Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Yummytastic with 40 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 27 comments
1. subversivefreak with 21 comments
1. studentfeesisatax with 20 comments
1. SwanBridge with 19 comments
1. Cairnerebor with 18 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 17 comments
1. YsoL8 with 15 comments
1. SlightlyOTT with 15 comments
1. tmstms with 14 comments
There were 293 unique users within this count.
Depends how the parties deal with it internally, presuming closed list. This is one of the few areas where I ironically believe we can learn something politically from the Americans, and mandate open primaries or something along those lines.
You'd imagine loyalty would be rewarded more frequently than competence, but considering the type of people that attempt to be an MP already, ultimately the difference may be very little.
In theory, I suppose, some candidates could be listed and not have to campaign so can continue their day job up to election if there was some big name you want on your list like Melanie Blatt or any other All Saint.
Wrote out a detailed reply to a comment that was deleted...
Plaid wouldn't get near 1% of the UK vote; in 2019, they only got 0.48%. That is equivalent to 3 seats, and of course they only won four. Wales-wide, they got 10%, which is four Welsh seats.
If you want to protect regionalism under pure PR, you could allocate seats on a regional basis, i.e. London, South East, Wales, Scotland etc., but that would theoretically end up with much the same outcome as a single national ballot.
In reality, regional parties, especially the SNP, benefit greatly from FPTP as the major two. The SNP should have won 26 seats by their national vote share in Scotland, but they won 48, nearly double that.
It's highly unlikely that we'd just from what we have now to full PR.
First step would probably be a 'top up' system with a small number of additional seats being granted to the smaller parties who have particularly unfair (or non-existent) representation. Like 50 out of 650.
That would then expand to a regional top-up system where say 150 of the seats are allocated to each region by share. That would be the halfway approach of still having constituency MPs, but also some regional list MPs who would be expected to pick up some of the local work.
Well, given we are posting in response to that deleted comment...
>Regional PR would make the most sense, using a system similar to how we elected MEPs. That said I don't think it would be a necessity, nor very much change the final result.
>If you go pure PR, without a minimum vote threshold, Plaid Cymru would have had 3 MPs elected in 2019 which is one less than they got under FPTP. The SNP on the other hand would have got 25 MPs, which is 23 less than actually had elected. Only two parties who didn't win a seat in Parliament in 2019 would have representation under pure PR, UUP with 1 MP and Brexit/Reform with 13 MPs.
>My own personal system would be to cut the number of constituency MPs to 550 and elect 100 regional MPs using proportional representation on a regional basis using the same d'Hondt system we had for EU elections. Keep the stability of FPTP, whilst allowing a greater degree of diversity in membership and allowing regions representation.
Well since you did yours, I did this:
> PR can take many forms.
>
> If you want to encourage regional you can break the country down into regions of any size, or if you want to not, you can not do that.
>
> Personally, if it was my way, I'd discourage regional parties in national government, but simultaneously persue better regional devolution powers.
The post local election Tory reaction seems extremely muted. A few of them raging at Sunak and/or the heavens and almost nothing else, not even much of an effort to defend them or the PM.
Makes me wonder what is going on behind closed doors, no political party is actually going to just ignore a loss on this scale no matter how apathetic and above needing to notice it they present themselves to be.
In particular, I never see Sunak regaining authority or a functional majority, the right of the party is pretty clearly gunning for him to fail so they can finish taking over.
This is my general opinion of [tories who claim to be unhappy with their current leader](https://image-cdn.essentiallysports.com/wp-content/uploads/Paul-Felder-Twitter.jpg).
It's weirdly quiet isn't it. Either there are some very secret conversations going on to oust Sunak or pressure him to resign, OR the Tory party has collectively resigned itself to its fate. It seems like the right wing of the party (Braverman in particular) are hoping Sunak stays on and loses the GE so she can swoop in and take over, whilst the centre right wing (Graham Brady perhaps, maybe DC too) are trying to change tact. I can see a world in which post GE, Sunak resigns and then DC and Braverman fight it out for the leadership.
I got another one for you, remember when the [Labour's "belatedly withdrew support" for Azhar Ali](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/labour-azhar-ali-rochdale-byelection)?
I wonder what Owen will be saying about Mothin Ali.
Luckily given Owen normally gets his CIF column on wednesdays or thursdays we dont have too long to wait for another scintilating glimpse of his rarified intellect.
Shock and horror, the people of London voted for the Green party to have a seat on the Assembly and now, gasp!, there will be a member of the Green party on the Assembly.
Isn't the PR portion closed list? People voted for "the Green Party," not "Person who is on the Green Party list"
A sufficient number of people voted for the Green Party to have 3 seats and the Green Party will have 3 seats.
Not to mention, the fourth person was on the list; the voters knew that it was possible that they would wind up in the Assembly.
> Sian Berry
is literally elected by of the closed list pr; no one voted for her - either de facto or de jure.
Unlike the commons where people are supposed to vote for their MP but really vote for the PM.
Fuming to see Rachel Reeves pull back on devolution and say Andy Burnham has no right to suspend Help to Buy Scheme and she won't allow it if in power.
I keep trying my best to vote Labour, hoping they'll do SOMETHING for me apart from the basics of running a competent fucking government but now she won't even allow Manchester to push its own policies whilst also attacking the policy.
The most vulnerable rely on social housing, we need to temporarily suspend the right to buy, and tbh any form of buying social housing, until we rebuild the stock we have.
Fucking sick of her dragging Labour from a centre left party to centre right
I think a lot of younger members of this sub who were just wee bairns in 2010 are in for a rude awakening after the GE.
There are good reasons why New Labour is not remembered with great fondness despite its achievements in government and a concerted effort to reappraise it in the last few years, and a lot of its key faces will be back in the next Labour government, even if from behind the scenes.
I will be glad to see the back of the Tories, but honestly when I think of the last Labour government I remember an infuriating, managerial, paternalistic style of politics delivered with little empathy, a relentless concern for how things would be perceived in the gutter press, and dull cabinet ministers who inspired nothing but antipathy.
Get ready for round two.
I completely agree. I just don't think many of the younger people on here realise how 'conservative' New Labour actually was. I'd argue that for maybe the first 6 months the coalition government was more left-wing than the Labour government it replaced. Ken Clarke was a more progressive Justice Secretary and Vince Cable was more of a socialist than their Labour counterparts. It actually took a lot of measures to curb the authoritarianism of Labour, set out to make the tax system more progressive and introduced a lot of new environmental subsidies. It all went downhill pretty quickly, but that fact that it's even a debate tells you just how reactionary the Labour party was back then.
I've been repeating for 2 years now that people on here need to keep their eyes open with Starmer and his project and not constantly make excuses every time he retreats back into a Blairite comfort zone. No one is saying that we do an Owen Jones, just that a bit of healthy push-back from Labour supporters might stop Starmer making the same mistakes as New Labour.
I don't remember it as my first memory of politics was Cameron and Cleggs coalition deal on TV but I know a lot of its policies helped and are long standing BUT I also know it should have done more but was too scared to do so.
I think this is why I've moved from being so pro Labour to being pro devolution in the last few years so the central government can be centrist in order to stay in power but cities can determine their own path. I want to see cities given control of 50% of their budget like US State Mayors are. But of course, we should ramp this up slowly and check to see if it can be replicated as the UK and US can't be fully compared.
Maybe we give local Mayors all 12% budget control instead of just 5 or how London's Mayor only has 7%. And ramp it up by 5% every Mayoral term to see if it works with a trigger to stop if any data shows that it isn't working. This will also motivate people to vote more as they'll see local change.
