Forum menu
I reckon it’s the coming war between the US and EU after Trump invades Greenland. The UK will try to be neutral but. Will get dragged into it when he tries to annex Canada.
So the United States against the rest of the world in WW3
Yes I can understand how it would make sense for the current government to be very busy, and secretly, behind the scenes as they prepare for that.
Rachel Reeves trip to China makes perfect sense now.
“Do you know where we are at the moment mate? We’re in 1938, its just that most people don’t realise it yet.”
So you're saying that a consultant shilling for work for the government is predicting that the government needs help?
Astonishing.
Think Reeves going to China was probably just to get away from all people in Whitehall who think she’s useless. If I were her I’d be ‘very depressed’ too. Must be a shock to realise you’re completely out of your depth.
You are not paying attention Daz. According to our inside source
Hence Rachael Reeves going to China this week, despite the protestations of the Daily Mail. What the press (and us) are told gets discussed at these visits is only apparently a small part of what actually gets discussed. Theres an awful lot going on behind the scenes at the moment.
But don't get fooled by Chinese whispers.
Oh dear God.
This is full on "magic beans" nonsense. It's like he watched the first 20 minutes of Wallace & Gromit over Christmas and thought "this is a great idea!"
Ah... "World Leading"... if you ignore all the countries actually leading the world on this. Half an attempt to get the big companies (from the real world leading countries) to consider the UK over other European countries for their base for European talent (don't mention Brexit), and half a desperate attempt for the UK state to do more with less in lean times (don’t mention Brexit).
An interesting comment here :
Susie Alegre, a barrister specialising in technology and human rights, cited the Post Office scandal “as a reminder of the dangers of putting too much faith in technology without the resources for effective accountability”.
Who needs Tech Bro Sunak when you can have Tech Bro Wannabe Starmer?!
Ah… “World Leading”… if you ignore all the countries actually leading the world on this.
We're back at the days of Cameron and Johnson posturing and bravado. World leading! World beating! World first!
Just do the ****ing basics in a vaguely competent manner! Not everything needs to be stuffed with AI. You can fill potholes, build a trainline, invest in the NHS without needing some vague undefined concept of AI.
Oh dear God.
This is full on “magic beans” nonsense. It’s like he watched the first 20 minutes of Wallace & Gromit over Christmas and thought “this is a great idea!”
While the opportunities available might be somewhat overblown (or maybe they're not, who knows), having a viable plan to ensure the country can make the most of the opportunities either way sounds like pretty sensible governance to me.
Just do the **** basics in a vaguely competent manner!
In my place of work a number of areas where AI could help us do the basics in a timely and competent manner have been identified, alas budget deficiencies have meant these have not been exploited so any change to this stasis would be good
Starmer's basically proposing replacing doctors and teachers with AI so he can deliver Reeves' budget cuts to keep the bond markets happy. I'm sure the unions will be absolutely fine with that.
"[AI] offers credible hope of a long-desired boost in public sector productivity. Nurses, social workers, teachers, police officers — for millions of frontline workers, AI can give the precious gift of time. This means they can refocus on the care and connection aspects of their job that so often get buried beneath the bureaucracy. That’s the wonderful irony of AI in the public sector. It provides an opportunity to make services feel more human."
https://www.ft.com/content/4d448059-5a3f-405c-9343-84cf7e5b90c0
I'm crazy-legs on this one. It sounds very magic beans. Just sprinkle some "AI" on everything and it'll be great.
I suspect by AI he means LLM's, but it's difficult to tell with no details, especially as he also talks about making the UK a great place to start an "AI business".
First what we need is laws to protect us from the possible abuse of AI, to make sure if the dreams of productivity gains are met then the proceeds are shared by society not not just used to build a golden city in the sky for the tech bro billionaires, to have our privacy, livelihoods, and political systems protected before our government hands over the keys of the country to Musk and his cronies.
ooh look theres a band wagon lets jump!
especially as he also talks about making the UK a great place to start an “AI business”
There are LOADS of AI startups at the moment. I'm job hunting, and seeing lots of roles being advertised. Any that are successful will likely be sold onto bigger operators, but it's an area that the government can help with, as regard regulations and data... how they ensure that truly benefits the UK... well... good luck to them! I have no idea. As regards replacing "Doctors & Teachers"... no, not really... but could have big staffing implications in health and education more widely.
