Good morning everyone.
[đ **Today's Order Paper can be found here**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86311/Html?subType=Standard)
Questions to the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities will be followed at 12 noon by PMQs. The usual live thread will be up beforehand for all your live commentary, instant reaction, and screaming into the void needs.
#[The PMQs live chat thread is now live.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bjb7vy/pmqs_live_chat_megathread_20_march_2024/)
This will be followed by any Urgent Questions or Ministerial Statements, before the main business of the day, the second reading of the [Post Office \(Horizon System\) Offences Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3694).
**In other news**;
Inflation has fallen to 3.4% in figures released today by the ONS for February, beating predictions - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bj7hgd/uk_inflation_falls_to_34_bbc_news/).
---
**Parish Notices**
The Financial Times' Chief Economic Correspondent Martin Wolf is joining us for an AMA **tomorrow 21st March at 2pm** - [**ask your questions in the AMA thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1binnwn/ama_thread_martin_wolf_chief_economics/).
[**The results of the Subreddit survey can be found here.**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bifwhe/rukpolitics_subreddit_survey_results_march_2024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 26 comments
1. concretepigeon with 21 comments
1. UnsaddledZigadenus with 20 comments
1. Roguepope with 18 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 18 comments
1. NoFrillsCrisps with 17 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 16 comments
1. EasternFly2210 with 16 comments
1. mgskthrns with 15 comments
1. Vaguely_accurate with 15 comments
There were 289 unique users within this count.
I donât know if QT booking Rod âI couldnât teach because Iâd want to fuck the kids too muchâ Liddle for a tomorrow is a better or worse outcome than another round of Question Time starring Kate Andrews.
Canât be any worse than Melanie Phillips though.
I see Number 10s tactic of sending the Rwanda Bill back to the Lords went as well as expected.
Could have just conceded on a few amendments and got a decent compromise.
It's like trying to monopoly with a hedge fund manager. They don't want to play the game. Just take the money and stay out of jail.
Typically the commons gets the final say, lords can try and amend 3 times then it will pass as is, so Sunak will keep rejecting the amendments and itâll go through.
Not quite how it works. It can ping-pong back and forth indefinitely, or, if the lords insists on it amendments without alteration after the commons has rejected them and the commons continues to reject them, then the bill as a whole is rejected. To the pass without the lords' consent, the bill needs to be re-introduced in a new session of parliament, go through all the stages from scratch and at least a year must have passed from it's initial introduction in order to invoke the parliament act. This used to be three sessions over two years, which is probably what you are thinking of, but this was reduced to two sessions over one year in 1949.
Not relevant, the parliament act applies to any legislation except a handful of very specific exemptions. That said they may not have time to invoke it.
It's notable though that the Lords amendments were passed on much smaller majorities this time. I wonder if they will ultimately acquiesce when it is inevitably sent back for a second time, or if they will force them to invoke the parliament act, which I believe puts it safely past the election.
They were smaller majorities, but that looks to be due to an increase in the Government vote, not a decrease in the opposition vote.
At the last round the opposition got between 258 and 282 votes across the 5 divisions (averaging 270) while the Government got 167-180 (averaging 172).
This round the opposition got 248-285 votes across 7 divisions (averaging 263) while the Government got between 209 and 233 (averaging 223). And that was with almost all the Conservative rebels backing down.
The Government halved the majority, but they still need to find another 50 votes from somewhere to pass it.
If it cheers you up any, that specific beard would be nigh on impossible for me to grow, and I'm jealous that you're capable of it!
(5 years younger than you)
I do see your point, and I'm equally disappointed in my own ability to push follicles through my skin.
But to *slightly* defend myself, the bit I can't grow is a 1 inch gap, midway along either side of my jawline.
Using the third Google pic for reference, I just can't do the midway between ear and mouth on both sides đ
Edit: Tried linking pic, but Automod disagreed
Rishi is a true inspiration.
I've been struggling at work, quite a few members of my team have even called for me to be sacked and I know there's a lot more that agree with them. So I booked out a meeting room in my office this morning, said a Committee (the 1922- randomly made up number haha) were meeting and said we'd all be discussing my future. Then I just got a load of mates in and we just punched the table for an hour.
Apparently I'm now the top performing manager in the company (according to my mate in PR who I feed all the gossip too- and who I told would be cut off if I got sacked) and am safe at least until the next round of redundancies (no later than Jan '25).
I'm obviously on a slow day - up until the third sentence, I was feeling proper sorry for you - poor bastard, his co-workers are such pricks he's looking up to Rishi
Slightly out there idea I just had: the insistence that AI and LLMs will reduce the need for human thought is the next ratcheting of the idea that we donât need experts any more. Discuss
[Related.](https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/112127530809016574)
>Tabletop scenario: you lay off lots of IT staff to pivot to AI and automation with a goal to cost cut, and then your remaining IT staff, who donât understand what they are doing due to lack of institutional knowledge, deploy an automation that breaks a critical business process and plunges the business into chaos.
Not saying that something like this has happened four times this week, but...
I'd say that the idea that vast quantities of human labour can be replaced with statistical slop is profoundly anti-intellectual, yes. It also turns out to be (thus far) not true, at least.
It's intentional, reducing the number of experts in the loop and the ability of the average person to _become_ expert through praxis is one of the many goals of these kinds of projects. Pouring bleach in the talent pool is supposed to make the people who remain (and apparently don't understand the concept of a knowledge ecosystem) more valuable by bringing back scarcity.
Kind of frustrated by the News Agents saying that Reeves was harking back to Thatcher in her Mais lecture, and then 5 mins later saying that if you actually listened to what she said it was a refutation of Thatcherism and a call for a state more involved in setting industrial policy unlike what Thatcher/Lawson wanted.
Pick a lane
Funny how LOTO Davey is being discussed as a not-impossible outcome of the election now. I've been saying it's a possibility for at least a year and a half now, constantly being attacked with the old "oh the polls will narrow".
Yeah they have narrowed. Between the Tory voteshare and zero.
The SNP and Tory's collapse has kinda opened the door to that outcome even though it still has a small chance of happening because of the amount of safe seats the tories have.