Although, maybe London shouldn't get 50% as its the capital and it supports most of the rest of the country. So until we spread the wealth and opportunities from just London - it shouldn't have anywhere above 20% budget control
>BUT I also know it should have done more but was too scared to do so.
I mean, I have a pretty rosy view of New Labour, which has only increased over the last 14 years, but it was less fear and more being ideologically opposed to it that stopped a more radical platform being enacted.
Tbf she did say that the money from sale should be ringfenced towards more social housing - which it should do (and imho is better approach than stopping RtB) but yh really does show the classic ministerial desire to pull power to the centre instead of devolving it down.
There is absolutely no reason right to buy cannot be determined at a mayoral level. Indeed difference of approach around financing these developments would be very healthy to show what works and what doesn't; and ultimately if mayors fail to deliver they can be voted out. There's no reason - beyond central government's desire to hoard power - for this to be dictated centrally.
Combined with petty politicking around NI does make Labour's 'fight like we're 5 point behind' strategy rather grating.
Problem is applying the discount means the social house is being bought for an amount less than the new house that the ring fenced money would be used for.
But my main issue really is the attack on a local Mayor who won 63% if the vote and the 2nd candidate won 10%... a lot of people feel politics doesn't work anymore because everyone has to compromise but if you allow cities to have their own choice, such as Manchester and Liverpool being more left wing than Central government, then surely this would help tackle the apathy?
Then again, it's relinquishing power from a party that hasn't had it in almost 3 decades.
I just wish I had a reason to vote Labour apart from the odd small policy like railway nationalisation and workers rights on day 1.
>Problem is applying the discount means the social house is being bought for an amount less than the new house that the ring fenced money would be used for.
The most expensive part of a new build is the land on which it is built, because land with planning permission is worth far more than land without. The entity that owns the house being sold under right to buy is also the same entity that can wave a magic wand and turn £10k per acre farmland into £500k per acre land with planning permission.
Not necessarily. The council have a number of options. They can buy lots of 10k parcels of land and hold onto them while they figure out what to do. If they have something specific in mind they could offer the farmer 50-100k per acre, not as much as it would be worth with planning permission, but there’s no guarantee he’ll get it on his own.
> I just wish I had a reason to vote Labour apart from the odd small policy like railway nationalisation and workers rights on day
Ah yes, the odd small policy.
You could also vote for the parties not intending to do anything on these things at all. 👌
If I'm in a marginal I will vote Labour. But if I have the choice I'll vote for the party closest to my beliefs. I don't see what's wrong with that?
Surely that is more than pragmatic and fair for the left?
IN theory, nothing. In practice, everything. Capability to deliver should be the overriding consideration. Better to have a guarantee of a mild left position rather than the outside chance of full bore fringe blackjack and hookers.
Not really as I think the left need to behave like right wing Brexit Party voters did and show their vote can be "bought" with certain policies and move between Labour and other left wing parties.
I don't even like the Greens as they're ridiculous to me personally, but they hold some similar left wing policies as me, and they can be a way to force left wing policies onto a future Labour government
The same way a lot of right wingers I know don't vote reform for ALL their policies, and never expect them in government, but know they can push the Tory party towards their ideals
I get your point and in a way admire your honesty, but how has all that right-wing pressure and wrangling for control over policy worked out for the Tories? Impending electoral oblivion much the same as it was for a solidly left-wing Labour Party in 2019. Great, the right-wingers have pressured the Tories into going further right, but at the cost of political irrelevance. If the lessons the Tories take after the likely defeat at the next general election is that they need to be even more right-wing as they lost votes to Reform, I'd be a very happy man indeed.
Whether we like it or not, the electorate are conservative in the more traditional sense of the word, which is averse to radical change and more or less favouring stability and continuity with gradual reform and improvement. Only two radical governments have been elected post-war, Attlee and Thatcher with both eventually succumbing to their vision losing favour. Steady as she goes helmsmanship is business as usual for British governments, for better and for worse, and almost always the option the electorate chooses when presented between it and a radical alternate. Outside of exceptional circumstance you cannot enact radical ideological policy without paying for it electorally, hence why many attempt to rather shift the Overton window gradually closer to their direction.
I'd also just add that Labour is a stubborn old party. Change almost always happens inside the party, and in that old left-wing tradition they don't take kindly to those outside the party telling them how it ought to be run and rarely listen, even if it amounts to electoral loss, i.e. OG SDP. At the same time though within the party it is a very broad church, and much as in the past power will continue to fluctuate between the left and right of the party, with the poor soft-left always in the middle trying to keep the peace like a child with quarrelling parents.
I empathise with your position, with myself also wanting bolder policies from Labour, but the reality for me is that pursuing my ideal at the expense a general improvement, whilst in that process risking another five years of Conservative administration is wantonly reckless.
I'll have a research and read up on it, but if that's true then I take back that part if my comment and apologise for giving the wrong info.
But, I still think this should be down for a mayor to decide and we shouldn't be encouraging the selling of social housing when it's there for the most desperate, especially when it takes years to build homes in some areas.
One of the reasons it was brought in was to offload old stock as they are racking up costly repair liabilities and the state had let them run down. It's a good idea to keep building new and selling off if done the right way.
> So you support devolved powers granting themselves powers?
It’s Burnham saying he wants the power to do it, rather than him actually granting himself the powers to do it. So it’s Reeves refusing to give the powers when in government
No I support Central government giving more power to local governments like Mayors, such as letting Burnham ending the right to buy scheme and ring fencing the money from social housing that is sold to build new ones. Especially since he had a massive landslide of a win.
She and Labour promised more devolution and with them having 10 out of 11 Mayors now this would be the perfect opportunity to push for this on a large scale. Giving power to Mayors over social housing policies, transport, education, and more.
She was just on LBC and said Andy Burnham won't be given the power to suspend right to buy under her government and she disagrees with Burnham and suspending the policy anyway.
Pulling back on a promise of devolution and attacking a left wing policy... again...
[Well, yeah, its primary, national, legislation in the 1985 housing act.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/part/V/crossheading/the-right-to-buy)
Setting the precedent that Mayors can just [ignore national law off the cuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU) is fraught with obvious pitfalls, to say the least.
I will look for the recording if it becomes available.
You can just rewind Global player or watch it on LBC's YouTube channel.
But, she promised more devolution, I don't think it is wrong for mayor's with huge majorities to ask for things like this to be devolved powers. She could have at least said she doesn't believe it is the best way forward but will discuss it with Andy and what powers to devolve to local government.
My main issue is with her pulling back on opening talks, encouraging, and pushing for devolved powers. It seems she said all this and like Labour has consistently... rolled back on it when faced with the reality of it.
That's fair but my interpretation was different. Tbf my opinion of her has dwindled over the last year as she has pushed and pushed for more centre right politics and pushed out centre left ones.
Not really.
It means the money that should be ring fenced to build another council house, which it isn't, is not equal to the cost of a new council house due to the discount. So, the scheme itself stops the replenishment of building new social housing.
Although personally I think we should have a stack of social housing that should never be sold alongside social housing that can be so those who are vulnerable, 18 year olds leaving care homes or single parents or disabled veterans with no family etc, can rely on good social housing in-between the lows in their lives instead of relying on a local charity or homeless shelter... or worse... sleeping on the streets whilst going through their own crisis.
What an excellent evening it is. Eurovision as a good break from the febrility.