We’re back at the days of Cameron and Johnson posturing and bravado. World leading! World beating! World first!
Agree. But when ministers are plain speaking, they get rubbished for being Eeyores. They can't win either way. Being honest about the UK's place in the world isn't something politicians are applauded for. We are still a deluded nation, and not playing to those delusions results in you being blamed for the truths that you point out... "talking Britain down".
We are ranked 3rd in the world at AI so we have a decent position, the fact we are now outside the overbearing EU regulatory framework is a major plus, frankly it is a necessity - energy costs are however going to be an issue. Seems sensible to me. Good to see we are giving the green light to gene editing too, again taking advantage of being outside the EU regulatory regime.
Everyone I know working with LLMs has moved to an EU state to further their career. That's not just about where companies must site to attract talent more broadly, but also about barriers between zones of data regulation.
That "third" place for the UK will be true if looking at either University based research, or "number of" start ups, but converting that to UK benefits... rather than success stories being consumed by the big players outside the UK... there is the big challenge.
We’re back at the days of Cameron and Johnson posturing and bravado. World leading! World beating! World first!
Except that in this case there’s actually some substance to it. The UK is only behind the US and China in the field, so it’s not just the vacuous, boosterish nonsense we’ve heard in the past.
Listening to Starmers speech and what people who know about such things were saying afterwards, surely this is exactly what the government should be doing, no?
Maybe we’ve all got so used to years of ‘let the market sort it out’ wilful paralysis and inactivity, we’re not used to having a government actually DO stuff?
So a couple of questions that I'd be asking...
Firstly, how exactly are we going to have AI mainlined into our veins? All of the publicly available AI is basically appalling. Like so bad that it is basically just an automated version of disinformation. What sectors other than the oft cited medical diagnostic areas are actually going to be improved by AI?
Secondly, what are the projected environmental impacts of AI? It uses huge amounts of energy, but the companies don't publicly release reliable information on this. It's also uses vast amounts of water. You can't do the net zero transition and keep exponentially increasing energy demand.
For me it is genuinely one of the most ridiculous sounding announcements that I've ever heard. It's Johnsonesque in both messaging style and minimal actual substance.
I wouldn't trust this government to run a bath let alone build an AI project that will seemingly be forced upon us.
Every single project the government do always ends in disaster with a massive overspend and no real benefit other than to those doing the billing.
.
Echoes of the MD of a now defunct retailer I worked for. Around 2012-14 he'd just say 'online' and 'e-shop' as though merely saying these mysterious magic words would turn the company around. Despite the fact that the successful retailers had already been doing it well for a minimum of 5-7 years and had had an online offer for 10 years.
And I totally agree that, at the very least, a legal framework should be created in step with developments.
Anyone for Harold Wilson's "white hot heat" of science and innovation?
Firstly, how exactly are we going to have AI mainlined into our veins? All of the publicly available AI is basically appalling. Like so bad that it is basically just an automated version of disinformation. What sectors other than the oft cited medical diagnostic areas are actually going to be improved by AI?
AI is just the latest whizbang sounding tech thing like self driving cars, flying taxis, carbon capture etc that keep cropping up.
They're ways for tech bro start ups to grab a shed load of grant funding quickly before the whole idea turns out to be a pile of total shite and there are easier, cheaper (if considerably less glamorous) ways to actually achieve meaningful results.
If anything, it's a way of maintaining the status quo (with all its current problems) while promising to solve them all "very soon" and if they could just have another £20m, that'd really help push the work along a bit.
Unfortunately, politicians are very keen on whizzbang stuff rather than boring "just works" stuff, especially if some random as-yet-undefined tech is going to save the world.
There are LOADS of AI startups at the moment.
From what I have seen very few are actually foundational though vs "build something using someone elses models". There was DeepMind which was groundbreaking but now firmly googlatised.
The reference to AI growth zones is odd especially the "easier to build data centres". Doesnt look like they quite understand how data centres work. Although I guess they could be hoping the Culham fusion energy project starts producing results fast since thats the important bit when it comes to the data centres. Not whether the users are anywhere close. As Tom-B says cooling can also be interesting.
It’s Johnsonesque in both messaging style and minimal actual substance.
