Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[The Ham]

And is that good for us?

Minimising people doing "low value work" by taking their jobs away and throwing them on the dole instead is scarcely a good idea. For one thing, it's less tax income and a bigger welfare bill.

We need to preserve the status quo in this respect, as livelihoods depend on it. I think many of us have seen quite enough change to last a lifetime in the past three years since Covid and Brexit, and wish to see the preservation of what remains of the "old normal".

To this end, Labour could do themselves a favour by standing on a "more regulation for automation and AI" platform. They'd probably gain more votes than they would lose that way.

It depends, if there's an excess of people for jobs then it's bad, however that's not the situation that we're in. Whilst our population has been growing it's mostly those over 65. That means that generally the percentage in employment is falling.

Note: that's because more are retired.

Therefore we either need to get more people to do those low paid jobs OR we automate those low paid jobs and employ people in better paid jobs.

Given we've reduced our ability to have people come here for low paid jobs that leaves the automation route.

Whilst there's a risk you put some people onto the dole, that's already been reduced because there's fewer people able to come here. However as more people would be in higher paid employment the overall risk of extra costs is reduced.

If you look at the numbers out of work (16-64) a significant number are students or those who have retired early - neither of whom you are likely to encourage to work. However, neither are they needing to be paid benefits (or if students are, there's a chance they'll improve their chances of reasonable pay because of their education).

 

[nw1]

We are in the middle of a crippling labour shortage!
Unemployment is near historic lows.

Almost everyone made redundant would rapidly find a new job elsewhere in the economy.

Now perhaps, with generative AI still something of a curiosity, but what if all these jobs with vacancies are replaced by AI in the next 5-10 years?

What worries me is the sheer numbers of jobs, of all skill levels, that could, in the future, be replaced by AI.

 

[HSTEd]

Now perhaps, with generative AI still something of a curiosity, but what if all these jobs with vacancies are replaced by AI in the next 5-10 years?

Social care alone is likely to consume a substantial fraction of the entire workforce by 2050. (EDIT: Or at least by 2100, ofcourse the projections all have huge error bars!)

We are facing an unprecedented collapse in the number of working age adults (EDIT: beyond about 2050 it will start falling in absolute terms), if we do not drive labour productivity sky high we will face disaster.

 

[yorksrob]

There will always be jobs where people need the "human touch". These will be less susceptible to automation. The problem is that these are the ones that are not generally well paid.

AI will force a re-think of economics generally.

 

[The Ham]

Now perhaps, with generative AI still something of a curiosity, but what if all these jobs with vacancies are replaced by AI in the next 5-10 years?

History would suggest that people will find other jobs - it's certainly been the case with Agriculture and Manufacturing which have very few people working in those sectors now compared to what was the case 100 years or even 50 years ago.

 

[nw1]

Social care alone is likely to consume a substantial fraction of the entire workforce by 2050. (EDIT: Or at least by 2100, ofcourse the projections all have huge error bars!)

On the other hand that's not the kind of job anyone can do well. You really have to have particular empathetic skills, and not everyone has those.

We are facing an unprecedented collapse in the number of working age adults (EDIT: beyond about 2050 it will start falling in absolute terms), if we do not drive labour productivity sky high we will face disaster.

I take your point though I also remain sceptical and suspect that many people will lose their jobs without having equivalents, suitable for their skills and personality, on offer (see above).

 

[najaB]

Minimising people doing "low value work" by taking their jobs away and throwing them on the dole instead is scarcely a good idea. For one thing, it's less tax income and a bigger welfare bill.

The former doesn't necessarily mean the latter. Resisting automation and keeping people working in menial jobs just for the sake of it is one of the worst scenarios I can imagine.

We need to preserve the status quo in this respect, as livelihoods depend on it. I think many of us have seen quite enough change to last a lifetime in the past three years since Covid and Brexit, and wish to see the preservation of what remains of the "old normal".

No, we need to define up what is classed as low-paid work. A few hundred years ago, low-paid meant collecting urine and faeces so that it could be used by low-paid tanners to make leather. Should we have kept using people to do this dirty, dangerous, manual work in order to preserve the status quo?

To this end, Labour could do themselves a favour by standing on a "more regulation for automation and AI, to preserve jobs" platform. They'd probably gain more votes than they would lose that way.