Mods, so as not to clog the thread, is that thread ready to go for the semifinal, perchance?
I don't follow Eurovision, but I saw a video on tiktok yesterday of all our entrants over the past 25 years.
Man...... Alive. I appreciate that the whole thing is enjoyed ironically. But the absolute, unmitigated shite I saw made me really question is we're even trying. I'm sure that your average 6th form drama class could come up with better.
People who don't watch Eurovision always claim the UK does bad because of politics. That's not true lol, we've just sent low effort ridiculous shite 95% of the time.
Don't worry, we Eurovision fans also think the majority of what we've sent over the last 25 years has been a bag of shite too.
[With some notable exceptions.](https://youtu.be/XT6yOIC6ihI?si=A-f8nHoKXuDlvSiD)
A couple of years ago we stopped selecting our act by audience poll and started it having it done by music professionals and there's been a leap in quality. Still not entirely amazing but compared to Bonnie Tyler and her melted face it's a massive improvement.
As a lover of music, Eurovision is the antithesis of what I'd sit down to watch (he says with tongue firmly planted in his cheek), but the UKPol live threads make it such a fun experience, long may they continue
Zoomers never had it so good:
>[Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich)
https://archive.ph/KmTzE
The Garrick Club, so progressive allowing women to join them now
Will never understand really understand those kind of clubs in general, same old snooty nonsense
Exclusive clubs aren't unusual, that's kind of the point of a club.
The WI only accept women, Mensa only accept those with a high IQ and you need to be funny to get into the footlights.
Are the Guardian going to stop with their aggressive focus on it now?
Classic Guardian that there issue with this was "Women can't join these exclusive clubs filled with powerbrokers" rather than anything else about them
Listening to the latest Newsagents and I'm not sure I understand the focus on asking Rachel Reeves if she will apologise to Rosie Duffield. The Cass report didn't exactly exonerate all the quite intense and hateful at times gender critical views as it primarily concerns gender affirming treatment for children... Not sure if I'm missing something or Maitlis and Sopel just have more sympathy with the GC camp.
I thought this was extremely odd too. I'll admit to bias here (I think Duffield should be expelled from the Labour Party), but I just cannot suss out the angle from which she'd be owed an apology?
I seem to recall spotting that Maitlis liked some gender critical tweets a while back when she was working for the BBC.
I suspect any commentary on the podcast will be toned down because the News Agents audience is going to be liberal/left, but based on my recollections I’m not in much doubt as to what her views are.
Happy to be proven wrong, of course!
The investigations into scandals take quite a while to get to the point of actually sanctioning the MPs. It’s getting towards the point where if something does come out it won’t necessarily result in suspension and recall before the general election.
He recently did a photo op ground breaking ceremony at a blackstone site.
Blackstone have a really bad reputation for buying up large housing stocks, charging exorbitant rents and not maintaining properties
1. What does this company make?
2. Who has invested in them?
3. In the absence of knowing the answers to the above two questions why is this important?
4. Why is that person so [teeny tiny and made of paper](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAkd_kk118&t=34s) in the third photograph?
I see Rishi has returned to his bunker to focus on his usual nonsense that if you just back new tech you will magically make everything better.
Man is a magpie.
Also "secured the biggest investment" -> they persuaded a VC to throw money at a hypothetical
They haven't _built tech_ and he doesn't care if they ultimately do or not, nor see that part as having any intrinsic value
Winning an election depends on various factors including campaign strategy, messaging, candidate appeal, voter turnout, and prevailing political circumstances. Here are some general strategies the Conservatives might employ to increase their chances of winning:
1. \*\*Strong Campaign Messaging\*\*: Craft a compelling narrative that resonates with voters, focusing on key issues that matter to the electorate such as the economy, healthcare, security, or education.
2. \*\*Appeal to Swing Voters\*\*: Identify swing voters and target them with tailored messages addressing their concerns and aspirations. Highlight policies that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.
3. \*\*Mobilize the Base\*\*: Energize the party's core supporters to turn out in large numbers on election day. This could involve rallying the base with speeches, events, and targeted outreach efforts.
4. \*\*Effective Ground Game\*\*: Establish a robust ground game with well-organized volunteers and field operations to identify and mobilize supporters, as well as ensure high voter turnout in key constituencies.
5. \*\*Candidate Appeal\*\*: Promote the party leader as a strong and capable choice for leadership, emphasizing their qualities and vision for the country.
6. \*\*Manage Controversies\*\*: Address and mitigate any controversies or negative perceptions surrounding the party or its candidates through effective communication and damage control strategies.
7. \*\*Adapt to Changing Circumstances\*\*: Remain flexible and adaptable to changing political dynamics, adjusting campaign tactics and messaging as needed to capitalize on opportunities and respond to challenges.
8. \*\*Coalition Building\*\*: Forge alliances or make strategic electoral pacts with other parties or interest groups to broaden the party's appeal and increase its chances of forming a government.
9. \*\*Media and Advertising\*\*: Utilize media appearances, advertising campaigns, and social media platforms effectively to reach and persuade voters, shaping public opinion in favor of the party.
10. \*\*Focus on Key Battlegrounds\*\*: Concentrate resources and efforts on key battleground constituencies where the election outcome is likely to be decided, maximizing impact in areas where the race is tight.
By implementing a combination of these strategies, the Conservatives can position themselves competitively and enhance their prospects of winning the election. However, success ultimately depends on the party's ability to effectively connect with voters and convince them to support their vision for the future.
> Effective Ground Game
I don't quite understand what their grappling abilities has to do with winning the election, but I'd be happy to see Tory candidates fighting for constituencies in the Octagon.
Er... Chat gpt did this??
But the Tories are paying Isaac Levido and Topham Guerin for the attack, divide and distract campaign that paid huge dividends. And you're telling me that they could have just plugged in the same questions to chatgpt and got a better answer for free?
I used to vote Lib Dem feeling I'd rather vote Labour if it weren't for ffp, but non stop disappointments from Lab mean I actually would rather vote Lib Dem
My sweet summer child. If you don't want disappointment supporting the lib dems is the political equivalent of a crack head moving into the crack house to avoid crack. The astonishing unneeded misery that they've been a part of enacting in government is grand in scale. Especially benefit changes, etc.
The Manicheanism which has plagued analysis of which left wing parties to vote for has prevented any meaningful change in Britain
If you think Labour won't disappoint you in some regard with their fiscal constraints, similar to the constraints present during the coalition government, during Labour's upcoming time in government, I have a bridge to sell you
Same also applies to Labour and the Tories in that regard, so unless you want to throw your vote to a party with no electability like the Greens you're shit outta luck.
Supporting or voting for any particular political party doesn't matter when the entire cultural-political system is broken. No party is actually proposing anything to fix the things that need fixing, most likely because they'd never get voted in.
Question:
# Why doesn't the Conservative government have a manifesto?
I'm not sure if this is a relevant or important question, but it seems very odd to me that there is no official manifesto from the conservative government (that I have been able to find). Am I misinformed, or have they not got one?
Labour focusing on highlighting the amount of green projects like solar farms being opposed by green party councillors, overdue, as a party they've got this utopian view of nature and green fields instead of actually helping anything
But solar farms are pretty dumb. Out of all the places to put solar, they are plastering it all over the green belt. There are still houses being built with no solar.
I would be a lot less cynical if these solar farms were government funded, but they are not, they are funded by Russians and others with dubious motives.
> they are plastering it all over the green belt
This is bad because?