Unsurprising since it is dusting one of his ideas which was already dusted off by Sunak.
From what I have seen very few are actually foundational though vs “build something using someone elses models”. There was DeepMind which was groundbreaking but now firmly googlatised.
That's my understanding as well. And you've given an example of exactly what I expect to happen to any startup that makes any fundamental breakthrough. We've got lots of things going on. That doesn't make us world leading as a country, or mean that we're in a position to capitalise on what happens here anyway.
As a teacher - at its current point in development, AI can get in the sea as far as impacting my workload goes. I would spend WAY more time checking and correcting its output than creating my own resources and doing my own marking currently takes.
This is a completely apolitical opinion...
AI is just the latest whizbang sounding tech thing like self driving cars, flying taxis, carbon capture etc that keep cropping up.
They’re ways for tech bro start ups to grab a shed load of grant funding quickly before the whole idea turns out to be a pile of total shite and there are easier, cheaper (if considerably less glamorous) ways to actually achieve meaningful results.
Yeah it'll probably just blow over. I'm waiting for folks to get tired of this recent internet world wide web nonsense.
On the other hand, in the interests of balance, anything that involves data will be affected. Starmer gave a few examples across health, energy, transport, communication.
Teaching? If you want to learn a language what's a good way to practice?
Health? Would you ignore an AI generated prioritised appointment if something in your data signature indicated you were high risk of a condition?
Business? Everything basically.
On the other hand nah, the government should just ignore it until it goes away
The government plan features a potentially controversial scheme to unlock public data to help fuel the growth of AI businesses. This includes anonymised NHS data, which will be available for “researchers and innovators” to train their AI models. The government says there would be “strong privacy-preserving safeguards” and the data would never be owned by private companies.
Urrm... you currently have to opt-out if you dont want your medical data shared with private companies...
"a machine that lies? buddy I will lie to you for f******g free and I won’t even dry up a lake to do it"
There are lots of potential benefits to AI and big data that could really benefit the whole of society, but if it isn't shaped by legislation for the benefit of all, then the tech billionaires will have a field day and the shitification of life will just accelerate for the rest of us.
For the past 10 years or so, I have been quite happy to tick the box on any medical forms to allow my data to be used for "research" because I really think that as technology advances analysis of that data could really help find links to prevent ill health and promote healthier happier lives (there was a quite interesting "infinite monkey cage episode on this).
Google tracking phones in a traffic jams to reroute others around traffic hot spots is great, google selling the immense amount of data to far right political operators to manipulate us and shape the world for their benefit not so great.
In the 70's and 80's tomorrows world predictions (apart from silver suits and hover cars) was about increased leisure time, less working, an easier life more productive, happier healthy. In the 30 odd years I have been working, I think the opposite has happened, yeah I have a car with modern features and bigger TV than my parents had, but I also have less job security, work longer hours, haven't been able to buy a house. As a generation we suffer from more isolation, binary solutions to complex issues because computer systems are designed to only allow two possible outcomes (it is clear to me that there is some deliberate design to discourage pursuing solutions to problems and errors as that is better for the corporations).
AI in teaching! I wouldn't just want legislation, but at least a decades track record of the legislation working and protecting society before I would let the tech bros anywhere near shaping young minds, they are already doing enough of that with SM without the government letting them lose in the classroom.
What we see with Musk and Zuckenberg, google etc will get worse and accelerate if governments don't fight back to shape the future, we are going to get steam rolled by these ****ers. We are seeing a clear track record now of how this technology is used in society, and it isn't to ensure little Sarah gets better grades, it is twisting and manipulating the world for the benefit of a very small number of people while the rest of us suffer. The legislation to ensure we all benefit is needed now, in a couple of years it will be too late IMO, if it isn't already.
If anyone thinks AI is going to be used to free up doctors and teachers time they're living in fantasy land. It means fewer doctors and fewer teachers. Instead of using govt money to pay people for skilled strategic jobs, it will go directly into the pockets of large tech firms and multinational IT consultancies who will build the systems. That GP appointment you can't get which Starmer promised you would by the end of this parliament will now be delivered by chatbot on the internet. Your kids will be doing more online learning in classrooms with lesser qualified teaching assistants who are only there to maintain behaviour.
