebels all took the Labour whip so can hardly be surprised at the outcome here, and it's not as though the likes of McDonnell don't know how this stuff works.

[monkey]

Less than 2 weeks ago. lol. IMG_0526.jpeg

Does he ever stop to compare his past predictions with reality?

Does any journalist?

[Woodchopper]

With a majority this big it is worth giving rebels a slapping on the first day, otherwise they'll get in the habit of it.

Plus it's pretty outrageous to go against a clear manifesto and election campaign decision, just 3 weeks after standing on that manifesto.

I think in this particular case it's also because you don't vote for opposition amendments to the king's speech if you're in the governing party. It's typically treated as a confidence issue, hence the clamping down. I imagine Starmer will be more lenient in a debate on the actual matter itself.

Yes, there’s a write up here: https://theconversation.com/anatomy-of- ... ent-235452

The Kings Speech vote is a confidence issue.

A six month suspension is long for one vote. But on the other hand it’s a bit ridiculous to launch a rebellion a few weeks into the government and before the first budget.

One outcome could be that the seven join Corbyn and some of the other independents in a new radical left party. They’d potentially be the fourth largest party in parliament. Clearly FTPT is a problem for re-election but the Greens, Liberals and Nationalists have shown that it’s possible to get elected. Four years in parliament would give them a platform.

IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.

[lpm]

IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.

And would lay the groundwork for future PR parties.

[Stranger Mouse]

With a majority this big it is worth giving rebels a slapping on the first day, otherwise they'll get in the habit of it.

Plus it's pretty outrageous to go against a clear manifesto and election campaign decision, just 3 weeks after standing on that manifesto.

I think in this particular case it's also because you don't vote for opposition amendments to the king's speech if you're in the governing party. It's typically treated as a confidence issue, hence the clamping down. I imagine Starmer will be more lenient in a debate on the actual matter itself.

Yes, there’s a write up here: https://theconversation.com/anatomy-of- ... ent-235452

The Kings Speech vote is a confidence issue.

A six month suspension is long for one vote. But on the other hand it’s a bit ridiculous to launch a rebellion a few weeks into the government and before the first budget.

One outcome could be that the seven join Corbyn and some of the other independents in a new radical left party. They’d potentially be the fourth largest party in parliament. Clearly FTPT is a problem for re-election but the Greens, Liberals and Nationalists have shown that it’s possible to get elected. Four years in parliament would give them a platform.

IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.

I think it would benefit the country rather than having all these parasitic operations within major parties

[sTeamTraen]

IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.

Are the Greens not already that party?

[Sciolus]

The Greens are radical and leftish, but not radical-left. I've never noticed Corbynites show any particular interest in green issues.

[Woodchopper]

IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.

Are the Greens not already that party?

As well as what Sciolus wrote, the Greens will soon have to face the fact that there are lots of potential voters who are into keeping the countryside as it is but aren’t into wider environmental or social agendas.

For example, Green co-chair Adrian Ramsay MP has called for a pause on building pylons through his constituency to carry electricity cables from a wind farm, and Green councillors have previously opposed solar farms.

[monkey]

Has Starmer said that Rachel Reeves has his full confidence yet?

[bjn]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

FWIW I am a computer science grad and have recently studied AI and ML at Imperial College, so I have some understanding of the subject matter.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/01/13/uk-g ... y-details/

[IvanV]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

One of the best reasons for not having an industrial strategy in this country is that we are very bad at it. Like the recent attempt to encourage a mega battery factory on Teesside. Turns out there were good reasons that there isn't a mega battery factory on Teesside or anywhere else like that, which even tipping a billion odd quid in is insufficient to overcome. Though we weren't alone, the Swedes made the same mistake.

The best thing we could do is just sort out the bl..dy tax system, which has been wrecked by chancellor after chancellor - from both parties - trying to find ways to raise tax without offending people it doesn't want to offend, and making a bigger and bigger mess of it. Which has the effect of depressing economic activity. But lo, Rachel Reeves just carried on as before, raising tax in one of the more economically damaging ways that could be thought of.

There were many warnings that the present Labour administration would really need to be making progress on the Difficult Problems this country has, which would require making Difficult Decisions, or else begin to find itself rather unpopular after a while. For in the end, you get your rewards for making difficult decisions if it does indeed help to address difficult problems, even if you have to brazen out the right wing press shouting horribly at you, and turn down pleasant offers of freebies from rich people. But whilst raising a bit of tax, which was surely needed, albeit doing it in a very unhelpful way, they have tended to shy away from those Difficult Decisions. You would have thought that a bit of soak the rich, and crack down a bit on the money laundering and international tax avoidance, and a think very hard before accepting a freebies policy, would be a fairly easy decision for a Labour government. But it seems even they are just as, or nearly as, craven and greedy in these regards as all their predecessors for the last 45 years.

So even more disappointed than I expected I would be.

It does seem that there was little enthusiasm for voting Labour at the last election. It was the most extreme case of a large majority on a small vote that has ever been seen in a British election. And that should be a help in implementing difficult policies, because the people who don't like such things largely didn't vote for them anyway. Labour won, and won handsomely, because of a split on the right. If the right sorts themselves out - which is a big if - Labour would be stuffed. Which is why it is so important for them to achieve something, not just do what the conservatives were doing while avoiding a bit of their incompetence.

[dyqik]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

FWIW I am a computer science grad and have recently studied AI and ML at Imperial College, so I have some understanding of the subject matter.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/01/13/uk-g ... y-details/

It's also in direct conflict with the government's commitments to fighting climate change.