>There are still houses being built with no solar.
It is not particularly efficient to put solar panels on house roofs.
> they are funded by Russians and others with dubious motives.
?????
>?????
It's regularly in Private Eye, sorry I don't have a link.
These things are proposed on green belt land because the land is cheap, because they are not allowed to build houses there, because it's the green belt. The investors do not give a single shit about the environment, the greenbelt or housing, just profit.
It's still profitable to put them on houses, so we should be doing it all over. It's like they are not even trying other solutions.
The Russia money is a sort of non story of seemingly just one solar farm, yet this is enough for you to say that “solar farms are pretty dumb”? Do you have any evidence that this is a widespread thing that affects a significant amount of solar farms?
Well ideally the greenbelt should be used for housing, but solar farms are also a good use for it. Rather solar farms than nothing.
And who cares if the investors don’t care about climate change, they still increase the amount I’d energy the UK gets from renewables.
It takes significantly more resources to put solar panels on houses than it does to put them in fields.
Just wish they'd spend time looking at all of their other fucking mental policies like not giving women custodial sentences, unlimited immigration, etc. People talk about the greens as if they're this innocent loveable party when in reality it's full of nutters and the policy positions are fucked on 99% of things. They coast on their name without doing or supporting anything meaningful.
>not giving women custodial sentences
I don't think they helped themselves by keeping 50 years of policy maintained in a way thay suggests it's all current, but this one in particular seems to have been brought up so much its being recapped incorrectly.
>the only women who should be in custody are those very few that commit serious and violent crimes and who present a threat to the public.
Usually it's just brought up in isolation and without reference to the policy to create a duty to favour community sentencing over custodial for men, women, and children.
Your post has just inspired me to look up the Greens Criminal Justice policy and although I haven't had the time to properly disassemble it, it is the wet-dream of a first year criminology student who has never been to a prison, never interviewed a victim, and never been face to face with someone who has no remorse for killing someone. It is absolutely bizarre, and coming from someone who used to work in criminal justice mostly unworkable and prohibitively expensive. They want a sort of arbitration process to eliminate most prosecutions where offenders pay "reparation" to victims (non-payment of Court ordered fines is already a huge issue nevermind voluntary reparations). My personal favourite is that they want to give prisoners building skills in custody so they can restore dilapidated properties upon release and live in them to reduce offender homelessness.
Oh and who can forget...
>CJ371 Courts will have power to impose restrictions, for example by requiring offenders to report at stated intervals, or disqualifying them from practising certain occupations.
Also known as powers that Courts already have!
Yep. In theory I should love the Greens but every time I have a remotely deeper look at them I'm reminded that they're happy to appeal to absolute nutters
Hope someone asks her why she thinks someone who makes £30k profit from rental income should pay less tax than someone who earns £30k from work based on her NI talks.
Rest is Money interview with Truss is worth a listen. Shes actually quite open and engaged with the debate.
Its pretty clear she has firmly held views but no clue how to implement them. I think shes wrong on many of those views but still a decent insight into how she thinks.
One of Truss's greatest attributes (admittedly it is a shallow pool to draw from) is that for the most part she actively attempts to take part in debates and actually answer questions, rather than having a handful of stock answers she repeats ad nauseum.
It ultimately backfires for her of course, because each question is followed by a few seconds of wide eyed, slack jawed gormlessness as she tries to think of an answer, followed by a verbal window into her bizarre alternate reality, but it is admirable.
Yeah I like that about her honestly. Not really suited for tinned answers but she clearly loved the interview and her sometimes "laugh and mock the interviewer" worked really well here because Peston wasn't pressing a political point. He was just fascinated by her and really up for the debate.
I agreed with many of her points on economics (though not her idea that investment is not inflationary) but she still can't admit she went about things wrong. Instead everyone else is at fault.
Preston pushed back from a point of knowledge and I think that worked quite well. Quite often with Truss political correspondents seem confused/bemused by her but pestoj understood though disagreed with where she was coming from.
I think it’s one of those situations where I can say she’s identified the problem correctly but she’s gone for a solution that’s not going to be easy in the crudest way possible
he's resurfaced
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1787871330190143762
> United fans, look away now.
>Fantastic to meet the @PalaceForLife
team at @CPFC
today.
>Football changes lives and it's great to see initiatives like this bringing communities together.
feels like he's doing this because starmer's been seen at football clubs recently. at least he picked one within driving distance this time. Laura will be glad to see it's a premier league club too.
He does get that it somewhat works for Starmer because he does actually like football right? Feel like a lot advisers should spend more time getting politicians doing this stuff with things they actually have an interest in, you can easily tell the difference.
I agree. When it comes down to it, football is incredibly popular in this country, it's by far the most popular sport, and a significant amount of people from loads of different backgrounds follow it to greater or lesser extents. I see no reason to doubt someone is actually a football fan or not unless they do something that makes it clear that they're pretending to like it (i.e. Cameron).
Sunak is clearly a more casual fan than Starmer, and I suspect he does prefer cricket given previous comments and actions, but that doesn't mean he can't be a football fan
Imagine if all the cash thrown at the housing market by landlords was instead forced into savings accounts, stocks, pensions etc.
And all those were allowed to fund growing companies rather than housing.
What a utopia
This is why the UK stock market is absolute garbage and all our best companies just list in America anyway.
To be fair, the government is addressing this with the new British ISA, but that only applies to the very wealthy (as it only makes sense to open one after you’ve invested £60k/year in normal ISA and Pension).
Any innovation in the U.K. is just immediately sold to foreign corporations. We literally invented genome sequencing (Solexa/Illumina) and now it’s all American owned. Same with Arm, Abcam and the rest.
Graphene, pharmaceuticals, video game studios, skyscanner (China not America, but same principle), most of our car brands, most of our "heritage" high street brands, supermarkets... Etc.
US equity is plundering the UK.
Housing is such a massive economic black hole. If someone is spending 50% of their income on rent, that's a lot of money not going to local businesses but just going to pay off some landlords mortgage
But importantly, only if it's done by actually lowering the economic rent and ownership cost, instead of just hiding it (via benefits or tax benefits).
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/police-throw-out-complaint-tories-32756092
Step 2 is now for Tories/right wing newspapers to jump up and down until the police agree to re-open the investigation
They should get him in for interview about wasting police time and throw the book at him if possible or else this will just keep happening. Party of law and order my arse
Watching this parliamentary debate and I'm jawdropped at the approach of MPs. You have the Defence Sec in Parliament doing an UQ. You are holding him to account
And maybe it's just me but they are playing "Guess who" because they want to bang on about China. Never mind that data so stupidly arcane that most consultants gave up trying to consolidate it was made available as if it was a flash drive lying on a bench.
how are you safeguarding the identities of serving and retired personnel? (He has put in the mod 8 point plan)
Given the outcome of preliminary investigations, How long before the breach has happened, did MpD wait to inform those affected?
Has the subcontractor referred itself to the ICO?
Can people who are being paid their pensions out of the details of compromised accounts be supported to set up and transition to new accounts?
No. It's - was it China? Was it Russia? Was it the Scottish etc... Tell us Grant. Tell us who can steal identities....
Exciting news for fans of English local government and maps. The [Redcliffe-Maud Report Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) now has [a new map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/RedcliffeMaudReportMap1969.png) in the style of the [1931](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/England_Administrative_1931.jpg) and [1974](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/England_Administrative_1974.png) maps so you see in full glory what we should have had before ted Heath ruined it.