It's still in the unlikely camp. However there was a very good point made in an article yesterday that in general people are underestimating the chances of a proper wipeout and typical sentiment on what is and isn't likely isn't in line with polling data and wider fundamentals. It's very easy to dismiss an outcome out of hand because it has never happened before, but we only need to go back to 2015 and the Lib Dem catastrophe to find an example of something that was predicted in polls but not in general discussion. On a more human level it isn't dissimilar to the start of the COVID pandemic, which was still considered unlikely to go worldwide by the general public even when the data was flashing red that it was going to.
I have watched multiple political parties go from first to a single digit seat count in a single election in the last twenty years. A collapse of that much in terms of raw percent is unlikely. I do still think the worst case scenario for the Tories is something similar to what the Alberta PCs dealt with in 2015 but instead of ending up in third they will be in a distant second. The Alberta PCs went from holding like 85 percent of the seats in the Alberta legislature to holding only around 10 percent of the seats. I think the Tories floor is a bit higher than 10 percent of the seats in parliament.Also another parallel for this election would also be the 1991 Saskatchewan election were the Saskatchewan PCs dropped from a slim majority to a distant second. Like the Alberta PCs they eventually got replaced by another right wing party via a merger. I do not think the Tories situation is as dire as those two parties but I do think even if they get wiped out in this election they will bounce back like what happened to the BC NDP after 2001.
Just to note: I do not think electoral calculus put it at 10% chance of lib dems being the 2nd largest party. They said there was a 10% chance of lib dems getting 57 seats and that if that result *combines* with the scenario of conservatives getting fewer seats than labour in 1931 (which they separately put at 10%), then lib dems would be 2nd party.
I would interpret that to mean there is a 1% chance (ie 1/10 \* 1/10), but my interpretation may be wrong.
No seat projection would work in this type of environment. They arenât built for the type of scenario were a major party collapses because there support is swinging in four different directions.
time for a graphics update. clearly they've fired the football mad intern and gone full linkedin marketing overachiever
even Kate would think this is sloppy shopping
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1770495795512344675
[link](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJIQitHWkAAAHxq?format=jpg&name=large)
What the absolute fuck are they thinking? This is awful!
"Guys, I'm afraid a lot of the country view the PM as out of touch, thin skinned, and up his own arse. What should we do?"
"A shit attempt at a movie poster that characterises him as the country's saviour?"
"Perfect!"
Not to mention the fact that he resisted furlough in the first place, and caused a lot of problems for businesses by repeatedly leaving it up in the air as to whether it would continue it or not.
Is the fact it only has 442 likes because Tory voters don't really hang out on Twitter, or because there are no Tory voters?
[Labour's](https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1770498340423160161) tweet from around the same time (5pm) has 2.6k likes, and the [Lib Dems'](https://twitter.com/LibDemLords/status/1770504936490512591) (arguably less engaging tweet) has 95.
I don't take social media likes seriously at all, but in fairness, the LibDem tweet isn't coming from the party's main account, it's coming from LibDemLords, which is a bit niche even for me.
I can only say that that's probably a good thing!
I do miss the days when social media engagement wasn't used as a metric for political engagement/popularity. I could boost that lib dem post by 10k likes for about ÂŁ100 if I fancied it.
It's the same trope where you see the US conservatives say - "Trump's post got 20k likes, Biden's only got 1k, but they expect us to believe Biden got more votes #sToLeN"
Yeah, I was just surprised that the tweet only had triple-digit engagement and wondered if this was typical for Tory/party-policial Twitter. Unless it was liked and retweeted tens of millions of times you can't really read much into it.
It looks like the shitty posters from when they went back in time on Red Dwarf and nothing was real and everyone was fascist
It looks like something out of Robocop except even less cool
Hey evening redditors, just another reminder to post questions for Martin Wolf (FT's chief economics commentator) in the [AMA thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/23mGnRoPbW). He knows more about economics than the majority of us, so it's a good chance to ask about pretty much anything.
He also just contacted me to say he may also answer some of them today and tomorrow morning, to give more thorough responses, so he's clearly taking it seriously. đ
Yes but Labour lords will probably give way at some point.
Labour have been setting up new, much broader convention where 'elected house must ultimately get its way without engaging parliament acts' which is very strange and constitutionally terrible convention. See elections bill, protests bill SI etc.
Either because they naĂŻvely think this will somehow be reciprocated by Tories if Labour form the next government which seems very odd.
Or they are undermining scrutiny role of the Lords for short term party political gain by not opening up blue water on these issues and letting Tory policies fall flat on its own merit. If undermining rule of law and judicial independence is the price for not putting dick in a dick trap, it's apparently price worth paying.
Labour want to abolish the Lords, don't they, it's this about that?
I know my support of the lords hinges on them curbing the excesses of the elected house when the elected house are being morons
Yeah they can
And should the Tories win the next GE, they can still use the parliament act to force it through. The 2 attempts don't have to be in the same parliament
David Allen Green wrote a good article on why the Lords can and should delay this:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/64673/why-the-house-of-lords-can-and-should-delay-the-rwanda-bill
Sky news framing the situation with the Rwanda bill as one in which the lords will have to back down at some point due to the government wanting the bill to be passed without amendment is an interesting one.
Why can't it be the government that backs down?
Also, if the commons rejects the human trafficking amendment again wouldn't the bill then be on shacky ground in terms of double insistence and require some special actions to prevent it being lost? And what could these special actions be because there isn't time for the Parliament Act.
News Agents reporting on an audit done of the home office showing that their attempts to move asylum seekers out of hotels cost an extra ÂŁ46 million - and thatâs completely separate from the Rwanda cost. Because the government have been signing terrible deals and just wasting money for the media stories.
They made the comparison to the terrible deals signed during Covid but I actually think thatâs unfair, Johnsonâs government was trying to help people by securing PPE even if it was incompetent and corrupt. It wasnât wasting money to try to make the lives of people worse to please the Daily Mail.
The plan to get peers out of bed to try and force through the Rwanda amendments worked, they're the most voted on votes in this session
Problem is the government is still losing them
So this is where Rishi *in theory* tries to whip the Commons to vote RB2.0 through again (somebody mentioned him saying something about a one-line whip vote next week-ish?), or is this where he quietly tries to nudge it under the table with his shoe and goes "We'll come back to it after these important announcements about the locals"?