I never would have thought a labour govt would come up with something like this as it's straight out of the small-state privatisation playbook. The unions must be sharpening their knives as we speak, and this is going to turn into another ill-thought out own goal for Starmer.
For the NHS a properly integrated easy to use record keeping system that the staff are trained to use would be a huge productivity boost.
They tried and failed badly at that. Personally I feel the NHS needs an open data format and API standard. That way you can have multiple providers in the market without being tied to just Fujitsu (its amazing how much new business they have got after promising not to go for new contracts by pushing the definition of renewals) and friends.
Given my experience of Github copilot to date honestly I would prefer to keep the junior dev for the grunt work. Then I also have someone who can be trained up for the complex weird stuff. I had to work on some weird azure functionality recently after the contractors responsible for it denied all knowledge. Tried copilot and watched it fail spectacularly since, to be fair, the online documentation sucked and there werent much in the way of stackoverflow etc.
The company training course on AI was great as well. Not only was it badly wrong about the origins of AI but was also "now we can sack all but the chosen few".
Urrm… you currently have to opt-out if you dont want your medical data shared with private companies…
Luckily good wholesome companies like Palantir are getting involved in the NHS. I mean who wouldnt trust a company named that and owned by one of Musks associates from the Paypal days.
I guess we could ask AI to solve the anonymisation issue since currently thats proving really, really hard if you want the data to remain useful.
I liked Starmers example of potholes as well. I dont think AI is really needed to find them at the moment vs funds to fix them. Oh and a crackdown on companies digging up roads badly and creating pothole magnets.
In the 70’s and 80’s tomorrows world predictions (apart from silver suits and hover cars) was about increased leisure time, less working, an easier life more productive, happier healthy. In the 30 odd years I have been working, I think the opposite has happened,
Yup, I remember that. The new growth industry, we were told, would be the leisure industry, because everyone would only be working 2 or 3 days a week, thanks to the liberating nature of new technology. Which was why it should be embraced so enthusiastically, we were also told.
What actually happened was that Thatcher came to power and kicked out the postwar social democratic consensus replacing it with neoliberalism which dictated that the needs of the markets came before the needs of the people. As a consequence increased productivity simply resulted in increased profits and increased inequality.
Excellent post that MSP.
I'd still come back to the energy use and environmental impact too. It's still a largely unknown area as the companies are very secretive about the figures. It safe to say that even at present, the associated energy uses and other environmental cost are absolutely huge.
Looking at all these AI promises from Starmer.
The reg has a good article on it. Apparently is pretty much all taken from a former Cameron protegee who is a former Mckinsey consultant who reinvented himself into a AI venture capitalist and "tech entrepreneur" .
So it really is a lift and shift of Camerons policies from a few years back.
It’s still a largely unknown area as the companies are very secretive about the figures.
In terms of energy its widely available. Whilst I am sure the companies would love to hide it they cant do so since we have the various suppliers and also planning reviews highlighting it.
The impact on the local grid cant exactly be hidden and has been the reason for several rejections at the planning stage in the UK. I go by googles new data centre in Waltham cross (think its google might be another) and the transformers being installed are rather hefty. There is then items about long term "green" energy contracts being purchased by google and co which due to the nature of them are public information.
The link I give above has links to several others.
the associated energy uses and other environmental cost are absolutely huge.
What's the environmental cost for generating an incorrect/wrong AI solution in terms of Toyota Landcruisers?
Dissonance
Lothian where i worked had a pretty good system. The only folk not integrated were gps and training was badly done. If the rest of the nhshad the same standard it would be a huge boost and gps shouldbe made to join it
An interesting article here :
Lots of valid points like these :
So when Keir Starmer said on Monday he has “full confidence” in his beleaguered chancellor Rachel Reeves, tongues started wagging on her future.
Questions over whether Ms Reeves will survive would have been unthinkable six months ago. But with the economy on the brink of a recession, interest rates set to rise and business confidence in the government at its worst point since the Covid pandemic, someone will have to take the blame.
But the one thing in Ms Reeves’s favour is that her strategy has been so closely tied to the prime minister’s, and they have been in lockstep. In addition, prime ministers who either sack their chancellors or have them resign do not tend to last long.
What left me gobsmacked though was the suggestion of likely replacements...... really?.... the situation is that dire?!?