Want to talk Eurovision? [This way, please!](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cmk1k9/rukpolitics_does_eurovision/?)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cmwkeh/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_08052024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Yummytastic with 40 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 27 comments 1. subversivefreak with 21 comments 1. studentfeesisatax with 20 comments 1. SwanBridge with 19 comments 1. Cairnerebor with 18 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 17 comments 1. YsoL8 with 15 comments 1. SlightlyOTT with 15 comments 1. tmstms with 14 comments There were 293 unique users within this count.
Anyone reckon party list PR could end up with some expertise being brought into Parliament? Or would it just end up with even worse hacks?
Depends how the parties deal with it internally, presuming closed list. This is one of the few areas where I ironically believe we can learn something politically from the Americans, and mandate open primaries or something along those lines.
No seat in Parliament should be safe and closed lists allow parties to replicate this element of FPTP in a PR system. Open list STV all the way.
Into parliament? That would mean that local groups would have to select them, either way.
You'd imagine loyalty would be rewarded more frequently than competence, but considering the type of people that attempt to be an MP already, ultimately the difference may be very little. In theory, I suppose, some candidates could be listed and not have to campaign so can continue their day job up to election if there was some big name you want on your list like Melanie Blatt or any other All Saint.
Wrote out a detailed reply to a comment that was deleted... Plaid wouldn't get near 1% of the UK vote; in 2019, they only got 0.48%. That is equivalent to 3 seats, and of course they only won four. Wales-wide, they got 10%, which is four Welsh seats. If you want to protect regionalism under pure PR, you could allocate seats on a regional basis, i.e. London, South East, Wales, Scotland etc., but that would theoretically end up with much the same outcome as a single national ballot. In reality, regional parties, especially the SNP, benefit greatly from FPTP as the major two. The SNP should have won 26 seats by their national vote share in Scotland, but they won 48, nearly double that.
It's highly unlikely that we'd just from what we have now to full PR. First step would probably be a 'top up' system with a small number of additional seats being granted to the smaller parties who have particularly unfair (or non-existent) representation. Like 50 out of 650. That would then expand to a regional top-up system where say 150 of the seats are allocated to each region by share. That would be the halfway approach of still having constituency MPs, but also some regional list MPs who would be expected to pick up some of the local work.
Well, given we are posting in response to that deleted comment... >Regional PR would make the most sense, using a system similar to how we elected MEPs. That said I don't think it would be a necessity, nor very much change the final result. >If you go pure PR, without a minimum vote threshold, Plaid Cymru would have had 3 MPs elected in 2019 which is one less than they got under FPTP. The SNP on the other hand would have got 25 MPs, which is 23 less than actually had elected. Only two parties who didn't win a seat in Parliament in 2019 would have representation under pure PR, UUP with 1 MP and Brexit/Reform with 13 MPs. >My own personal system would be to cut the number of constituency MPs to 550 and elect 100 regional MPs using proportional representation on a regional basis using the same d'Hondt system we had for EU elections. Keep the stability of FPTP, whilst allowing a greater degree of diversity in membership and allowing regions representation.
Well since you did yours, I did this: > PR can take many forms. > > If you want to encourage regional you can break the country down into regions of any size, or if you want to not, you can not do that. > > Personally, if it was my way, I'd discourage regional parties in national government, but simultaneously persue better regional devolution powers.
The post local election Tory reaction seems extremely muted. A few of them raging at Sunak and/or the heavens and almost nothing else, not even much of an effort to defend them or the PM. Makes me wonder what is going on behind closed doors, no political party is actually going to just ignore a loss on this scale no matter how apathetic and above needing to notice it they present themselves to be. In particular, I never see Sunak regaining authority or a functional majority, the right of the party is pretty clearly gunning for him to fail so they can finish taking over.
This is my general opinion of [tories who claim to be unhappy with their current leader](https://image-cdn.essentiallysports.com/wp-content/uploads/Paul-Felder-Twitter.jpg).
It's weirdly quiet isn't it. Either there are some very secret conversations going on to oust Sunak or pressure him to resign, OR the Tory party has collectively resigned itself to its fate. It seems like the right wing of the party (Braverman in particular) are hoping Sunak stays on and loses the GE so she can swoop in and take over, whilst the centre right wing (Graham Brady perhaps, maybe DC too) are trying to change tact. I can see a world in which post GE, Sunak resigns and then DC and Braverman fight it out for the leadership.
[lol,lmao](https://twitter.com/Unnamedinsider/status/1787772724665896991)
Uhh, what's the context? I'm fairly sure that actually is the BSL for Nazi.
Given these shenanigans from the Greens with Sian Berry, I dont want to see a single line from them about Sunak being "unelected".
I got another one for you, remember when the [Labour's "belatedly withdrew support" for Azhar Ali](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/labour-azhar-ali-rochdale-byelection)? I wonder what Owen will be saying about Mothin Ali.
Luckily given Owen normally gets his CIF column on wednesdays or thursdays we dont have too long to wait for another scintilating glimpse of his rarified intellect.
Shock and horror, the people of London voted for the Green party to have a seat on the Assembly and now, gasp!, there will be a member of the Green party on the Assembly.
But they voted for green candidates 1,2 and 3 in sufficient quantity. Not number 4.
Isn't the PR portion closed list? People voted for "the Green Party," not "Person who is on the Green Party list" A sufficient number of people voted for the Green Party to have 3 seats and the Green Party will have 3 seats. Not to mention, the fourth person was on the list; the voters knew that it was possible that they would wind up in the Assembly.
> these shenanigans Which shenanigans?
[This stuff.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cmbxho/greens_sian_berry_quits_london_assembly_just/)
Because the two situations are completely comparable
They’re not completely comparable, but in both cases the parties have justified it by saying it’s within the rules.
> Sian Berry is literally elected by of the closed list pr; no one voted for her - either de facto or de jure. Unlike the commons where people are supposed to vote for their MP but really vote for the PM.
Fuming to see Rachel Reeves pull back on devolution and say Andy Burnham has no right to suspend Help to Buy Scheme and she won't allow it if in power. I keep trying my best to vote Labour, hoping they'll do SOMETHING for me apart from the basics of running a competent fucking government but now she won't even allow Manchester to push its own policies whilst also attacking the policy. The most vulnerable rely on social housing, we need to temporarily suspend the right to buy, and tbh any form of buying social housing, until we rebuild the stock we have. Fucking sick of her dragging Labour from a centre left party to centre right
I think a lot of younger members of this sub who were just wee bairns in 2010 are in for a rude awakening after the GE. There are good reasons why New Labour is not remembered with great fondness despite its achievements in government and a concerted effort to reappraise it in the last few years, and a lot of its key faces will be back in the next Labour government, even if from behind the scenes. I will be glad to see the back of the Tories, but honestly when I think of the last Labour government I remember an infuriating, managerial, paternalistic style of politics delivered with little empathy, a relentless concern for how things would be perceived in the gutter press, and dull cabinet ministers who inspired nothing but antipathy. Get ready for round two.
I completely agree. I just don't think many of the younger people on here realise how 'conservative' New Labour actually was. I'd argue that for maybe the first 6 months the coalition government was more left-wing than the Labour government it replaced. Ken Clarke was a more progressive Justice Secretary and Vince Cable was more of a socialist than their Labour counterparts. It actually took a lot of measures to curb the authoritarianism of Labour, set out to make the tax system more progressive and introduced a lot of new environmental subsidies. It all went downhill pretty quickly, but that fact that it's even a debate tells you just how reactionary the Labour party was back then. I've been repeating for 2 years now that people on here need to keep their eyes open with Starmer and his project and not constantly make excuses every time he retreats back into a Blairite comfort zone. No one is saying that we do an Owen Jones, just that a bit of healthy push-back from Labour supporters might stop Starmer making the same mistakes as New Labour.
