The story behind it is nuts, too. Apparently Tim Berners-Lee (he who invented the Web) was at some kind of government reception and Gordon Brown asked him something like, ‘What could the government do to make better use of the web?’. Berners-Lee said, ‘Well, you could make all government data publicly available,’ expecting Brown to go, ‘Ha-ha, no,’ but he just went, ‘Yep, great idea’, and then did it.

This is partly because people, especially the people who make AI, conflate 'AI’s and 'LLM’s. The LLMs are basically dumb marketing gimmicks with, as far as I can tell, near-zero practical applications outside of getting people to talk about ‘AI’, however misleadingly. However, the actual AI tech has some potential applications. It’s a question of whether the trade-offs are worth it (and, as I said elsewhere, who will actually benefit, assuming it has any benefits).

The UK has an open data standard for government data (thanks to Gordon Brown!). I could be wrong, but I think they’ll use that (if not, they should!).

You’re right - boosting productivity in a way that lets the wealthy hoover up those gains is actually a glass half-full perspective! Also very possible it does nothing good at all (but also makes the rich richer).

Boosting productivity is a good idea. But we know that, since the 1970s, too much of the wealth that increased productivity brings has gone to the wealthiest. So, unless there’s a plan to change that, I have to assume this will just make the very rich even richer.

This guy is actually evil.

Yeah, we had a similar issue with plastic bags. Trouble is, when you ban one thing it creates a new demand, which isn’t always better.

You’re right we should produce less waste and we have been cutting plastic waste successfully, even under the Conservatives. Labour have already strengthened the existing single-use plastic bans brought in under the previous government. But while these things are coming into force, we still need to burn or bury some waste. Even if we ban all single use plastics, there will still be some waste that can’t be composted or recycled. So, what should we do with it?

Given that rubbish exists and has to be disposed of, incinerators are actually not a bad way to do it. The only alternative for many types of rubbish is landfill. So, really the question is: would you prefer a landfill near your home or an incinerator?

London Bridge now has cycle lanes, too, but they’re not properly connected at either end. Still, a bit of an improvement, makes it easy to admire the view as you cross!

Musical ability — perfect pitch, great rhythm. I’m an okay musician after years working at it, but I’d love to be better.

A completely normal procedure, not a ‘bizarre loophole’, even if it does happen, which it may not.

The British Conservatives also entirely legitimately delayed several elections during the last Parliament due to the pandemic. This is not sinister and sharing reporting on it as if it is reflects badly on you.

There’s no need to give £10 billion to people who don’t need it just because they say they weren’t told about something that they were in fact told about.

Even if the government had loads of money available — which they don’t — further enriching the wealthiest age cohort is not something they should do. As things stand, they would need to cut, tax or borrow to fund this. No one should be taken seriously unless they can say which of those things the government should do.

You’re not missing anything, they don’t have a leg to stand on.

This does say writers will be given an opt out, which is good, because it shows in principle that the government sees writers have valid concerns. But this doesn’t go far enough, in my view, because I cannot see how this will be enforced, however it functions.

For people implicitly or explicitly condoning abuse of MPs, it might be worth considering how much of this abuse is racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted before you do so. We know that ethnic minority and female MPs get more abuse and the idea that it’s somehow justified is false and wrong.

Feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I mean, it seems you were saying ‘Abuse isn’t abuse if it’s aimed at people who I think are abusive’ and that’s not true. You know that’s not true.

I think that, in fact, ‘They have it coming’ is not a great argument.

I mean, for one thing, it clearly isn’t working, by any definition. You seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong) that MPs deserve to get a lot of abuse. The fact is that they do. But I gather from the tone of your comment that you don’t believe it’s had the effect of correcting their behaviour. Abuse never does have this effect. That it’s not effective is itself a good reason not to do it.

They’re not super-friendly at PMQs but there are rules about what you’re allowed to say, which is not the case for emails.

I’ve found it varies, but I have had personal replies from MPs, including people who weren’t my own MP.

Possibly it will be bundled up with some other areas, like Greater Bristol or the West of England combined authority area.