news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

when you watch the whole PMQ thing you realise it's all kind of stupid.

[steviewevie]

put AI in charge I reckon.

Just don't get Fujitsu to do it.

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

when you watch the whole PMQ thing you realise it's all kind of stupid.

It's always been pointless, just slagging off session.

Massive problem with politics, esp nearing elections, is parties trying to do anything to win while not trying to do their job.

[Crazyfool01]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

when you watch the whole PMQ thing you realise it's all kind of stupid.

its a pantomime a new speaker needs to get to grips with .... he even called Starmer the PM today , I think for the second time 

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

All the good stuff happen in things like select committees etc.  PMQ is just pantomime and no one watches out in the real world.  Everyone is at work 😛 

its shown on the tv news  more than any select committees though , the major highlight at least so will influence a bit 

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:

its a pantomime a new speaker needs to get to grips with .... he even called Starmer the PM today , I think for the second time 

the election campaign will likely be endless pantomime, each side digging up dirt on either side's leader..Sunak's wealth and Starmer freeing rapists/terrorists/peados....and then there will be all the fake sh*t everywhere. 

BUT...will be nothing like as bad as the US election. 

Can't wait for this year to be over.

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

the election campaign will likely be endless pantomime, each side digging up dirt on either side's leader..Sunak's wealth and Starmer freeing rapists/terrorists/peados....and then there will be all the fake sh*t everywhere. 

BUT...will be nothing like as bad as the US election. 

Can't wait for this year to be over.

quite a lot on Starmer doesn't seem to be impacting yet ( I just think people are bored with the same crap ) might get worse but they dont actually seem to be able to find anything significant on him  , plenty of time though 

[Skip997]

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the whole concept is.

Just employ top level experts in their various fields, e.g. environment, health, education etc and be done with it.

Edited January 10 by Skip997

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the whole concept is.

Just employ top level experts in their various fields, e.g. environment, health, education etc and be done with it.

yes, but who decides what experts? Experts have different opinions?

I think just get a computer program sort it out...surely an algorithm can work out the optimal way to do everything so everybody is as happy as possible? Come on Google.

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yes, but who decides what experts? Experts have different opinions?

I think just get a computer program sort it out...surely an algorithm can work out the optimal way to do everything so everybody is as happy as possible? Come on Google.

Anything to get rid of those squabbling idiots who are more interested in keeping their own position/wealth and pleasing the industry lobbyists than looking after the country.

[Skip997]

'Unprecedented' to overturn convictions - Lord Macdonald
 

Quote

 

Lord Ken Macdonald - director of public prosecutions from 2003-08, before Sir Keir Starmer took over - says it's "unprecedented" for the government to overturn the convictions of the victims of the Post Office scandal.

Speaking to Radio 4's World at One programme, Macdonald also points to there being a "serious rule of law implications".

He worries how the blanket overturning of convictions - done for the "best of reasons" in this case - will be used as a precedent for other cases in the future. "Once the dam is burst", it's unclear what process may be used in the future, he says.

The challenge for the government now is to "draft some legislation that separates out the Horizon cases, otherwise the innocent postmasters, from the non-Horizon cases," Macdonald tells the BBC.

 

Extremely worrying when a government starts overriding the judiciary. It may be "good news" in this case, but where will it lead.

[cellar]

21 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the whole concept is.

Just employ top level experts in their various fields, e.g. environment, health, education etc and be done with it.

I do like the idea of some parts of a technocratic government, but I guess the principles of it means it's quite dispassionate, so maybe does become quite ruthless in it's decision making. Plus all very scientific so would never please the religious types.

[Crazyfool01]

9 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

'Unprecedented' to overturn convictions - Lord Macdonald
 

Extremely worrying when a government starts overriding the judiciary. It may be "good news" in this case, but where will it lead.

yep this govt have been looking to undermine at any opportunity , this gives them that chance 

[lost]

7 minutes ago, cellar said:

I do like the idea of some parts of a technocratic government, but I guess the principles of it means it's quite dispassionate, so maybe does become quite ruthless in it's decision making. Plus all very scientific so would never please the religious types.