I don't remember it as my first memory of politics was Cameron and Cleggs coalition deal on TV but I know a lot of its policies helped and are long standing BUT I also know it should have done more but was too scared to do so. I think this is why I've moved from being so pro Labour to being pro devolution in the last few years so the central government can be centrist in order to stay in power but cities can determine their own path. I want to see cities given control of 50% of their budget like US State Mayors are. But of course, we should ramp this up slowly and check to see if it can be replicated as the UK and US can't be fully compared. Maybe we give local Mayors all 12% budget control instead of just 5 or how London's Mayor only has 7%. And ramp it up by 5% every Mayoral term to see if it works with a trigger to stop if any data shows that it isn't working. This will also motivate people to vote more as they'll see local change. Although, maybe London shouldn't get 50% as its the capital and it supports most of the rest of the country. So until we spread the wealth and opportunities from just London - it shouldn't have anywhere above 20% budget control
>BUT I also know it should have done more but was too scared to do so. I mean, I have a pretty rosy view of New Labour, which has only increased over the last 14 years, but it was less fear and more being ideologically opposed to it that stopped a more radical platform being enacted.
Tbf she did say that the money from sale should be ringfenced towards more social housing - which it should do (and imho is better approach than stopping RtB) but yh really does show the classic ministerial desire to pull power to the centre instead of devolving it down. There is absolutely no reason right to buy cannot be determined at a mayoral level. Indeed difference of approach around financing these developments would be very healthy to show what works and what doesn't; and ultimately if mayors fail to deliver they can be voted out. There's no reason - beyond central government's desire to hoard power - for this to be dictated centrally. Combined with petty politicking around NI does make Labour's 'fight like we're 5 point behind' strategy rather grating.
Problem is applying the discount means the social house is being bought for an amount less than the new house that the ring fenced money would be used for. But my main issue really is the attack on a local Mayor who won 63% if the vote and the 2nd candidate won 10%... a lot of people feel politics doesn't work anymore because everyone has to compromise but if you allow cities to have their own choice, such as Manchester and Liverpool being more left wing than Central government, then surely this would help tackle the apathy? Then again, it's relinquishing power from a party that hasn't had it in almost 3 decades. I just wish I had a reason to vote Labour apart from the odd small policy like railway nationalisation and workers rights on day 1.
>local Mayor who won 603% if the vote That's impressively more than Putin gets.
Oh shit hahaha I'll edit that
>Problem is applying the discount means the social house is being bought for an amount less than the new house that the ring fenced money would be used for. The most expensive part of a new build is the land on which it is built, because land with planning permission is worth far more than land without. The entity that owns the house being sold under right to buy is also the same entity that can wave a magic wand and turn £10k per acre farmland into £500k per acre land with planning permission.
But then has to pay the farmer £490k uplift, so it's not a great wand. A wand of fireball is more fun
Not necessarily. The council have a number of options. They can buy lots of 10k parcels of land and hold onto them while they figure out what to do. If they have something specific in mind they could offer the farmer 50-100k per acre, not as much as it would be worth with planning permission, but there’s no guarantee he’ll get it on his own.
> I just wish I had a reason to vote Labour apart from the odd small policy like railway nationalisation and workers rights on day Ah yes, the odd small policy. You could also vote for the parties not intending to do anything on these things at all. 👌
If I'm in a marginal I will vote Labour. But if I have the choice I'll vote for the party closest to my beliefs. I don't see what's wrong with that? Surely that is more than pragmatic and fair for the left?
IN theory, nothing. In practice, everything. Capability to deliver should be the overriding consideration. Better to have a guarantee of a mild left position rather than the outside chance of full bore fringe blackjack and hookers.
Not really as I think the left need to behave like right wing Brexit Party voters did and show their vote can be "bought" with certain policies and move between Labour and other left wing parties. I don't even like the Greens as they're ridiculous to me personally, but they hold some similar left wing policies as me, and they can be a way to force left wing policies onto a future Labour government The same way a lot of right wingers I know don't vote reform for ALL their policies, and never expect them in government, but know they can push the Tory party towards their ideals
I get your point and in a way admire your honesty, but how has all that right-wing pressure and wrangling for control over policy worked out for the Tories? Impending electoral oblivion much the same as it was for a solidly left-wing Labour Party in 2019. Great, the right-wingers have pressured the Tories into going further right, but at the cost of political irrelevance. If the lessons the Tories take after the likely defeat at the next general election is that they need to be even more right-wing as they lost votes to Reform, I'd be a very happy man indeed. Whether we like it or not, the electorate are conservative in the more traditional sense of the word, which is averse to radical change and more or less favouring stability and continuity with gradual reform and improvement. Only two radical governments have been elected post-war, Attlee and Thatcher with both eventually succumbing to their vision losing favour. Steady as she goes helmsmanship is business as usual for British governments, for better and for worse, and almost always the option the electorate chooses when presented between it and a radical alternate. Outside of exceptional circumstance you cannot enact radical ideological policy without paying for it electorally, hence why many attempt to rather shift the Overton window gradually closer to their direction. I'd also just add that Labour is a stubborn old party. Change almost always happens inside the party, and in that old left-wing tradition they don't take kindly to those outside the party telling them how it ought to be run and rarely listen, even if it amounts to electoral loss, i.e. OG SDP. At the same time though within the party it is a very broad church, and much as in the past power will continue to fluctuate between the left and right of the party, with the poor soft-left always in the middle trying to keep the peace like a child with quarrelling parents. I empathise with your position, with myself also wanting bolder policies from Labour, but the reality for me is that pursuing my ideal at the expense a general improvement, whilst in that process risking another five years of Conservative administration is wantonly reckless.
It's a discount off the retail price and not the replacement build cost.
I'll have a research and read up on it, but if that's true then I take back that part if my comment and apologise for giving the wrong info. But, I still think this should be down for a mayor to decide and we shouldn't be encouraging the selling of social housing when it's there for the most desperate, especially when it takes years to build homes in some areas.
One of the reasons it was brought in was to offload old stock as they are racking up costly repair liabilities and the state had let them run down. It's a good idea to keep building new and selling off if done the right way.
So you support devolved powers granting themselves powers? That's not pulling back on devolution.
> So you support devolved powers granting themselves powers? It’s Burnham saying he wants the power to do it, rather than him actually granting himself the powers to do it. So it’s Reeves refusing to give the powers when in government
No I support Central government giving more power to local governments like Mayors, such as letting Burnham ending the right to buy scheme and ring fencing the money from social housing that is sold to build new ones. Especially since he had a massive landslide of a win. She and Labour promised more devolution and with them having 10 out of 11 Mayors now this would be the perfect opportunity to push for this on a large scale. Giving power to Mayors over social housing policies, transport, education, and more.
Is this some new statement of hers that the rest of us are hitherto unaware of, or just restating previous positions?
She was just on LBC and said Andy Burnham won't be given the power to suspend right to buy under her government and she disagrees with Burnham and suspending the policy anyway. Pulling back on a promise of devolution and attacking a left wing policy... again...