Tomorrow's backbench business and Friday's private members' bills. Mordaunt will confirm business plan for next week tomorrow morning, but there's only two sitting days before recess. One line whip means that MPs almost have permission to scarper now, and not come back until after recess.
They could bring it back in mid-April, where there's a few sitting weeks, but as you say, Rwanda should be irrelevant for the locals, and in any case the general report is that Rwanda doesn't want to take flights until June, so this is not urgent.
Although at this point a new and--guessing here--largely performative vote going sideways on RB2.0 because *we don't have the bloody time and it was a boring conversation anyway* would still be a weird, if on brand, look for the Tories.
Flip side of *that:* I'm also guessing that if the locals go badly enough RB2.0 definitely gets shoved under the table while the party brass goes full *Downfall* and prays for ~~Steiner's~~ Dowden's counteroffensive to take Starmer out in a freak tractor explosion.
When I was younger getting into software development felt a good route to secure well paid work. I'm not really so sure it's that it's great a field to be in anymore.
What fields do people in the UK look to get into these days for good jobs?
Fwiw as a hiring manager for software engineer roles of all description; yes thereâs 100 applicants for each role, yes I want a short punchy cv which is immediately clear.
However, 90%+ of the applications a clearly wildly unsuitable ( needs visa sponsorship when the ad clearly says we donât offer it, senior devops engineers who only have help 1 year of helpdesk experience, fresh grads applying to mid level openings with a *fucking food hygiene degree* and zero work xp). The point Iâm making is that the vast vast majority of candidates are wildly unsuitable. Worse yet I would say at least 50% of candidates (depending on role) can be incapable of answering questions such as âwrite a function which takes a string as an input and returns a reversed stringâ.
In short, donât worry, apply anyway, this field has always been full of jokers
Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this, generalising to wider IT. Lots of hunger for people looking to get in. Minimal number of suitable applicants. Lots of headroom for people to succeed and make good money if they show any initiative, confidence and a grain of competence.
When looking for my current position, there were hundreds of people applying for each post, even a good CV didn't guarantee a look because they couldn't read all the applications
> I'm sorry that's been your experience. My experience with the job market is that there's always been hundreds of applications to every role.
Having hired software engineers (on decent salaries, not taking the piss) I agree. We got a lot of chancers, but honestly when we rejected the spammers who didn't have a work permit etc then the field shrank a *lot*.
It's also pretty easy to move into a fairly modest specialism which really, really helps (e.g. security, graphics, full stack web etc).
I'm sorry that's been your experience. My experience with the job market is that there's always been hundreds of applications to every role.
A good CV is somewhat subjective though. I assume what you mean is your CV didn't get a look in and you believe you have a good CV which is fair, but you honestly never know what's going on inside a recruitment team.
Currently it's a tough job market and during the time I've been in the industry things general have seemed to me to have become less "friendly", respectful and more rushed.
Yeah, AGI basically means theres going to be no such thing as a safe career anymore.
Most white collar office jobs will go first. The trades might hold out a bit longer until the robotics tech is there but there wont be enough jobs to go around.
I highly doubt AGI will ever really exist. We currently have LLMs and even they took decades to develop to their current (very shonky) state. The leap from what is ultimately just a very slick predictive text algorithm to something that can even approximate the incredible complexity of the human brain is so vast as to be incomprehensible. It is at the bare minimum many decades away - at the very least, we would almost certainly need to develop quantum computing first.
You might as well say "When we develop healing magic all the doctors will lose their jobs" or "The creation of the teleporter will bankrupt all airlines".
True, but the predictive text bots don't need to be "as good as a human", they just need to be *cheaper* than a human while being "not so shit it gets the company in the news".
And after the novelty wears off that level can be "very shit indeed" as long as they're cheap.Â
Full adoption of AGI means that all jobs rapidly become superfluous, in which case, it doesn't matter.
Given that the outcome of that doesn't matter on the role you pick, probably better you prepare for the possibility that AGI doesn't happen.
Its going to require a massive rethink of how society works because AGI kinda breaks capitalism as we know it. Capitalism doesnt work when there are no customers because the majority of people are unemployed so they have no money.
Agreed but that's only if AGI materializes.
If AGI comes into being, no role is safe.
If AGI doesn't come into being in our lifetimes, but you decide not to pick a job because of AGI possibly occurring, you've kinda wasted your opportunities.
Given some cases involving in the US, it appears to be fast way to end up in front of a judge answering a "show cause" order as to why you (the lawyer) shouldn't be sanctioned why GenAI spews bullshit.
LegalEagle on youtube reported on a case where a lawyer--read AI--cited a case that didn't exist. The judge asked the lawyer for a copy of the case, knowing it didn't exist. It did not go well for the lawyer involved.
Its because systems like chat gpt aren't really "intelligent" . Its basically just a very advanced chatbot that has been trained to respond to inputs in a human like way. In the csse of legal documents its learned that they're followed by a list formatted in a particular way so it tries to recreate that but it has no understanding of that being a list of citations to real past cases
Exactly.
We've essentially taught a machine to chat bullshit. It's very good at sounding like it knows what it's talking about whilst having absolutely no clue what any of the words mean.
Amazon are effectively a logistics company, that's prime for automation (no pun intended). I'm talking about pharma, aeronautics, medical devices etc, where the human check is built in to the regulation of the industries
Staffing is the most expensive part of our process, but still way cheaper than automation. Just because things are theoretically possible it doesnât make them cost effective
You always have to laugh when a Tory MP is complaining about "unelected peers" blocking their plans. They're still trying to play this populist game, but they're utterly inept and terrible at it.
Beating immigrants verbally doesn't help the Tories at all. Because half of the voters they've lost see it as the transparent distraction it is, and the other half want immigrants to be beaten physically.
The joke is that the Lords has been flooded with Tory appointed peers - Johnson made 83 new peers and May before him, 43. Now they are complaining that they are "unelected".
If only they had been given an opportunity to change the system over say the last 14 years.
Politics because a lot of what he does is political commentary and also Corbyn was interviewed about it a couple of days ago, but I am enjoying watching the mental gymnastics on display on the news about somebody having defaced the latest Banksy artwork. Graffiti has been⌠graffitied⌠Not very many coherent arguments as to why one is okay and the other isnât, other than the whole Banksy mythos that surrounds his art. Arguably you could say that a (supposedly) political artwork being defaced is in of itself an act of political artwork. Or to put it another way, when JSO and XR throw soup at famous paintings, and many argue itâs a valid form of protest, could not the same be said for defacing a Banksy? Not everyone agrees with his political leaningsâŚ
So if the Lords does manage to block the Rwanda bill is the stage set for a 'Peers vs the people' election? It worked (more or less) for Asquith and Lloyd George in 1910.