Well worth a squiz
For the NHS a properly integrated easy to use record keeping system that the staff are trained to use would be a huge productivity boost.
Given that the bit of the NHS that most pats contact is the GP, I'll bet 50p that the GP network would be asked to host it. GP systems are already over-stuffed with consultations, records and letters from other bits of the health service, that make it difficult, long winded and frustrating to use and as more and more those 'other bits' are passing their responsibilities to GPs this would just make that easier still. While integrated records sounds like a 'wizz-bang' idea, I'm less convinced it's either needed, or worth the effort to create it. Plus, if your health record is all in one place, it both makes it more vulnerable, and be more valuable [to folks who want to monetize it]
What left me gobsmacked though was the suggestion of likely replacements…… really?…. the situation is that dire?!?
Been saying it for a while but Reeves is toast. The 'Rachel from accounts' jibe is particularly apt given her a-level economics approach to running an economy. Labour are lacking though in anyone with economic experience or ideas. Pat McFadden probably the obvious one but he's just another treasury hawk who will be no different to Reeves. What they need is someone who can make the case for taxing the rich and redistribution but fat chance of Starmer going for that. It'll probably be Streeting just so that Starmer can clip his wings once the gossip of him not making it to the next election accelerates.
How have the baby steps towards taxing the rich gone down so far? The truth is, the rich say “no, the other rich people” when you take away their tax advantages… and, more worryingly, they can take the poor and the middle earners with them and against the government.
We do need more tax raised from the rich, and more redistribution and investment in services, but increasing the speed of that change won’t turn the fortunes of the government around in the short to medium term, it could deepen their unpopularity and make a right wing small state government at the next election more likely.
Well what can we say?
We knew back in the Truss explosion when Liberals were celebrating her 'crashing' the economy this would turn out to be dumb take and would come back to bite Labour. Said as much back then.
There is no agreed definition of crashing the economy and currency bobbing up and down is simply not it - it's a floating currency mostly dependent on how strong the USA is at a given moment.
However, those of us that live in material reality will understand that crashing the economy could actually be better defined as years of decaying underfunded services and infrastructure. But it doesn't get put like that when the bond vigilantes are in town.
Truth is bond issuance is such an anachronism harking back to gold-stand thinking (lol Reform want to bring GS back and abolish Q/E - with not a clue what they're talking about) - Gilts are over-subscribed at a ratio of 2.75 currently. And more drastically we could get rid of them tomorrow and the only downside would be rich folks / institutions would have nowhere to to stash their cash securely. They help peg interest rates too but there are other mechanisms for that. Imagine as system that exists just to pay interest that can hold the economy to ransom? (You have more than 85,000 then Bonds are the only place that's truly secure.)
But it's all a bit too late. The ship has sailed - all Rach had to do early on was get some money poured in Capital investment and not worry about blackholes etc.
Good job there's a handy diversion of Trumpism antics currently otherwise many would have to put some criticism on Labour.
No idea what comes next - and it's not going to be AI to the rescue that won't actually fill the pot-holes in.
How have the baby steps towards taxing the rich gone down so far? The truth is, the rich say “no, the other rich people” when you take away their tax advantages… and, more worryingly, they can take the poor and the middle earners with them and against the government.
There's very little appetite for taxation like this unfortunately.
If Labour had actually spent the funds first (like we always on do) on great projects - then the economy and growth might have produced a situtation where people want to pay tax.
Instead the tax and spend model is dead from every concievable angle.
The extra funds are being spent, just to arrest decline in services, never mind improve them. Spending has been increased more, and before, taxes. I know you’re on the “just spend much, much more” ticket, but the likely effects of that, without also having plans to tax enough of it back, have been discussed.
Spending has been increased more, and before, taxes. I know you’re on the “just spend much, much more” ticket, but the likely effects of that, without also having plans to tax enough of it back, have been discussed.
The problem is that spending is now seen as a negative rather than a positive. Labour have fallen into the tories trap which frames all spending as causing future problems and/or wasting money. Even on here we see many supposedly 'left-of-centre' people (which is amusing) talking about how we can't spend our way out of problems or that it's indefficient or a waste of money. We need a new economic indicator alongside inflation and GDP which measures the flow of capital between the poor and the rich. Call it an inequality or redistribution index or something and set a net target for inequality to be reducing (ie money flowing downwards rather than upwards). Won't happen obviously but it would do more than anything else to reframe the economic debate in the eyes of voters.