I'd rather that they promised to help people to reskill to use automation and AI to improve their jobs and/or earn more.

 

[jon0844]

The danger to the jobs market of generative AI, and potential mass unemployment on a scale not seen in recent times, is arguably a very serious concern and we should not just take the free-market "just let it happen" attitude, just because that's been the political norm of late. Of course, it should be all jobs which are preserved, including the lower-paid ones; not just the lawyers and architects!

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good uses of AI, to help humanity as a whole, and these uses should be promoted - but using AI to dispose of jobs is not a good one.

I agree also, but sadly you're going to see certain professions protected and others 'thrown under a bus'. A bus that may or may not be self-driving* (!).

* Actually, that's one thing I can't see happening - or any other level 5 autonomous driving - anytime soon, whatever the various industries claim to the contrary.

 

[nw1]

The former doesn't necessarily mean the latter. Resisting automation and keeping people working in menial jobs just for the sake of it is one of the worst scenarios I can imagine.
No, we need to define up what is classed as low-paid work. A few hundred years ago, low-paid meant collecting urine and faeces so that it could be used by low-paid tanners to make leather. Should we have kept using people to do this dirty, dangerous, manual work in order to preserve the status quo?
I'd rather that they promised to help people to reskill to use automation and AI to improve their jobs and/or earn more.

I take your general point. However, if automation and AI threatens even the highly-skilled jobs (I see architects and lawyers mentioned, for example - ironically, I can also see a threat to software developer roles, once AI becomes good enough to generate reliable and secure code) could it be that many jobs, of varying skill levels and, indeed, pay levels, are under threat?

I don't know, but I can see it is a big potential risk.

I see suggestions above of the growth of the care sector but this has a well-known reputation for being hard, and poorly-paid, work - harder, arguably, than many of the jobs currently being automated. Also as I said above you really need to have an empathetic character to do it well - for better or worse, not everyone does, and the last thing you want is an impatient and unempathetic person doing care work.

 

[bspahh]

for example - ironically, I can also see a threat to software developer roles, once AI becomes good enough to generate reliable and secure code) could it be that many jobs, of varying skill levels and, indeed, pay levels, are under threat?

In the 1990s, at the end of the cold war, defense spending had plummeted, and there was a surplus of software engineers who no longer had missile systems to work on.

I worked for a software company which had the bright idea of taking algorithms that had been developed in academia in a different field, get a few experts to write a specification for the code, and then get people with no domain knowledge to actually write the code.

It was a good plan. The problem was it didn't work. People who didn't understand what they were doing could write code that would do exactly what the specification told them to do, but was either slow because it spent loads of time doing things that would never be problem in use, or unreliable and or wrong because it made assumptions that were not valid.

AI is a useful tool in software development, but its not a replacement for it. It changes the role of the human. You might spend less time typing code, but more time testing it. You can develop software without testing it, and it might work for a bit, but not reliably or securely.

 

[yorksrob]

In the case of a good idea, I'd say 1875, that being a year after Benjamin Disraeli became Tory Prime Minister. That was a highpoint for the Conservatives imo and they've been going downhill ever since. Not sure they're capable of going any lower, but still they cling to power.

Well, the 1950's/60's governments can take some credit for the post war consensus.

But then again, they did foist Marples/Beeching on us as well !

 

[nlogax]

Back to the ongoing slow-motion car crash that is Nadine Dorries. The deputy editor of ConservativeHome is now making the case for her removal and has summarised how it could easily happen if the party agrees.

[..]
She has, however, stopped doing her job. Dorries last voted all the way back in April. Her role as MP for Mid Bedfordshire no longer even features in her Twitter (‘X’) byline, although her TV show and newspaper column do; the email given is for her agent, not her office.

This has, quite properly, caused outrage. If we take Dorries’ case at face value, she is leaving her constituents without representation for the most trivial, shabby, and self-interested of reasons. At least were she simply delaying the by-election to cause maximum political damage to the Government, there would be some trace of a higher motive.

What on earth is she doing clinging as an MP when even her own party members and supporters don't want her there? Does she really need the £86k salary when she's sold (literally) millions of copies of her trashy novels?