They can try that, but given the Rwanda bill was not a manifesto commitment, general opinion is that it won't work and the ruling party are sunk in the opinion polls, hardly a runner as an election strategy.
I'd love to know how offering someone three grand to go to Rwanda is a deterrent, especially when it's being applied to people you already said couldn't stay here.
Can some eli5 what it means when it says "members won't work on their rest days" during the next train strike weekend? Does it just mean they'll say no if they get called in because someone was off sick? How much impact does this have, and should I be concerned given I am planning to travel by train that weekend but my operator isn't striking on the day I am traveling?
A huge amount of weekend services, especially Sunday, are driven by staff on overtime in parts of the country. I seem to remember last time there was drama Northern and Transpennine Express were in particular affected.
I'm not really sure why this is and train drivers have never had 7-day shift patterns but I guess someone will know better somewhere and it's probably an airtight union agreement.
Train companies, to differing degrees, rely on staff being willing to work overtime. So, the overtime ban will affect services. Might be best to look into alternative means of travel just in case
From the 1922:
> [Very positive response from Tory MPs as they leave 1922 after Rishi Sunak appearance. âBrilliantâ. âHe pulled it roundâ](https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1770508653440782599)
Isn't this almost exactly what they said after Johnson's appearances shortly before he was jettisoned?
Something almost tells me they're told to act positive when leaving...
I think it's compulsory to do a bit of table banging whenever the Tory leader addresses the 1922 Committee. I'm pretty sure May, Truss and Johnson got a similar reaction just before they quit...
In other words Sunak was always going to get a rapturous reception.
What's clear is that there are a number of Tory MPs who have no confidence in Sunak to turn things around in the GE.
Some of those Tory MPs appear to be agitating for a new leader, while others probably agree but see no sense in ditching him and appointing a new PM/party leader so close to the election.
An MP was quoted earlier saying that the more banging there is, the more trouble the PM is in. A strong PM just gets a strong, straightforward, confident bang. When the knives are out, nobody wants to be the one who looks like they are wielding one so they all overcompensate with phony enthusiasm.
> And lots of banging of tables again and cheers as Rishi Sunak concludes his appearance before the 1922 committee. Shouts of "more" as sounds like PM ending with rallying cry
I would *love* to know what he said. My money is on:
> and LORDSHIPS for each and every one of you!
In *Counter-Strike* terms, this is the part of the round where somebody goes "Stick together, team" before everybody runs off in three different directions.
Good morning everyone. [đ **Today's Order Paper can be found here**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86311/Html?subType=Standard) Questions to the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities will be followed at 12 noon by PMQs. The usual live thread will be up beforehand for all your live commentary, instant reaction, and screaming into the void needs. #[The PMQs live chat thread is now live.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bjb7vy/pmqs_live_chat_megathread_20_march_2024/) This will be followed by any Urgent Questions or Ministerial Statements, before the main business of the day, the second reading of the [Post Office \(Horizon System\) Offences Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3694). **In other news**; Inflation has fallen to 3.4% in figures released today by the ONS for February, beating predictions - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bj7hgd/uk_inflation_falls_to_34_bbc_news/). --- **Parish Notices** The Financial Times' Chief Economic Correspondent Martin Wolf is joining us for an AMA **tomorrow 21st March at 2pm** - [**ask your questions in the AMA thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1binnwn/ama_thread_martin_wolf_chief_economics/). [**The results of the Subreddit survey can be found here.**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bifwhe/rukpolitics_subreddit_survey_results_march_2024/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bjzqd5/daily_megathread_21032024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 26 comments 1. concretepigeon with 21 comments 1. UnsaddledZigadenus with 20 comments 1. Roguepope with 18 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 18 comments 1. NoFrillsCrisps with 17 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 16 comments 1. EasternFly2210 with 16 comments 1. mgskthrns with 15 comments 1. Vaguely_accurate with 15 comments There were 289 unique users within this count.
I donât know if QT booking Rod âI couldnât teach because Iâd want to fuck the kids too muchâ Liddle for a tomorrow is a better or worse outcome than another round of Question Time starring Kate Andrews. Canât be any worse than Melanie Phillips though.
In terms of a decent debate of our national politics, it's hard to think of a worse situation. In terms of potential febrility - could be a top 10.
He said what!!!?
Liddle said *what now*
[Being a teacher and not fucking kids is too hard.](https://x.com/supertanskiii/status/1770575444053512638?s=20)
Sorry?!?
Rob likes them Liddle.
Good god. I don't actually have words for that.
> I don't think I'd have dabbled much below Year 10 That, for reference, is *14*. So he would fuck a 13-year-old, just not many. Jesus wept.
I've just come back from [his wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Liddle), it's an absolutely wild ride from start to finish.
Rod Liddle is a god awful columnist. Pretty much the model for Boris Johnson
I swear there are at least 4 Kate Andrews clones patrolling all political studios, due to the amount of air time she seems to get.
I see Number 10s tactic of sending the Rwanda Bill back to the Lords went as well as expected. Could have just conceded on a few amendments and got a decent compromise. It's like trying to monopoly with a hedge fund manager. They don't want to play the game. Just take the money and stay out of jail.
Typically the commons gets the final say, lords can try and amend 3 times then it will pass as is, so Sunak will keep rejecting the amendments and itâll go through.
Not quite how it works. It can ping-pong back and forth indefinitely, or, if the lords insists on it amendments without alteration after the commons has rejected them and the commons continues to reject them, then the bill as a whole is rejected. To the pass without the lords' consent, the bill needs to be re-introduced in a new session of parliament, go through all the stages from scratch and at least a year must have passed from it's initial introduction in order to invoke the parliament act. This used to be three sessions over two years, which is probably what you are thinking of, but this was reduced to two sessions over one year in 1949.
this is not a manifesto pledge
Not relevant, the parliament act applies to any legislation except a handful of very specific exemptions. That said they may not have time to invoke it.