[monkey]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

FWIW I am a computer science grad and have recently studied AI and ML at Imperial College, so I have some understanding of the subject matter.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/01/13/uk-g ... y-details/

I found the stuff about potholes weird.

Driving around with a camera and having a machine learning doodad detect holes in the road seems like something that ML would be good at without draining any reservoirs. But on the other hand, the public don't seem averse to doing that all by themselves for free.

[bjn]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

FWIW I am a computer science grad and have recently studied AI and ML at Imperial College, so I have some understanding of the subject matter.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/01/13/uk-g ... y-details/

I found the stuff about potholes weird.

Driving around with a camera and having a machine learning doodad detect holes in the road seems like something that ML would be good at without draining any reservoirs. But on the other hand, the public don't seem averse to doing that all by themselves for free.

Spotting potholes isn’t the hard bit, fixing them is. So it’s totally a red herring.

[bjn]

My current grump with them is the b.llsh.t AI strategy. Pissing billions up the wall on deploying a nascent technology whose utility we still arent fully sure of is going to have serious repercussions. Possibly most Post Office “computer says no” scandals in the making.

One of the best reasons for not having an industrial strategy in this country is that we are very bad at it. Like the recent attempt to encourage a mega battery factory on Teesside. Turns out there were good reasons that there isn't a mega battery factory on Teesside or anywhere else like that, which even tipping a billion odd quid in is insufficient to overcome. Though we weren't alone, the Swedes made the same mistake.

The best thing we could do is just sort out the bl..dy tax system, which has been wrecked by chancellor after chancellor - from both parties - trying to find ways to raise tax without offending people it doesn't want to offend, and making a bigger and bigger mess of it. Which has the effect of depressing economic activity. But lo, Rachel Reeves just carried on as before, raising tax in one of the more economically damaging ways that could be thought of.

There were many warnings that the present Labour administration would really need to be making progress on the Difficult Problems this country has, which would require making Difficult Decisions, or else begin to find itself rather unpopular after a while. For in the end, you get your rewards for making difficult decisions if it does indeed help to address difficult problems, even if you have to brazen out the right wing press shouting horribly at you, and turn down pleasant offers of freebies from rich people. But whilst raising a bit of tax, which was surely needed, albeit doing it in a very unhelpful way, they have tended to shy away from those Difficult Decisions. You would have thought that a bit of soak the rich, and crack down a bit on the money laundering and international tax avoidance, and a think very hard before accepting a freebies policy, would be a fairly easy decision for a Labour government. But it seems even they are just as, or nearly as, craven and greedy in these regards as all their predecessors for the last 45 years.

So even more disappointed than I expected I would be.

It does seem that there was little enthusiasm for voting Labour at the last election. It was the most extreme case of a large majority on a small vote that has ever been seen in a British election. And that should be a help in implementing difficult policies, because the people who don't like such things largely didn't vote for them anyway. Labour won, and won handsomely, because of a split on the right. If the right sorts themselves out - which is a big if - Labour would be stuffed. Which is why it is so important for them to achieve something, not just do what the conservatives were doing while avoiding a bit of their incompetence.

They get crucified by the press anyway, so they should have just done the difficult stuff, rather than attempt to navigate through the b.llsh.t.

And yes, increasing NI was such a profoundly stupid thing to do, a tax on employment isn’t going to help most people.

[monkey]

I just looked it up and Starmer did have full confidence in Tulip Siddiq a little while ago, according to a spokesman.

[Sciolus]

It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.

Ah, whatever happened to blockchain? Haven't heard about it for a while. It's almost as if it was a pointless technology with no real-world use, that was massively hyped up and swallowed by the gullible, even as anyone who wasn't an idiot could see right through it all. What does that remind me of?

[monkey]

It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.

Ah, whatever happened to blockchain? Haven't heard about it for a while. It's almost as if it was a pointless technology with no real-world use, that was massively hyped up and swallowed by the gullible, even as anyone who wasn't an idiot could see right through it all. What does that remind me of?

NFTs?

Edit: I just remembered that they were Blockchain based!

[bjn]

It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.

Ah, whatever happened to blockchain? Haven't heard about it for a while. It's almost as if it was a pointless technology with no real-world use, that was massively hyped up and swallowed by the gullible, even as anyone who wasn't an idiot could see right through it all. What does that remind me of?

Trump is talking about a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve". The crypto freaks industry made huge donations in the US election, they are aiming to get the US government to be the bag holder for Bitcoin. Utterly insane. Bitcoin flew up to over $100,000 as a result of the election. The scam that just wont die.

[Sciolus]

Trump is talking about a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve". The crypto freaks industry made huge donations in the US election, they are aiming to get the US government to be the bag holder for Bitcoin. Utterly insane. Bitcoin flew up to over $100,000 as a result of the election. The scam that just wont die.

Oh yeah. As someone put it, the main argument for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve seems to be that Bitcoin holders worry about an impending shortage of greater fools and need the US Government to act as the greatest fool of last resort.

[TopBadger]

{cough] Ponzi Scheme [/cough]

[IvanV]

{cough] Ponzi Scheme [/cough]

It's more like the South Sea Bubble than a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme involves a central organiser taking in money from new customers and paying out money to existing customers, which works only so long as the money comes in fast enough, typically requiring an acceleration in new customers. But crypto people buy and sell the tokens off each other, rather than requiring liquidity in a central organiser.

But shares in the South Sea Crypto Companies continue to have a value mainly because they are so useful to money launderers and for criminal transactions. If they managed to make it rather less useful for such purposes than actual money, then I think crypto would crash like NFTs.