Well Starmer has finally disarmed the Tories of their "Labour is the tax and spend party" stick to beat Labour with
Ministers in limbo over 'ruthless' spending cuts - as Labour dissent grows
When in 2010 the coalition government announced ruthless spending cuts they were not in the least bit hesitant to use the term "austerity", indeed that was exactly how they described their ruthless spending cuts policy.
But now 15 years later the government is terrified of using the term. Why? Well because firstly it is austerity that got us in this mess in the first place and secondly because voters are now staunchly opposed to austerity.
So now Starmer/ Downing Street announce what they themselves describe as "ruthless" spending cuts but are not honest enough to call it what it really is - austerity.
I found this comment by Starmer particularly interesting :
But Starmer added: “We never pretended, nor would anybody sensibly argue, that after 14 years of failure, you can turn around our economy and our public services before Christmas.
So after 14 years of Tory austerity and cuts Labour under Starmer believes that there is still room for more cuts in departments such as the Ministry of Justice.
I think that I might have re-evaluate my description of Centrists being "Tory-Lite"
So now support for Labour is not only at the same level that the Tories were under Liz Truss's disastrous premiership but Reform UK are only 1% behind.
The last three opinion polls have had Reform either in second place or tied with Labour. With only 54% of voters who voted Labour 6 months ago saying that would do so again if there was a election tomorrow it is probably time to stop relying on the warm reassurance that are general election is still four and a half years away.
I am not sure that 18 months before the general election will be the right time to start panicking, especially as the trend away from Labour is becoming more established without any evidence of it ceasing, let alone reversing.
Reform within touching distance of Labour as poll suggests 'new era' for British politics
What I did find particularly surprising from the YouGov poll though was that only 5% of July Labour voters said they would vote Reform in an election now. Even when you add the 4% that has gone to the Tories that is still less than the 11% who said they would vote either LibDem or Green.
Labour has retained 54% of their vote at the general election - 7% have gone to the Lib Dems, 6% to the Green Party, 5% to Reform UK, 4% to the Tories - while 23% of those polled did not say, did not know or would not vote.
So whilst there is a huge level of disappointment from Labour voters it is not being translated into a ringing endorsement of Reform.
Dissatisfied Labour voters seem mostly unsure who to vote for with very few being convinced by Reform, that at least is encouraging and it suggests that the solution isn't necessarily to move the party further to the right.
we can’t spend our way out of problems
The UK government is trying to spend its way out of our problems. Pretending that decisions to spend don't also need to be balanced with other considerations is what's continually resisted by people who haven't drunk the Koolaid. Spend much more... and don't bother with unpopular tax rises... well, that'll cost us all in other ways.
Dissatisfied Labour voters seem mostly unsure who to vote for with very few being convinced by Reform, that at least is encouraging and it suggests that the solution isn’t necessarily to move the party further to the right.
I'm more concerned than encouraged. Regional variation is all. Labour voters switching to LibDem and Greens in the right areas could win those parties seats (something I'd welcome). But in the wrong areas it could let Reform move up from second place to gain more seats. There are far more seats like the later than the former.
Spend much more… and don’t bother with unpopular tax rises
Or spend much more and bother with the popular tax rises. Corporation tax, wealth taxes on the very rich, windfall taxes on utilities and tech companies, taxes on second homes and asset capital gains etc... There are 10s of billions available if they had the courage to do it, and they'd benefit at the polls by being able to demonstrate that they are on the side of working people. At some point a political party is going to have to start making the case for more punitive taxes on the rich, because otherwise we face a fiscal doom loop. Better that the labour party in govt does it than trying to do it while in opposition.
There are 10s of billions available if they had the courage to do it, and they’d benefit at the polls by being able to demonstrate that they are on the side of working people. At some point a political party is going to have to start making the case for more punitive taxes on the rich, because otherwise we face a fiscal doom loop. Better that the labour party in govt does it than trying to do it while in opposition.
This. They've got a massive majority in Government, the Tories still can't land any sort of sensible blow so the time to do the unpopular stuff is now. Get it done and the positive outcomes will start to filter through before the next election. If you go into the next election with 6 months to go saying "we'll need to increase taxes" and you've achieved very little in the previous 4 years, then you're toast.