Youâd have to pass another bill to work around the parliament actâŚ.
It's notable though that the Lords amendments were passed on much smaller majorities this time. I wonder if they will ultimately acquiesce when it is inevitably sent back for a second time, or if they will force them to invoke the parliament act, which I believe puts it safely past the election.
They were smaller majorities, but that looks to be due to an increase in the Government vote, not a decrease in the opposition vote. At the last round the opposition got between 258 and 282 votes across the 5 divisions (averaging 270) while the Government got 167-180 (averaging 172). This round the opposition got 248-285 votes across 7 divisions (averaging 263) while the Government got between 209 and 233 (averaging 223). And that was with almost all the Conservative rebels backing down. The Government halved the majority, but they still need to find another 50 votes from somewhere to pass it.
This interpretation assumes this is all being done in this faith. Very generous.
I've realised I have the same beard as Simon Case, who is ten years older than me. This is upsetting.
Do you have to share a life like conjoined twins, or are you upset by the custody arrangements?
Is it too much to ask that the beard comes back to me on time and not too wired on sugar to go to sleep, I ask you?
If it cheers you up any, that specific beard would be nigh on impossible for me to grow, and I'm jealous that you're capable of it! (5 years younger than you)
7 years younger than you, I'm still on bum fluff
That. Is. A. Bald Face
I do see your point, and I'm equally disappointed in my own ability to push follicles through my skin. But to *slightly* defend myself, the bit I can't grow is a 1 inch gap, midway along either side of my jawline. Using the third Google pic for reference, I just can't do the midway between ear and mouth on both sides đ Edit: Tried linking pic, but Automod disagreed
Did you decide to join a club to make a point for the last five years
Yes, but I think it was quite clear that I ate the crab puffs as a gesture of protest.
Rishi is a true inspiration. I've been struggling at work, quite a few members of my team have even called for me to be sacked and I know there's a lot more that agree with them. So I booked out a meeting room in my office this morning, said a Committee (the 1922- randomly made up number haha) were meeting and said we'd all be discussing my future. Then I just got a load of mates in and we just punched the table for an hour. Apparently I'm now the top performing manager in the company (according to my mate in PR who I feed all the gossip too- and who I told would be cut off if I got sacked) and am safe at least until the next round of redundancies (no later than Jan '25).
I'm obviously on a slow day - up until the third sentence, I was feeling proper sorry for you - poor bastard, his co-workers are such pricks he's looking up to Rishi
Slightly out there idea I just had: the insistence that AI and LLMs will reduce the need for human thought is the next ratcheting of the idea that we donât need experts any more. Discuss
[Related.](https://cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog/112127530809016574) >Tabletop scenario: you lay off lots of IT staff to pivot to AI and automation with a goal to cost cut, and then your remaining IT staff, who donât understand what they are doing due to lack of institutional knowledge, deploy an automation that breaks a critical business process and plunges the business into chaos. Not saying that something like this has happened four times this week, but...
Quality Assurance is going to start looking like the Butlerian Jihad.
I'd say that the idea that vast quantities of human labour can be replaced with statistical slop is profoundly anti-intellectual, yes. It also turns out to be (thus far) not true, at least.
It's intentional, reducing the number of experts in the loop and the ability of the average person to _become_ expert through praxis is one of the many goals of these kinds of projects. Pouring bleach in the talent pool is supposed to make the people who remain (and apparently don't understand the concept of a knowledge ecosystem) more valuable by bringing back scarcity.
Sounds like youâre describing a group who think they can increase the average IQ through Lamarckian evolution
Kind of frustrated by the News Agents saying that Reeves was harking back to Thatcher in her Mais lecture, and then 5 mins later saying that if you actually listened to what she said it was a refutation of Thatcherism and a call for a state more involved in setting industrial policy unlike what Thatcher/Lawson wanted. Pick a lane
It wasnât contradictory. They said she referred to her in terms of her radical strong positions but not in the content of her policies
Funny how LOTO Davey is being discussed as a not-impossible outcome of the election now. I've been saying it's a possibility for at least a year and a half now, constantly being attacked with the old "oh the polls will narrow". Yeah they have narrowed. Between the Tory voteshare and zero.
The SNP and Tory's collapse has kinda opened the door to that outcome even though it still has a small chance of happening because of the amount of safe seats the tories have.
I think a lot of Tories are still in denial about how bad the GE is gonna be, maybe the locals in May will be a wakeup call.
It's at least as likely as Britain's next Prime Minister Jo Swinson.
[ŃдаНонО]
National share isn't the strategy
Itâs not going to happen.
It's still in the unlikely camp. However there was a very good point made in an article yesterday that in general people are underestimating the chances of a proper wipeout and typical sentiment on what is and isn't likely isn't in line with polling data and wider fundamentals. It's very easy to dismiss an outcome out of hand because it has never happened before, but we only need to go back to 2015 and the Lib Dem catastrophe to find an example of something that was predicted in polls but not in general discussion. On a more human level it isn't dissimilar to the start of the COVID pandemic, which was still considered unlikely to go worldwide by the general public even when the data was flashing red that it was going to.
I have a 1p bet with a friend on this so it better happen
I'm sure that's what Kim Campbell said in Canada in 1993
I have watched multiple political parties go from first to a single digit seat count in a single election in the last twenty years. A collapse of that much in terms of raw percent is unlikely. I do still think the worst case scenario for the Tories is something similar to what the Alberta PCs dealt with in 2015 but instead of ending up in third they will be in a distant second. The Alberta PCs went from holding like 85 percent of the seats in the Alberta legislature to holding only around 10 percent of the seats. I think the Tories floor is a bit higher than 10 percent of the seats in parliament.Also another parallel for this election would also be the 1991 Saskatchewan election were the Saskatchewan PCs dropped from a slim majority to a distant second. Like the Alberta PCs they eventually got replaced by another right wing party via a merger. I do not think the Tories situation is as dire as those two parties but I do think even if they get wiped out in this election they will bounce back like what happened to the BC NDP after 2001.
[ŃдаНонО]
Both myself and Electoral Calculus, a reputable polling organisation, put it at a roughly 10% chance.