 

[jfollows]

At the very least, you'd have thought that she could have the Conservative whip removed, on the basis that she's bringing the party into even further disrepute etc. I know this wouldn't stop her salary, but at least it would clearly position Rishi Sunak against her.

 

[ainsworth74]

At the very least, you'd have thought that she could have the Conservative whip removed, on the basis that she's bringing the party into even further disrepute etc. I know this wouldn't stop her salary, but at least it would clearly position Rishi Sunak against her.

Yes I'm surprised Rishi hasn't faced more criticism in that regard. Whilst he can't expel her from Parliament (and nor should he be able to be clear!!!) he doesn't have to keep her in his party and therefore seemingly not taking issue with her behaviour. Why isn't he removing the whip until she starts doing her job again, attending Parliament and representing her constituents? It's not as if he needs her vote because the Government haven't exactly got a busy legislative agenda and still have a hefty majority anyway even if they did!

 

[najaB]

Why isn't he removing the whip until she starts doing her job again, attending Parliament and representing her constituents?

How many decisions of consequence can you recall him making? None come to mind for me.

 

[D6130]

I'm surprised that Dorries hasn't yet been the subject of a recall petition.

 

[Gloster]

I'm surprised that Dorries hasn't yet been the subject of a recall petition.

Unlike in some countries, the recall petition cannot be initiated by popular demand: perish the thought that the proles should be able disrupt the MPs’ gravy train. It can only be started in certain circumstances: a custodial or suspended sentences, fiddling expenses or, suspension by the House for 10 sitting or 14 calendar days following a Committee report.

There have been suggestions that they should change the rules in order to expel her. I am against that, because once you have done so you set a precedent that could be used to throw out MPs for much more dubious reasons, such as being awkward and upsetting the government by standing up for their constituents or the country.

 

[brad465]

I'm surprised that Dorries hasn't yet been the subject of a recall petition.

I'm not surprised, for all her faults she hasn't met the conditions for a recall petition. I do think though the terms for such a petition need changing to allow work shy MPs to be recalled, in combination with minimum expectations from an MP.

What I think is if Dorries were a Labour MP, the Daily Mail would I expect be calling her a scrounger and demanding her resignation day in and day out until actually resigning.

 

[SuspectUsual]

There have been suggestions that they should change the rules in order to expel her. I am against that, because once you have done so you set a precedent that could be used to throw out MPs for much more dubious reasons, such as being awkward and upsetting the government by standing up for their constituents or the country

I don't see how "not doing your job for months" is remotely dubious.

Perhaps when they wrote the rules for recall petitions they still had their heads stuck in the old, discredited honour system and thought "we don't need a rule like that because a good chap(ess) would never just not bother doing their job"

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm surprised that Dorries hasn't yet been the subject of a recall petition.

There is no mechanism to do so unless she receives a custodial sentence (including those suspended), a conviction for false or misleading expenses claims, or is suspended from the House for at least ten days. There is no other way to trigger a recall petition.

 

[D6130]

There is no mechanism to do so unless she receives a custodial sentence (including those suspended), a conviction for false or misleading expenses claims, or is suspended from the House for at least ten days. There is no other way to trigger a recall petition.

In that case, should she not be suspended for at least 10 - and preferably more - days for contempt of Parliament?

 

[nlogax]

What I think is if Dorries were a Labour MP, the Daily Mail would I expect be calling her a scrounger and demanding her resignation day in and day out until actually resigning.

Let's see if she remains a Mail columnist once her inevitable fall from parliamentary grace is done.

 

[JamesT]

In that case, should she not be suspended for at least 10 - and preferably more - days for contempt of Parliament?

I'm not sure there is anything in the current Code of Conduct which would cover failing to turn up. The FAQ https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords...arliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/ for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (who would be the person you would complain to in the first instance) includes:

How can I complain about the standard of service an MP has or has not provided?
The Commissioner cannot investigate a complaint about an MP’s handing of an issue or problem raised by a constituent, unless one of the eight rules of conduct may have been broken. The rules do not set out how an MP should run their office and MPs do not have an obligation to act on every matter constituents raise with them. The Commissioner has no authority to insist that an MP should respond to correspondence or follow a particular course of action on a constituent’s case.

Skimming through the Code https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/1083.pdf it mostly seems to be concerned with MPs _doing_ bad things, rather than the absence of effort.