The more dithering and delay and procrastination, the more severe the impacts further down the line. This has been seen in transport and climate policy for decades, this idea that some magical tech will come along and fix everything so we don't need to do much now and won't someone think of The Economy?!
And where we've ended up at is like doing nothing to the house for 15 years then finding out that it needs a complete and very expensive refurb whereas if you'd done it properly with a long term investment plan of fixing up this room, painting that wall etc, you'd still have a sound house.
Tulip Siddiq has just resigned.
I can't say that comes as a surprise, the links were clear from Day 1 and the conflict of interest alone made her unsuitable for her role. If wrongdoing is proven, then even more so.
It also means Starmer won't have to keep defending at least one prominent Labour politician with a Muslim surname. Such things don't play well to the UK man in the street in 2025.
Honestly, half the problem seems to me to be how spending is messaged.
"Spending" == bad. "Investing" sounds much more positive.
"Tax and spend" just sounds like you got 20 quid off a mate and are planning on blowing the lot on a carry and a four pack of Beater, but "Tax and invest" makes it sound a lot more like you are actually GAF about the future of the country. You can also use "investment" as a stick to beat people that sound off about it. I mean, who would not want to see several billion more invested in improving services?
Of course, it also means that you have to follow through on it.
I’m more concerned than encouraged
Well yes so am I, the growth in support for Reform is hugely concerning, especially when they are just 1% behind Labour! The little silver lining in an otherwise huge dark cloud is that at least at this point in time, according to YouGov, Labour have only definitely hemorrhaged 5% of their support to Reform.
Which is something that genuinely surprises me. And when you consider that more support has hemorrhaged to the LibDems and the Greens it suggests that the situation isn't quite as disastrous as might first appear. It also suggests that offering radical alternative policies could possibly win much of this support back. Certainly those who have switched to the Greens and Reform.
Only 54% of people who voted Labour six months ago saying that they would vote Labour again if there was a general election tomorrow is staggeringly bad though.
It also means Starmer won’t have to keep defending at least one prominent Labour politician with a Muslim surname. Such things don’t play well to the UK man in the street in 2025.
You wait until they find out that the leader of the Conservative Party is black or that the Chairman of Reform UK is called Muhammad Ziauddin Yusuf
Ey up!
FacePalm.jpg.
Tulip Siddiq has resigned as the government’s anti-corruption minister after she was named in a number of corruption probes in Bangladesh involving her aunt, the country’s former prime minister.
We are doomed.
EDIT, sorry, I'm late to the party - I need to keep up... the news rolls faster on here than in 'the news'.
Only 54% of people who voted Labour six months ago saying that they would vote Labour again if there was a general election tomorrow is staggeringly bad though.
Which considering the numbers were staggering bad back then really aint great news.
Tulip Siddiq has resigned as the government’s anti-corruption minister
She really should have been suspended or sacked a while back. Private Eye was reporting several years back on it and the one job you cant have someone even vaguely connected with corruption is as anti-corruption minister.
Don't know how to best explain this? How about "the country is on a gradual slide into a mass working poor" wealth from working and middle class families is being hoovered up by the rich.
No current political party in the UK can change this, if Starmer went after a massive wealth tax the markets would close him like a Truss.
"Jobs knackered" as we say in the North East.
Yeah I think the problem with the UK is that collectivley 'we' still think we have gravitas on the global stage, and 'we' did as a major player at the captains table inside the EU.
'we' are going to learn some hard truths.
Rejoin is the best thing we could do for the economy. Never happen.
No 10 blocks beaver release plan as officials view it as ’Tory legacy’
Exclusive: Natural England furious that years of work has been undone, with minister urged to push policy through
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/no-10-blocks-beaver-release-plan-tory-legacy
Can anyone make sense of that ^^ Guardian "exclusive"?
The first paragraph reads :
Downing Street has blocked plans to release wild beavers in England because officials view it as a “Tory legacy”, the Guardian can reveal.
And the last paragraph reads :
A government spokesperson said: “This story is categorically untrue. The government is working with Natural England to review options on species reintroduction, including beavers.”
So what is the truth? I am no great fan of the Centrists who now control the Labour Party but I categorically refuse to believe that they would be so pathetic and petty as to block an excellent idea simply because Boris Johnson backed it!
