Argh - just as well I don't work for an airport refuelling company. I meant 568 ...So he’s a 454ml American pint size, rather than a 568ml British pint size?Oh, is 454cm3-size better?Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.Mr. Pioneers, 'cancel warriors'?Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Only joking - your point is a fair one.
Oh, what was that £15 million? I must have missed it in all the other sharn being spread ...I don't think the Tories can have any complaints after the racist £15 million.Indeed. I seem to remember the Tories getting very nasty indeed and baiting Ms Rayner en masse about "a physical characteristic that [Ms Rayner] can’t control".Did he? I thought it was “now now dear”.He also referred to Dorries as being frustrated.I should add, in the interests of balance, that Cameron once made an oblique joke about John Bercow's height by referencing to the Seven Dwarfs as well.Just trying to imagine the opprobrium if someone from the Government front bench had made a similar comment about a Labour frontbencher.Agreed that it's not to be applauded.
I suspect we'd get all sorts of comments about the nasty Tories and discrimination.
Even if it was indeed a former government front bencher who coined the phrase in respect of Sunak.
As dislikeable as Bercow is that wasn't in order or Prime Ministerial either.
It was contemptuous and dismissive certainly but not - on the face of it - rude and crass. That’s the difference. Politics is a rough game and there’s room for mockery but it should be more subtle than Rayner’s attempt and certainly not based on a physical characteristic that Sunak can’t control
"Should be shot".
The 'someone else said it first' defence is really pathetic, unless you are explicitly quoting someone to criticise what they said. Rayner is atttacking Sunak here - I mean Dorries isn't even an MP any more. Or was Rayner trying to be supportive of Sunak against Dorries's insult? Pull the other one.Labour didn't say it. The Tories did. Worse, it came from Sunak's former close colleague.Rayner seemed to be quoting Dorries approvingly, I didn't have you or Rayner down as Dorries fans.Mr. Pioneers, 'cancel warriors'?Give over. "Obnoxious use of language" - if that is a thing you want to ban - is something to aim at Nadine Dorries.
You understand it's legitimate to criticise someone for obnoxious use of language, right? That there's a difference between doing that and demanding someone be thrown out of public life?
Who is calling for cancellation? Name these warriors at which you're 'giggling'. I'm perhaps a bit sleepy, so I may have missed those calling for Rayner to no longer be an MP.
It is an entirely legitimate political action to hoist politicians up with their words, deeds and actions. A Conservative ex Cabinet Minister and direct colleague of Sunak called him a "Pint-Sized Loser". Various posters on here seem very upset that she threw that back at the Tories - shouldn't be said, not legitimate as you put it.
You want to cancel such "obnoxious" language, yes?
Lets look at who thinks it was fine - the Speaker. He is very quick to call out unparliamentary language. Is scrupulous about the rules of what can and can't be said whilst staying in order. And he found it to be in order. Because it IS in order.
'pint-size' not acceptable, less of this from Labour please.
Was musing about Sunak with a friend the other day. When I met him in 2020 I saw a guy relaxed with the burden of keeping the economy going through Covid, with best-in-class media team and advisors.
What the hell went wrong?
Today's PO witness is the wonderfully named Angela van den Bogerd.Pronounced "Buggered"?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55181709
I don't understand. I thought the whole point was that L**n *was* AI, hence always banging on about it all the time. (I didn't name him, because it's like a fairy tale - if we do, he appears.)For some reason I've just thought of the travel writer who wrote a guidebook about something like the Canadian Rockies, and later on it turned out he hadn't actually visited them.It’s really not. Travel journalists will be some of the last to go (amongst writers); an AI trying to pretend it’s having a human experience would be exposed and the company would be in deep shit - and an AI cannot have a human experience. Those jobs are safe for now, the ones that require intrinsic humanity and a human presenceYes, it's just poor customer service.I think "chatbots" are just a way for multinational companies to avoid talking to their customers. After the 5th time a computer gives you a link to their (automated) complaints procedure, you just give up.Labour is going to preside over some serious unemploymentPeople hate talking to a computer.
“The head of Indian IT company Tata Consultancy Services has said artificial intelligence will result in “minimal” need for call centres in as soon as a year, with AI’s rapid advances set to upend a vast industry across Asia and beyond.”