I think we are heading for one of the most technocratic governments this country has ever seen financially when you look at Rachel Reeves background (ex-colleague of mine 😁) I do think there will be pushback though, we've already seen murmarings around the green commitments being watered down to stay within OBR projections.

[steviewevie]

more like TECHNOTRONIC

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, lost said:

I think we are heading for one of the most technocratic governments this country has ever seen financially when you look at Rachel Reeves background (ex-colleague of mine 😁) I do think there will be pushback though, we've already seen murmarings around the green commitments being watered down to stay within OBR projections.

This isn’t true at all. 

[Skip997]

40 minutes ago, cellar said:

I do like the idea of some parts of a technocratic government, but I guess the principles of it means it's quite dispassionate, so maybe does become quite ruthless in it's decision making. Plus all very scientific so would never please the religious types.

To some extent that's what's we need, esp in the case of renewable technology and energy saving.

[stuie]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

more like TECHNOTRONIC

 

 

[Nobody Interesting]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

This isn’t true at all. 

At Labour's 2021 conference, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves announced her ambition to be the UK's first "green" chancellor.

To stress her bona fides, she pledged to invest £28bn a year, every year to 2030 to "green" the economy.

That then became £28 billion in years 3 to 5.

Then they said the £28 billion included £8 billion already committed to by the Tories so only £20 billion of new money.

So they have already watered it down twice - history shows that.

The future, who knows but perhaps you ought to accept that Labour have already backtracked to some extent and not just blindly extoll their virtues.

[fred quimby]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

At Labour's 2021 conference, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves announced her ambition to be the UK's first "green" chancellor.

To stress her bona fides, she pledged to invest £28bn a year, every year to 2030 to "green" the economy.

That then became £28 billion in years 3 to 5.

Then they said the £28 billion included £8 billion already committed to by the Tories so only £20 billion of new money.

So they have already watered it down twice - history shows that.

The future, who knows but perhaps you ought to accept that Labour have already backtracked to some extent and not just blindly extoll their virtues.

You have to remember Starmer could walk into parliament Square and gun down a school party and Ozanne will defend his actions 😃

Labour will be able to say once in power that the finances are worse than they thought so the money is not there. Probably correct as well. Hopefully they will be able to up the amount but we'll see

[lazyred]

6 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

You have to remember Starmer could walk into parliament Square and gun down a school party and Ozanne will defend his actions 😃

Labour will be able to say once in power that the finances are worse than they thought so the money is not there. Probably correct as well. Hopefully they will be able to up the amount but we'll see

Labour are already briefing this

 

[fred quimby]

2 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Labour are already briefing this

 

Aye. Heard some Tory on the radio using the 28 billion as evidence that Labour will raise taxes while they are cutting them. "That is the choice the electorate have" 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

At Labour's 2021 conference, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves announced her ambition to be the UK's first "green" chancellor.

To stress her bona fides, she pledged to invest £28bn a year, every year to 2030 to "green" the economy.

That then became £28 billion in years 3 to 5.

Then they said the £28 billion included £8 billion already committed to by the Tories so only £20 billion of new money.

So they have already watered it down twice - history shows that.

The future, who knows but perhaps you ought to accept that Labour have already backtracked to some extent and not just blindly extoll their virtues.

Just because the £28b isn’t being spent straight away doesn’t mean it’s being scaled back. Under Labours plan the U.K. will still solely use clean energy by 2030. That’s the goal of the policy amongst other things. Don’t get suckered in by the Tory supporters who don’t like that we are moving away from fossil fuels.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Labour are already briefing this

 

It doesn’t that Labour are briefing anything, just talk about fiscal rules after the budget. Labour will set their own budget and use their own fiscal rules. Come on now, this is basic politics. 

[Skip997]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 Under Labours plan the U.K. will still solely use clean energy by 2030.

That's only 6 years away.

I might start marinading my hat, it should be good to eat by then.

Full disclosure - I don't count nuclear as "clean"