 

[Busaholic]

I'm not sure there is anything in the current Code of Conduct which would cover failing to turn up. The FAQ https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords...arliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/ for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (who would be the person you would complain to in the first instance) includes:

Skimming through the Code https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/1083.pdf it mostly seems to be concerned with MPs _doing_ bad things, rather than the absence of effort.

The Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022 tightens the reasons, in England, for councillors, Assembly members and Mayors to get kicked out and the Local Government Organisation have been campaigning for similar provisions to be enacted for MPs and Lords. Don't forget it was (mainly) certain Tory MPs who obstructed previous attempts to allow much greater grounds for recall petitions for MPs.

 

[najaB]

Another day, more Tory sleaz.... sorry, inadvertent confusion:

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak failed to correctly declare his wife's financial interest in a childminding agency, the MPs watchdog has ruled.

Daniel Greenberg, parliamentary commissioner for standards, said this arose out of "confusion" about the rules and was "inadvertent".

In a letter to Mr Greenberg, Mr Sunak said he accepted the ruling and apologised.

The inquiry is now closed and the PM will not face further action.

Rishi Sunak inadvertently failed to declare childcare interest, rules MPs watchdog

Rishi Sunak apologises for "inadvertent errors" when providing information about financial interests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Gloster]

I accept that it was inadvertent, rather than a deliberate attempt to get round the rules. But someone in his position should make every effort to display the highest integrity and should check thoroughly, and that is even before the statement in his first speech as PM about governing with integrity. Unfortunately, some (well, many) of those at the top of the Conservative party seem to regard making the effort as just something not really worth bothering about: it is only a week or two since Villiers was criticised for similar behaviour.

 

[skyhigh]

This Government is continuing to dredge new lows. This is, allegedly, an email that was sent by Philip Davies to a constituent who asked him to support the junior doctor strikes:

Thank you for your email.
This politically motivated strike action which will only damage vulnerable patients who you are supposed to be looking after is utterly shameful, unjustifiable and frankly disgusts me.
If you had even an inch of shame you would get yourself into work and do your job for which you are well remunerated.
To have the nerve to email me to seek my support is breathtaking.
Feel free to forward me your tax return for the last financial year which I will happily share publicly to allow your patients to decide if your strike action is justified.
Best wishes
Philip
Philip Davies Member of Parliament for the Shipley Constituency

Ten years ago any MP of any party writing an email in those terms to a constituent would be unimaginable. But here we are.

Source - https://twitter.com/Xeon4f145d96s1/status/1695094599784485311

 

[yorksrob]

An average junior Doctor salary is around £32,000 according to my quick google search. According to an equally quick google search, the salary for an MP is £86,500

If Mr Davies has the nerve to be disgusted at someone on a salary much lower than his asking for support, perhaps he's in the wrong job.

Perhaps they're all in the wrong job.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2023 ==

This Government is continuing to dredge new lows. This is, allegedly, an email that was sent by Philip Davies to a constituent who asked him to support the junior doctor strikes:

Ten years ago any MP of any party writing an email in those terms to a constituent would be unimaginable. But here we are.

Source - https://twitter.com/Xeon4f145d96s1/status/1695094599784485311

How long will it go on !

By any sensible expression of democracy, there should have been en election after the Liz Truss debacle.

As far as I'm concerned, all sitting Tory MP's stringing out this Government, have no mandate, and are engaged in an act of corruption simply by keeping this mandateless government going.

 

[Gloster]

Philip Davies earned £46,203 in 2022 from GBNews (i.e. just one item of outside earnings being nearly one and a half times the salary of a junior doctor). Meanwhile his wife, who just happens to be an MP (Esther McVey) earned £58,650. I am sure that he (or they) would be more than happy to share his tax return with the public to show just how badly paid MPs are.

 

[yorksrob]

Philip Davies earned £46,203 in 2022 from GBNews (i.e. just one item of outside earnings being nearly one and a half times the salary of a junior doctor). Meanwhile his wife, who just happens to be an MP (Esther McVey) earned £58,650. I am sure that he (or they) would be more than happy to share his tax return with the public to show just how badly paid MPs are.

On top of the parliamentary salaries !

Can you do PAYE for that