FT ££
How many people work in call centres in the UK? I imagine it is not a trivia number
Few will mourn these repetitive jobs (tho the people who get made redundant might); AI will not stop there
Why do none of our politicians talk about this? This isn’t some distant prospect, this is happening shortly - “in as soon as a year”
A challenge for Reeves and Starmer
Often you want empathy and understanding and not a chatbot.
Everyone's situation is different.
AI won't destroy all these jobs, but when we have a national shortage of workers redeployment some of these to other work is a plus. Less need for immigration.
It's hack travel journalists that need to worry most.
Everyone else in a cognitive job where they don’t have to show a face and be there in the moment is in grave trouble. That’s most office jobs and a lot of artistic jobs
Carnyx, issue is the tax take appears to have dropped. I refuse to pay it and just stuck extra £10K a year into pension instead.Talking about that, the PB Scotchexperts predicting the flood of higher paid tax payers over the border ...? They got the flood right, bujt not the direction, at least for 2021-22. Willbe interesting to see what the data for 2022-23 bring.The fact is that the Scottish economy is the strongest outside of the SE of England and has been growing at roughly the same pace as the rest of the UK. It's public spending that is the issue.I'm struggling to think what the Scottish government actually stands for. Other than failing to deliver independence and declining the economy and social fabric of Scotland at a slightly slower rate than England.SNP power sharing agreement with the Greens is overThere was me thinking that the Greens were making a stand on a point of principle over Net Zero.
And that is important news not the childish name calling at PMQs
Turns out it is connected to trans shit.
You could argue that the SNP's damage, if it exists, will only be apparent in years to come, or that comparing to rUK isn't particularly positive, but ultimately the SG has very few levers over economic growth and the economy is far too integrated with rUK for those levers to make much of a difference.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24274834.thousands-moving-scotland-leaving-income-tax-raised/?ref=ebbn&nid=1457&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=240424
Guidebook writing will mostly be done by AIFor some reason I've just thought of the travel writer who wrote a guidebook about something like the Canadian Rockies, and later on it turned out he hadn't actually visited them.It’s really not. Travel journalists will be some of the last to go (amongst writers); an AI trying to pretend it’s having a human experience would be exposed and the company would be in deep shit - and an AI cannot have a human experience. Those jobs are safe for now, the ones that require intrinsic humanity and a human presenceYes, it's just poor customer service.I think "chatbots" are just a way for multinational companies to avoid talking to their customers. After the 5th time a computer gives you a link to their (automated) complaints procedure, you just give up.Labour is going to preside over some serious unemploymentPeople hate talking to a computer.
“The head of Indian IT company Tata Consultancy Services has said artificial intelligence will result in “minimal” need for call centres in as soon as a year, with AI’s rapid advances set to upend a vast industry across Asia and beyond.”
FT ££
How many people work in call centres in the UK? I imagine it is not a trivia number
Few will mourn these repetitive jobs (tho the people who get made redundant might); AI will not stop there
Why do none of our politicians talk about this? This isn’t some distant prospect, this is happening shortly - “in as soon as a year”
A challenge for Reeves and Starmer
Often you want empathy and understanding and not a chatbot.
Everyone's situation is different.
AI won't destroy all these jobs, but when we have a national shortage of workers redeployment some of these to other work is a plus. Less need for immigration.
It's hack travel journalists that need to worry most.
Everyone else in a cognitive job where they don’t have to show a face and be there in the moment is in grave trouble. That’s most office jobs and a lot of artistic jobs
Indeed. I seem to remember the Tories getting very nasty indeed and baiting Ms Rayner en masse about "a physical characteristic that [Ms Rayner] can’t control".Did he? I thought it was “now now dear”.He also referred to Dorries as being frustrated.I should add, in the interests of balance, that Cameron once made an oblique joke about John Bercow's height by referencing to the Seven Dwarfs as well.Just trying to imagine the opprobrium if someone from the Government front bench had made a similar comment about a Labour frontbencher.Agreed that it's not to be applauded.
I suspect we'd get all sorts of comments about the nasty Tories and discrimination.
Even if it was indeed a former government front bencher who coined the phrase in respect of Sunak.
As dislikeable as Bercow is that wasn't in order or Prime Ministerial either.
It was contemptuous and dismissive certainly but not - on the face of it - rude and crass. That’s the difference. Politics is a rough game and there’s room for mockery but it should be more subtle than Rayner’s attempt and certainly not based on a physical characteristic that Sunak can’t control