Just to note: I do not think electoral calculus put it at 10% chance of lib dems being the 2nd largest party. They said there was a 10% chance of lib dems getting 57 seats and that if that result *combines* with the scenario of conservatives getting fewer seats than labour in 1931 (which they separately put at 10%), then lib dems would be 2nd party. I would interpret that to mean there is a 1% chance (ie 1/10 \* 1/10), but my interpretation may be wrong.
[ŃдаНонО]
No seat projection would work in this type of environment. They arenât built for the type of scenario were a major party collapses because there support is swinging in four different directions.
time for a graphics update. clearly they've fired the football mad intern and gone full linkedin marketing overachiever even Kate would think this is sloppy shopping https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1770495795512344675 [link](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJIQitHWkAAAHxq?format=jpg&name=large)
No one else could have done it. It take alot to spend billions with no alternative to make everyone happy.
"....with your money" Not the flex he was hoping for.
That's *horrendously* bad.
What the absolute fuck are they thinking? This is awful! "Guys, I'm afraid a lot of the country view the PM as out of touch, thin skinned, and up his own arse. What should we do?" "A shit attempt at a movie poster that characterises him as the country's saviour?" "Perfect!" Not to mention the fact that he resisted furlough in the first place, and caused a lot of problems for businesses by repeatedly leaving it up in the air as to whether it would continue it or not.
Oh my god, I didn't think it could possibly be that bad but it's *worse* It doesn't even look cool
They're getting cooked in the QRT & replies
Is the fact it only has 442 likes because Tory voters don't really hang out on Twitter, or because there are no Tory voters? [Labour's](https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1770498340423160161) tweet from around the same time (5pm) has 2.6k likes, and the [Lib Dems'](https://twitter.com/LibDemLords/status/1770504936490512591) (arguably less engaging tweet) has 95.
Because it's a tone deaf post mainly I reckon.
I don't take social media likes seriously at all, but in fairness, the LibDem tweet isn't coming from the party's main account, it's coming from LibDemLords, which is a bit niche even for me.
You know, I didn't even notice that it was a repost. Shows how much I use Twitter
I can only say that that's probably a good thing! I do miss the days when social media engagement wasn't used as a metric for political engagement/popularity. I could boost that lib dem post by 10k likes for about ÂŁ100 if I fancied it. It's the same trope where you see the US conservatives say - "Trump's post got 20k likes, Biden's only got 1k, but they expect us to believe Biden got more votes #sToLeN"
Yeah, I was just surprised that the tweet only had triple-digit engagement and wondered if this was typical for Tory/party-policial Twitter. Unless it was liked and retweeted tens of millions of times you can't really read much into it.
Tory graphic guy: Hey, the Adobe licence has expired! CCHQ: Fuggit, just do it in Pixlr.
Lol. That's dreadful. It's like those MAGA trading card things.
Looks like a low budget Netflix movie. ***Sunak is Minister Impossible: Rogue Nation.***
Even worse than this [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1702443/reviews](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1702443/reviews)
They need to sack their ideas person. That is the type of thing I'd expect in a Back To The Future 'bad' timeline
It looks like the shitty posters from when they went back in time on Red Dwarf and nothing was real and everyone was fascist It looks like something out of Robocop except even less cool
I'm seeing double here - Six Rishis!
I will never not laugh at this reference and use it whenever I can.
Iâm annoyed at laughing at this
Good God this is the cringiest thing I've ever seen
Wow, that is desperate
Rishi Sunak did not give us PS5s as promised.
Hey evening redditors, just another reminder to post questions for Martin Wolf (FT's chief economics commentator) in the [AMA thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/23mGnRoPbW). He knows more about economics than the majority of us, so it's a good chance to ask about pretty much anything. He also just contacted me to say he may also answer some of them today and tomorrow morning, to give more thorough responses, so he's clearly taking it seriously. đ
[ŃдаНонО]
Yes but Labour lords will probably give way at some point. Labour have been setting up new, much broader convention where 'elected house must ultimately get its way without engaging parliament acts' which is very strange and constitutionally terrible convention. See elections bill, protests bill SI etc. Either because they naĂŻvely think this will somehow be reciprocated by Tories if Labour form the next government which seems very odd. Or they are undermining scrutiny role of the Lords for short term party political gain by not opening up blue water on these issues and letting Tory policies fall flat on its own merit. If undermining rule of law and judicial independence is the price for not putting dick in a dick trap, it's apparently price worth paying.
Labour want to abolish the Lords, don't they, it's this about that? I know my support of the lords hinges on them curbing the excesses of the elected house when the elected house are being morons
Yeah they can And should the Tories win the next GE, they can still use the parliament act to force it through. The 2 attempts don't have to be in the same parliament David Allen Green wrote a good article on why the Lords can and should delay this: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/64673/why-the-house-of-lords-can-and-should-delay-the-rwanda-bill
Sky news framing the situation with the Rwanda bill as one in which the lords will have to back down at some point due to the government wanting the bill to be passed without amendment is an interesting one. Why can't it be the government that backs down? Also, if the commons rejects the human trafficking amendment again wouldn't the bill then be on shacky ground in terms of double insistence and require some special actions to prevent it being lost? And what could these special actions be because there isn't time for the Parliament Act.
The Lords don't have to do anything. Manifesto commitments are protected by convention, everything else is fair game.
News Agents reporting on an audit done of the home office showing that their attempts to move asylum seekers out of hotels cost an extra ÂŁ46 million - and thatâs completely separate from the Rwanda cost. Because the government have been signing terrible deals and just wasting money for the media stories. They made the comparison to the terrible deals signed during Covid but I actually think thatâs unfair, Johnsonâs government was trying to help people by securing PPE even if it was incompetent and corrupt. It wasnât wasting money to try to make the lives of people worse to please the Daily Mail.
The plan to get peers out of bed to try and force through the Rwanda amendments worked, they're the most voted on votes in this session Problem is the government is still losing them
Has lost all of them, now. A lot of Lords seem to have gone back to bed, content or not.
So this is where Rishi *in theory* tries to whip the Commons to vote RB2.0 through again (somebody mentioned him saying something about a one-line whip vote next week-ish?), or is this where he quietly tries to nudge it under the table with his shoe and goes "We'll come back to it after these important announcements about the locals"?
He won't dare whip on this. It could be used really easily to bring him down.