The article also claims that Downing Street has blocked the introduction of a Natural History GCSE because that too is seen as a Tory idea.
If these claims are nonsense, as I feel sure they must be, why the **** is the Guardian publishing an "exclusive" and giving them credence?
And the introduction of beavers is actually an important and sensible way to try to counter some of the disastrous consequences of humans ****ing up the environment and climate:
Prof Richard Brazier, who has conducted much of the beaver research in England, said: “From our research over the last 10 years and the wider research around beaver reintroduction globally, the overwhelming consensus on the impacts of wild-living beavers is hugely positive. It is high time that we humans recognised that we need their help and did so by launching the coherent, national-scale strategy on beaver reintroduction that is desperately needed to recover nature and build resilient ecosystems across England and Wales.”
It' doesn't take long for the article to fall apart....
Typical tabloid reporting as always...
Downing Street officials, who were not in favour of the policy as they view it as a “Tory legacy”, sources said.
What's a downing street official? the guy who changes the blue cakes in the gents urinals? The lady who sweeps the pigeon crap off the outside steps?
Who are these mysterious 'sources'?
It's nothing more than an opinion piece, and a terrible, inflammatory one, at that.
Honestly, all UK news papers are nothing more than vox pops these days, apart from maybe the Private eye.
I don't care if its the Mail or the Graun. It's mostly all complete trash - if you read an article and in the first paragraph or two it becomes blindingly obvious it's trying to trick you through use of persuasive and ambiguous language, it's not news, it's just toilet water.
It’s nothing more than an opinion piece, and a terrible, inflammatory one, at that.
So the Guardian are now churning out inflammatory anti-Downing Street opinion pieces dressed up as factual "exclusives"?
Why do you think that might be? That's a serious question btw, I personally cannot think of one single reason why the Guardian would spread baseless lies which are likely to damage a Labour administration. But I am open to suggestions.
Edit :
Typical tabloid reporting as always…
Wtf, the Guardian has a long history of tabloid reporting?? I am no great fan of the Guardian but I have never heard of it being described as a typical tabloid.
Maybe 'tabloid' was my wrong choice of words....but I use the term to describe any 'news' entity that publishes deceitful and underhandely written articles.
None of them are that far away from red tops like the daily star writing about Gemma from Southend covering her baps in chip grease, don't get excited, she works at the Golden Cod on the high street, it's all above board.
I personally cannot think of one single reason why the Guardian would spread baseless lies
I can think of one.
1) They want to sell papers and subscriptions to make profit.
This one's stonker; from the front page on the Graun website:
In 2025, quality, factual journalism will be more important than ever. With mistruths and misinformation easily spread online – and by some of those in power – it’s vital that journalism stands up for the truth.
If you want to support a strong, independent media, please consider joining the readers helping fund the Guardian on a monthly basis today.
lol, I've seen more convincing 'news' on Gbeebies. FFS
Wtf, the Guardian has a long history of tabloid reporting?? I am no great fan of the Guardian but I have never heard of it being described as a typical tabloid.
In retrospect, I think 'tabloid' is actually correct, in the context I was using it:
tabloid
/ˈtablɔɪd/noun
noun: tabloid; plural noun: tabloids
a newspaper having pages half the size of those of the average broadsheet, typically popular in style and dominated by sensational stories.
"the tabloid press"
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize iirc
They are all as bad as each other, even the Indie are at it.. this ones a beut!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dementia-hard-soft-water-risks-b2678410.html
The headline reads: Landmark study links household water to degenerative diseases – is your area affected?
And if you start reading the article with no critical thinking, you'll get very worried.
If you make it to the end of the article though, you'll see quotes from actual experts on the matter saying that everthing above is essentially a sensationalist fabrication.
So you've just wasted 3 mins of your life reading a load of tosh.
As least they (the indie) have the decency to out themselves as sensationalist liars in the very same article though, so it's marginally better than the daily mail?
Got to admire the transparency :-/
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize iirc
It's a generalisation? would it please everyone if I just call them all trash rags, instead? I'm not particularly concerned with semantics that detract from the (very obvious) point.
Im just being a ridiculous pedant matty?
The print Guardian is berliner not tabloid papersize
Nope, it’s a tabloid in size.