See, now I'm fine with that. I pay for Netflix and I want what I pay for to stay ad-free. Having an ad-supported tier with no fee in addition to that means that there are options for other people without enshittifying my experience.

That's a world of difference to what Amazon have done where they've shoved ads into the service that I thought I was paying for, and then offered to charge me even more to get my original ad-free service back.

They said wrong answers only, wtf.

When ordering meat or fish; you should be aware that, while much effort has been taken to remove any bone, meat and fish products are nonetheless served alive. You will need to slaughter them yourself. They have been pasteurised at birth, so cooking them first is not recommended, but advised.

This is high art. Kudos on all the talent.

Something between trolling and a wish fulfillment fantasy from Farage here, but the fact that this sort of story isn't even absurd is a prety damning situation for the old Tories.

Most local parties have something in the region of 500 members, the vast majority of whom aren't active canvassers. Losing 48 door knockers would suck, but I'd bet good money that all 48 weren't door knockers.

Losing 48 passive members would be nothing; membership fluctuates by almost that margin for mundane reasons over the course of a few months anyway.

could have been interpreted as an alien abduction (or Satanic ritual abuse).

Why not both?

It always seemed weird to me that most companies just discontinued their traditional sugary variety and went diet only, instead of having a diet version and the sugary version just at a higher price.

The death of original Irn Bru is a bit of a tragedy, and I'm not even sure what the point of low sugar Lucozade is supposed to be.

That'd be a turn up for the books; usually it's the student who gets shafted by the Tories, not the other way around.

This feels like something you should go tell Google about rather than the rest of us. They're the ones who have embedded LLM-generated answers to random search queries.

I am completely satisfied with the idea that all doctors should be career doctors who have dedicated a large part of their life to the study and practice of medicine.

I am not entirely as satisfied with the idea that all politicians should be career politicians who have dedicated a large part of their life to the study and practice of politics.

Parliament would be a much richer and more effective place if it were populated by people from a range of backgrounds and specialisms. I don't think it's a good thing that a sizeable fraction of them all studied the same politics degree at the same two universities.

Old article, recently reposted on The Other Place, but a good long read.

I'm no fan of Wes Streeting, but the Canary is trash and is doing its usual of selectively quoting.

We will go further than New Labour ever did. I want the NHS to form partnerships with the private sector that goes beyond just hospitals. Here’s one example. High street opticians have the staff and equipment to provide basic tests. Meanwhile 220,000 patients have been waiting more than 18 weeks for eye care. Specsavers have welcomed Labour’s plan to use high street opticians to cut waiting lists, saying they stand ready to help.

Personally I'm not enormously bothered about high street opticians taking NHS appointments (within their competency). This is essentially the same model that GPs and dentists already follow (and always have done).

There's plenty to be guarded about, but let's not catastrophise based on half-quoted electioneering material.

Realistically, they could just move their servers abroad to a country with less problematic copyright rules and wind up their US operations. It would make no difference to the end user, unless ISPs are also ordered to block access. And even then it'd only be a VPN away.

The risk of total data loss is not zero, but it's also not the likely outcome.

Oh yeah, I'll just tell my wife that we're never having sex again because we've now got enough kids. I'm sure this will be a healthy and emotionally viable way of strengthening our relationship over the next 30 years or so until the menopause.

That'd be the same Green Party who oppose nuclear energy, whose local politicians oppose solar farms due to NIMBY issues, who opposed HS2...

They talk a good talk, and they've got the branding down, but their actual track record on genuine environmental policies is pretty blotchy.

As a trade union official myself, I'd just like to say that that is some seriously good shit. It's practically a wishlist of all the things I feel would make my job of representing people in distress easier.

I know Unite are critical, but other unions are less so. I'd suggest that Unite's criticisms are more about the strength of the pledges (i.e. how committed Labour are to implementing this stuff quickly) rather than the content of what's being promised. While they could always go further, this is nonetheless a really solid set of reforms.

If anyone is wondering, these aren't (really) new pledges, they're just a voter-friendly glossy repackaging of material that they've already published in greater detail elsewhere. So for anyone saying "this is all so vague, what does it all mean?", you can dive into the full detail at the links below.

The website for all their policies is here:
https://labour.org.uk/missions/

The high-level mini-manifesto is here:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lets-Get-Britains-Future-Back.pdf

There are specific policy packs on each of their areas too.

The economy:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Mission-Economy.pdf

Energy:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf

NHS and related:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Mission-Public-Services.pdf

Crime:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Mission-Safety.pdf

Education and related:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mission-breaking-down-barriers.pdf

I think everything in these new "pledges" was already in the policy documents above with the possible exception of the "Border Security Command" thing, which is compatible with what they already announced but with a different name and a slightly different spin. That was announced properly last week, and the press release for it with a bit more detail is here:
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-immigration-and-border-policy-stop-small-boats/

There are hardly any seats left which haven't selected a Labour candidate at this point. All of the safe seats were done ages ago. The handful that are left vacant are all the absolute no-hopers for Labour where nobody really cares who the candidate is because they're not going to win anyway.

Any defectors hoping to go that route have long since missed the boat. They'd have had to have jumped ship a year or two ago.

The Labour Party has already gone through the process of selecting a candidate for that seat. If she'd defected before that had happened she could have put herself forward for reselection (and there's a different process for that), but that ship has long sailed. The candidate is the candidate, and it's not her.

Well, if she does then Starmer can just kick her out again. He gets to have his cake and eat it that way; all of the embarrassment for Sunak of having an MP cross the floor, and the chance to performatively sack an MP that crosses a line.