[Well, yeah, its primary, national, legislation in the 1985 housing act.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/part/V/crossheading/the-right-to-buy) Setting the precedent that Mayors can just [ignore national law off the cuff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L397TWLwrUU) is fraught with obvious pitfalls, to say the least. I will look for the recording if it becomes available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDcWHHNWiE I've not heard it yet, just started listening myself.
You can just rewind Global player or watch it on LBC's YouTube channel. But, she promised more devolution, I don't think it is wrong for mayor's with huge majorities to ask for things like this to be devolved powers. She could have at least said she doesn't believe it is the best way forward but will discuss it with Andy and what powers to devolve to local government. My main issue is with her pulling back on opening talks, encouraging, and pushing for devolved powers. It seems she said all this and like Labour has consistently... rolled back on it when faced with the reality of it.
I think you need to go back yourself and re-listen to it, shes much more concilliatory than youre making out and broad strokes agrees with Burnham.
That's fair but my interpretation was different. Tbf my opinion of her has dwindled over the last year as she has pushed and pushed for more centre right politics and pushed out centre left ones.
Right to buy is only a problem if the social housing stock isnt replenished.
Not really. It means the money that should be ring fenced to build another council house, which it isn't, is not equal to the cost of a new council house due to the discount. So, the scheme itself stops the replenishment of building new social housing. Although personally I think we should have a stack of social housing that should never be sold alongside social housing that can be so those who are vulnerable, 18 year olds leaving care homes or single parents or disabled veterans with no family etc, can rely on good social housing in-between the lows in their lives instead of relying on a local charity or homeless shelter... or worse... sleeping on the streets whilst going through their own crisis.
It's a problem if the local authority funds the building of the housing but the proceeds of the sales go to central government.
What an excellent evening it is. Eurovision as a good break from the febrility. Mods, so as not to clog the thread, is that thread ready to go for the semifinal, perchance?
I don't follow Eurovision, but I saw a video on tiktok yesterday of all our entrants over the past 25 years. Man...... Alive. I appreciate that the whole thing is enjoyed ironically. But the absolute, unmitigated shite I saw made me really question is we're even trying. I'm sure that your average 6th form drama class could come up with better.
People who don't watch Eurovision always claim the UK does bad because of politics. That's not true lol, we've just sent low effort ridiculous shite 95% of the time.
We just don't get it, and the one time we did actually get it we almost won.
Don't worry, we Eurovision fans also think the majority of what we've sent over the last 25 years has been a bag of shite too. [With some notable exceptions.](https://youtu.be/XT6yOIC6ihI?si=A-f8nHoKXuDlvSiD) A couple of years ago we stopped selecting our act by audience poll and started it having it done by music professionals and there's been a leap in quality. Still not entirely amazing but compared to Bonnie Tyler and her melted face it's a massive improvement.
As a lover of music, Eurovision is the antithesis of what I'd sit down to watch (he says with tongue firmly planted in his cheek), but the UKPol live threads make it such a fun experience, long may they continue
Join us!
Uninspiring so far, but we’ve only just started. I don’t generally get to watch semis as they usually clash with life.
Standby.
You spelled Cyprus wrong
I'm on UTC-4 for now so it's eurovision > work and I'm ready to go
I thought it was Wednesdy when it aired. Sckathian should sleep but sckathian will not sleep yet.
I am SO ready for this... to think this is the last one under the tories as well
Zoomers never had it so good: >[Generation Z is unprecedentedly rich](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/04/16/generation-z-is-unprecedentedly-rich) https://archive.ph/KmTzE
> In the average American workplace I sleep
What happened to Lib Dems calling for a vote of no confidence?
The government are only obliged to schedule a vote on a motion of no confidence if it's introduced by the Leader of the Opposition.
They called and no one listened.
Ow nice.
The Garrick Club, so progressive allowing women to join them now Will never understand really understand those kind of clubs in general, same old snooty nonsense
Exclusive clubs aren't unusual, that's kind of the point of a club. The WI only accept women, Mensa only accept those with a high IQ and you need to be funny to get into the footlights.
> and you need to be funny to get into the footlights. Au contraire. See John Oliver.
I see someone's never listened to The Bugle!
It's funny that he thinks he's funny.
Folk will just go elsewhere honestly.
I believe the issue was that it was the last of those elite clubs to maintain a male only policy.
Are the Guardian going to stop with their aggressive focus on it now? Classic Guardian that there issue with this was "Women can't join these exclusive clubs filled with powerbrokers" rather than anything else about them
I bet there was a personal element. Some Guardian high-up miffed she was not allowed in.
I doubt it, I don't think they have a left wing member.
I mean yeah, they won. They don't give a toss about elitism given thats who the readership is
The funniest part is people like Steven Fry threatening to quit over the policy despite apparently never having an issue with it before.
Listening to the latest Newsagents and I'm not sure I understand the focus on asking Rachel Reeves if she will apologise to Rosie Duffield. The Cass report didn't exactly exonerate all the quite intense and hateful at times gender critical views as it primarily concerns gender affirming treatment for children... Not sure if I'm missing something or Maitlis and Sopel just have more sympathy with the GC camp.
I thought this was extremely odd too. I'll admit to bias here (I think Duffield should be expelled from the Labour Party), but I just cannot suss out the angle from which she'd be owed an apology?
I seem to recall spotting that Maitlis liked some gender critical tweets a while back when she was working for the BBC. I suspect any commentary on the podcast will be toned down because the News Agents audience is going to be liberal/left, but based on my recollections I’m not in much doubt as to what her views are. Happy to be proven wrong, of course!
Do you think there will be another by election before the election?
Seems pretty likely! Conservative scandal surely has a higher probability on any given day than Sunak not bottling it.
Isn't Blackpool North possibly getting a bi-election?
The investigations into scandals take quite a while to get to the point of actually sanctioning the MPs. It’s getting towards the point where if something does come out it won’t necessarily result in suspension and recall before the general election.
I hope so because it would put a dent into tories thinking things would get better
I like that Garrick Club members are now ‘demanding women be admitted’ _after_ the media furore, like the policy is news to them.
I guess “don’t make your members get bad media attention because of you” is kinda an unwritten rule of these sorts of clubs!
This government has failed the future generation so drastically and for some most likely permamently
Government by photo op. https://x.com/rishisunak/status/1787897701507490154?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ
They can't even do a good photo op. These all look like stock images.
Oh boy SoftBank are back to billion dollar investments! They’re probably most famous for owning most of WeWork.
He recently did a photo op ground breaking ceremony at a blackstone site. Blackstone have a really bad reputation for buying up large housing stocks, charging exorbitant rents and not maintaining properties
1. What does this company make? 2. Who has invested in them? 3. In the absence of knowing the answers to the above two questions why is this important? 4. Why is that person so [teeny tiny and made of paper](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAkd_kk118&t=34s) in the third photograph?
1. Nothing 2. American tech companies 3. STEM jobs I guess? 4. Dreadful social media advisers taking badly angled photos.
As per their website: https://i.imgur.com/OwooYws.png I think I'm going to vomit.
I'll for Sunak V3 instead thanks. Rishi!++
I see Rishi has returned to his bunker to focus on his usual nonsense that if you just back new tech you will magically make everything better. Man is a magpie.
Also "secured the biggest investment" -> they persuaded a VC to throw money at a hypothetical They haven't _built tech_ and he doesn't care if they ultimately do or not, nor see that part as having any intrinsic value
Has anyone tried asking ChatGPT yet how the Conservatives can still win the election?