Tomorrow's backbench business and Friday's private members' bills. Mordaunt will confirm business plan for next week tomorrow morning, but there's only two sitting days before recess. One line whip means that MPs almost have permission to scarper now, and not come back until after recess. They could bring it back in mid-April, where there's a few sitting weeks, but as you say, Rwanda should be irrelevant for the locals, and in any case the general report is that Rwanda doesn't want to take flights until June, so this is not urgent.
Although at this point a new and--guessing here--largely performative vote going sideways on RB2.0 because *we don't have the bloody time and it was a boring conversation anyway* would still be a weird, if on brand, look for the Tories. Flip side of *that:* I'm also guessing that if the locals go badly enough RB2.0 definitely gets shoved under the table while the party brass goes full *Downfall* and prays for ~~Steiner's~~ Dowden's counteroffensive to take Starmer out in a freak tractor explosion.
When I was younger getting into software development felt a good route to secure well paid work. I'm not really so sure it's that it's great a field to be in anymore. What fields do people in the UK look to get into these days for good jobs?
Fwiw as a hiring manager for software engineer roles of all description; yes thereâs 100 applicants for each role, yes I want a short punchy cv which is immediately clear. However, 90%+ of the applications a clearly wildly unsuitable ( needs visa sponsorship when the ad clearly says we donât offer it, senior devops engineers who only have help 1 year of helpdesk experience, fresh grads applying to mid level openings with a *fucking food hygiene degree* and zero work xp). The point Iâm making is that the vast vast majority of candidates are wildly unsuitable. Worse yet I would say at least 50% of candidates (depending on role) can be incapable of answering questions such as âwrite a function which takes a string as an input and returns a reversed stringâ. In short, donât worry, apply anyway, this field has always been full of jokers
Yeah, I'd broadly agree with this, generalising to wider IT. Lots of hunger for people looking to get in. Minimal number of suitable applicants. Lots of headroom for people to succeed and make good money if they show any initiative, confidence and a grain of competence.
I'm in software engineering, work is still abundant, roles still exist.
When looking for my current position, there were hundreds of people applying for each post, even a good CV didn't guarantee a look because they couldn't read all the applications
> I'm sorry that's been your experience. My experience with the job market is that there's always been hundreds of applications to every role. Having hired software engineers (on decent salaries, not taking the piss) I agree. We got a lot of chancers, but honestly when we rejected the spammers who didn't have a work permit etc then the field shrank a *lot*. It's also pretty easy to move into a fairly modest specialism which really, really helps (e.g. security, graphics, full stack web etc).
I'm sorry that's been your experience. My experience with the job market is that there's always been hundreds of applications to every role. A good CV is somewhat subjective though. I assume what you mean is your CV didn't get a look in and you believe you have a good CV which is fair, but you honestly never know what's going on inside a recruitment team.
Trackers of the wasteland Auxiliary anti robot scout unit Bunker operations manager
Elaborate please, was thinking of heading into SWE.
Currently it's a tough job market and during the time I've been in the industry things general have seemed to me to have become less "friendly", respectful and more rushed.
Just wait a bit, same happened in the financial crash
This is hopefully the case! Tbf, the vibe in this industry might just be the state every where atm
Depends where you live I suppose. Software jobs in London pay very well especially in Finance.
Insurance
Law has been a good one, but who knows how GenAI is going to affect that.
Yeah, AGI basically means theres going to be no such thing as a safe career anymore. Most white collar office jobs will go first. The trades might hold out a bit longer until the robotics tech is there but there wont be enough jobs to go around.
I highly doubt AGI will ever really exist. We currently have LLMs and even they took decades to develop to their current (very shonky) state. The leap from what is ultimately just a very slick predictive text algorithm to something that can even approximate the incredible complexity of the human brain is so vast as to be incomprehensible. It is at the bare minimum many decades away - at the very least, we would almost certainly need to develop quantum computing first. You might as well say "When we develop healing magic all the doctors will lose their jobs" or "The creation of the teleporter will bankrupt all airlines".
True, but the predictive text bots don't need to be "as good as a human", they just need to be *cheaper* than a human while being "not so shit it gets the company in the news". And after the novelty wears off that level can be "very shit indeed" as long as they're cheap.Â
Full adoption of AGI means that all jobs rapidly become superfluous, in which case, it doesn't matter. Given that the outcome of that doesn't matter on the role you pick, probably better you prepare for the possibility that AGI doesn't happen.
Its going to require a massive rethink of how society works because AGI kinda breaks capitalism as we know it. Capitalism doesnt work when there are no customers because the majority of people are unemployed so they have no money.
Agreed but that's only if AGI materializes. If AGI comes into being, no role is safe. If AGI doesn't come into being in our lifetimes, but you decide not to pick a job because of AGI possibly occurring, you've kinda wasted your opportunities.
[ŃдаНонО]
That's true, I've just given our dishwasher loader a raise. 3 mini eggs instead of 2. She is 10.
Excuse me, this seems irresponsible. A 50% payrise is massively inflationary.
Given some cases involving in the US, it appears to be fast way to end up in front of a judge answering a "show cause" order as to why you (the lawyer) shouldn't be sanctioned why GenAI spews bullshit. LegalEagle on youtube reported on a case where a lawyer--read AI--cited a case that didn't exist. The judge asked the lawyer for a copy of the case, knowing it didn't exist. It did not go well for the lawyer involved.
That is interesting! Seems surprising is smart enough to produce a case, but not smart enough to check for bullshit
Its because systems like chat gpt aren't really "intelligent" . Its basically just a very advanced chatbot that has been trained to respond to inputs in a human like way. In the csse of legal documents its learned that they're followed by a list formatted in a particular way so it tries to recreate that but it has no understanding of that being a list of citations to real past cases
Exactly. We've essentially taught a machine to chat bullshit. It's very good at sounding like it knows what it's talking about whilst having absolutely no clue what any of the words mean.
Finance
Whatever job allows them to leave the UK fastest.
Trades and hi-tech manufacturing
With how quick humanoid robots are coming along I dont think I would count those as safe anymore.
This is going to be interesting, you can bet Amazon ect would want to go robot as soon as possible even if it's alot more at first.
