Re: Starmer
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2024 7:30 am
Does he ever stop to compare his past predictions with reality?
Does he ever stop to compare his past predictions with reality?
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.lpm wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2024 10:56 pm 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.
Yes, there’s a write up here: https://theconversation.com/anatomy-of- ... ent-235452El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 8:19 amI 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.lpm wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2024 10:56 pm 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.
And would lay the groundwork for future PR parties.Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:59 am 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 partiesWoodchopper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:59 amYes, there’s a write up here: https://theconversation.com/anatomy-of- ... ent-235452El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2024 8:19 amI 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.lpm wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2024 10:56 pm 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.
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.
Are the Greens not already that party?Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:59 am IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.
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.sTeamTraen wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 4:37 pmAre the Greens not already that party?Woodchopper wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:59 am IMHO a separate radical left party would also benefit Labour under Starmer.
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.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:27 pm 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.
It's also in direct conflict with the government's commitments to fighting climate change.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:27 pm 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.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:27 pm 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/
Spotting potholes isn’t the hard bit, fixing them is. So it’s totally a red herring.monkey wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 3:30 pmI found the stuff about potholes weird.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:27 pm 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/
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.
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.IvanV wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 3:03 pmOne 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.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 2:27 pm 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.
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.
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?bjn's link wrote:It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.
NFTs?Sciolus wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:14 pmAh, 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?bjn's link wrote:It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.
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 wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 7:14 pmAh, 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?bjn's link wrote:It reminds us of digging through the same sort of hasty slop about blockchains.
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.bjn wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:06 pm 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.
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.