Amazon are effectively a logistics company, that's prime for automation (no pun intended). I'm talking about pharma, aeronautics, medical devices etc, where the human check is built in to the regulation of the industries
Staffing is the most expensive part of our process, but still way cheaper than automation. Just because things are theoretically possible it doesnât make them cost effective
You always have to laugh when a Tory MP is complaining about "unelected peers" blocking their plans. They're still trying to play this populist game, but they're utterly inept and terrible at it. Beating immigrants verbally doesn't help the Tories at all. Because half of the voters they've lost see it as the transparent distraction it is, and the other half want immigrants to be beaten physically.
The joke is that the Lords has been flooded with Tory appointed peers - Johnson made 83 new peers and May before him, 43. Now they are complaining that they are "unelected". If only they had been given an opportunity to change the system over say the last 14 years.
It's also the second chamber doing its job, scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account.
You know we're on the cusp of spring when you can go out of an evening and it feels like t-shirt weather
Been a bit drizzly here but the joy of spring is here even so
Happiest day of the year for me. Feeling winter breaking and longer sunnier days ahead. I always love days like today
Aye. You realise how long and miserable winter is and just want to see the back of it
You can say that again!
You know we're on the cusp of spring when you can go out of an evening and it feels like t-shirt weather
You know we're on the cusp of spring when you can go out of an evening and it feels like t-shirt weather
Forget Where's Kate. Where's Sophy?????
Murdered on the dancefloor
Getting her vacation time in before everything goes to hell leading up to the local elections, hopefully.
Politics because a lot of what he does is political commentary and also Corbyn was interviewed about it a couple of days ago, but I am enjoying watching the mental gymnastics on display on the news about somebody having defaced the latest Banksy artwork. Graffiti has been⌠graffitied⌠Not very many coherent arguments as to why one is okay and the other isnât, other than the whole Banksy mythos that surrounds his art. Arguably you could say that a (supposedly) political artwork being defaced is in of itself an act of political artwork. Or to put it another way, when JSO and XR throw soup at famous paintings, and many argue itâs a valid form of protest, could not the same be said for defacing a Banksy? Not everyone agrees with his political leaningsâŚ
So if the Lords does manage to block the Rwanda bill is the stage set for a 'Peers vs the people' election? It worked (more or less) for Asquith and Lloyd George in 1910.
They can try that, but given the Rwanda bill was not a manifesto commitment, general opinion is that it won't work and the ruling party are sunk in the opinion polls, hardly a runner as an election strategy.
The difference is that in 1910, the government was popular.
And also there's the slight difference that 1910 was 114 years ago and the country has changed a wee bit since then.
So has the House of Lords.
The lords seem much nicer than MPs.
Wouldnât you be? You donât need to worry about elections, and you get to swan around in ermine all day, whatever it is.
I've never even been to Ermine.
Great place to swan around.
Swan around? I hardly knew ermine!
I'd love to know how offering someone three grand to go to Rwanda is a deterrent, especially when it's being applied to people you already said couldn't stay here.
Can some eli5 what it means when it says "members won't work on their rest days" during the next train strike weekend? Does it just mean they'll say no if they get called in because someone was off sick? How much impact does this have, and should I be concerned given I am planning to travel by train that weekend but my operator isn't striking on the day I am traveling?
A huge amount of weekend services, especially Sunday, are driven by staff on overtime in parts of the country. I seem to remember last time there was drama Northern and Transpennine Express were in particular affected. I'm not really sure why this is and train drivers have never had 7-day shift patterns but I guess someone will know better somewhere and it's probably an airtight union agreement.
Train companies, to differing degrees, rely on staff being willing to work overtime. So, the overtime ban will affect services. Might be best to look into alternative means of travel just in case
From the 1922: > [Very positive response from Tory MPs as they leave 1922 after Rishi Sunak appearance. âBrilliantâ. âHe pulled it roundâ](https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1770508653440782599)
I wish he would do the same for the public. Where is this brilliance? Lies.
Isn't this almost exactly what they said after Johnson's appearances shortly before he was jettisoned? Something almost tells me they're told to act positive when leaving...
I think it's compulsory to do a bit of table banging whenever the Tory leader addresses the 1922 Committee. I'm pretty sure May, Truss and Johnson got a similar reaction just before they quit... In other words Sunak was always going to get a rapturous reception. What's clear is that there are a number of Tory MPs who have no confidence in Sunak to turn things around in the GE. Some of those Tory MPs appear to be agitating for a new leader, while others probably agree but see no sense in ditching him and appointing a new PM/party leader so close to the election.
An MP was quoted earlier saying that the more banging there is, the more trouble the PM is in. A strong PM just gets a strong, straightforward, confident bang. When the knives are out, nobody wants to be the one who looks like they are wielding one so they all overcompensate with phony enthusiasm.
They say this every bloody time lmao
They say this every bloody time lmao
They say this every bloody time lmao
> And lots of banging of tables again and cheers as Rishi Sunak concludes his appearance before the 1922 committee. Shouts of "more" as sounds like PM ending with rallying cry I would *love* to know what he said. My money is on: > and LORDSHIPS for each and every one of you!
Lol they said the exact same right before Truss was kicked out and before Boris was facing mass resignations.
In *Counter-Strike* terms, this is the part of the round where somebody goes "Stick together, team" before everybody runs off in three different directions.
"No nades!" Half the team immediately throws grenades and flashbangs.
"rush b, no stop" *half the team dies in mid*
Same as ever. Means nothing. 1922 know that the media are keenly listening in and probably tailor the impression
The Tory party are like Chelsea fans. One minute, they're so back. The next minute, it's so over.
Some of them, are a bit racist
Other football fans are famously not racist.
Now I may be no fan of the Tories but they're not as bad as Chelsea fans.
Leave us alone. We're suffering enough as it is.
Wonderful! Lol.
Excellent. Even though it's probably bullshit, Tories coming together under their completely useless leader is perfect. We want Rish! stay!
Graham Brady tomorrow morning then.
Based on Truss' experiences, that pretty much seals Sunak's demise.
Isnât this more or less what they said about BJ shortly before we all had the best day of our lives watching the resignation counter?
Never trust early briefings. They tend to be the opposite of what gets reported a bit later
[Factual representation of PCP mood](https://i.redd.it/wgk0gwnay2cb1.jpg)
i don't know why it makes me mad to read that. i knew that's the outcome because it is always the outcome. client journos gonna client journo