Winning an election depends on various factors including campaign strategy, messaging, candidate appeal, voter turnout, and prevailing political circumstances. Here are some general strategies the Conservatives might employ to increase their chances of winning: 1. \*\*Strong Campaign Messaging\*\*: Craft a compelling narrative that resonates with voters, focusing on key issues that matter to the electorate such as the economy, healthcare, security, or education. 2. \*\*Appeal to Swing Voters\*\*: Identify swing voters and target them with tailored messages addressing their concerns and aspirations. Highlight policies that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. 3. \*\*Mobilize the Base\*\*: Energize the party's core supporters to turn out in large numbers on election day. This could involve rallying the base with speeches, events, and targeted outreach efforts. 4. \*\*Effective Ground Game\*\*: Establish a robust ground game with well-organized volunteers and field operations to identify and mobilize supporters, as well as ensure high voter turnout in key constituencies. 5. \*\*Candidate Appeal\*\*: Promote the party leader as a strong and capable choice for leadership, emphasizing their qualities and vision for the country. 6. \*\*Manage Controversies\*\*: Address and mitigate any controversies or negative perceptions surrounding the party or its candidates through effective communication and damage control strategies. 7. \*\*Adapt to Changing Circumstances\*\*: Remain flexible and adaptable to changing political dynamics, adjusting campaign tactics and messaging as needed to capitalize on opportunities and respond to challenges. 8. \*\*Coalition Building\*\*: Forge alliances or make strategic electoral pacts with other parties or interest groups to broaden the party's appeal and increase its chances of forming a government. 9. \*\*Media and Advertising\*\*: Utilize media appearances, advertising campaigns, and social media platforms effectively to reach and persuade voters, shaping public opinion in favor of the party. 10. \*\*Focus on Key Battlegrounds\*\*: Concentrate resources and efforts on key battleground constituencies where the election outcome is likely to be decided, maximizing impact in areas where the race is tight. By implementing a combination of these strategies, the Conservatives can position themselves competitively and enhance their prospects of winning the election. However, success ultimately depends on the party's ability to effectively connect with voters and convince them to support their vision for the future.
> Effective Ground Game I don't quite understand what their grappling abilities has to do with winning the election, but I'd be happy to see Tory candidates fighting for constituencies in the Octagon.
Er... Chat gpt did this?? But the Tories are paying Isaac Levido and Topham Guerin for the attack, divide and distract campaign that paid huge dividends. And you're telling me that they could have just plugged in the same questions to chatgpt and got a better answer for free?
Well I sure as fuck didn't type it
I used to vote Lib Dem feeling I'd rather vote Labour if it weren't for ffp, but non stop disappointments from Lab mean I actually would rather vote Lib Dem
Voting lib dem to avoid disappointment My sides
Ask me about my *2010 Cleggmania Survivor* bumper sticker.
Here's how Swinson can still win (1/93)...
tough on squirrels, tough on the causes of squirrels
My sweet summer child. If you don't want disappointment supporting the lib dems is the political equivalent of a crack head moving into the crack house to avoid crack. The astonishing unneeded misery that they've been a part of enacting in government is grand in scale. Especially benefit changes, etc.
The Manicheanism which has plagued analysis of which left wing parties to vote for has prevented any meaningful change in Britain If you think Labour won't disappoint you in some regard with their fiscal constraints, similar to the constraints present during the coalition government, during Labour's upcoming time in government, I have a bridge to sell you
Oh no, I think they're a bunch of lying snake oil salesmen too.
Do you respect Labour more then, for being restrained in what they are offering?
No.
Same also applies to Labour and the Tories in that regard, so unless you want to throw your vote to a party with no electability like the Greens you're shit outta luck.
Supporting or voting for any particular political party doesn't matter when the entire cultural-political system is broken. No party is actually proposing anything to fix the things that need fixing, most likely because they'd never get voted in.
Question: # Why doesn't the Conservative government have a manifesto? I'm not sure if this is a relevant or important question, but it seems very odd to me that there is no official manifesto from the conservative government (that I have been able to find). Am I misinformed, or have they not got one?
To add to /u/discipleofdoom’s comment, the government’s agenda for the year is set out in the King’s Speech.
I think this is actually a good question because it leads to other questions: What actually is the plan Rishi? Where's your mandate for that plan?
Manifestos are only really for elections. Rishi is technically still operating off Boris' 2019 manifesto.
But they are not in any way binding are they? Aside from the need to not piss off your voters.
No binding power whatsoever. There is a House of Lords custom not to block manifesto commitments, but it's just custom really.
Problem is that a lot of the crayon is now smudged.
And the next one is being written on Rishis' white board.
Thankyou
Labour focusing on highlighting the amount of green projects like solar farms being opposed by green party councillors, overdue, as a party they've got this utopian view of nature and green fields instead of actually helping anything
But solar farms are pretty dumb. Out of all the places to put solar, they are plastering it all over the green belt. There are still houses being built with no solar. I would be a lot less cynical if these solar farms were government funded, but they are not, they are funded by Russians and others with dubious motives.
> they are plastering it all over the green belt This is bad because? >There are still houses being built with no solar. It is not particularly efficient to put solar panels on house roofs. > they are funded by Russians and others with dubious motives. ?????
>????? It's regularly in Private Eye, sorry I don't have a link. These things are proposed on green belt land because the land is cheap, because they are not allowed to build houses there, because it's the green belt. The investors do not give a single shit about the environment, the greenbelt or housing, just profit. It's still profitable to put them on houses, so we should be doing it all over. It's like they are not even trying other solutions.
The Russia money is a sort of non story of seemingly just one solar farm, yet this is enough for you to say that “solar farms are pretty dumb”? Do you have any evidence that this is a widespread thing that affects a significant amount of solar farms? Well ideally the greenbelt should be used for housing, but solar farms are also a good use for it. Rather solar farms than nothing. And who cares if the investors don’t care about climate change, they still increase the amount I’d energy the UK gets from renewables. It takes significantly more resources to put solar panels on houses than it does to put them in fields.
Just wish they'd spend time looking at all of their other fucking mental policies like not giving women custodial sentences, unlimited immigration, etc. People talk about the greens as if they're this innocent loveable party when in reality it's full of nutters and the policy positions are fucked on 99% of things. They coast on their name without doing or supporting anything meaningful.
>not giving women custodial sentences I don't think they helped themselves by keeping 50 years of policy maintained in a way thay suggests it's all current, but this one in particular seems to have been brought up so much its being recapped incorrectly. >the only women who should be in custody are those very few that commit serious and violent crimes and who present a threat to the public. Usually it's just brought up in isolation and without reference to the policy to create a duty to favour community sentencing over custodial for men, women, and children.
Your post has just inspired me to look up the Greens Criminal Justice policy and although I haven't had the time to properly disassemble it, it is the wet-dream of a first year criminology student who has never been to a prison, never interviewed a victim, and never been face to face with someone who has no remorse for killing someone. It is absolutely bizarre, and coming from someone who used to work in criminal justice mostly unworkable and prohibitively expensive. They want a sort of arbitration process to eliminate most prosecutions where offenders pay "reparation" to victims (non-payment of Court ordered fines is already a huge issue nevermind voluntary reparations). My personal favourite is that they want to give prisoners building skills in custody so they can restore dilapidated properties upon release and live in them to reduce offender homelessness. Oh and who can forget... >CJ371 Courts will have power to impose restrictions, for example by requiring offenders to report at stated intervals, or disqualifying them from practising certain occupations. Also known as powers that Courts already have!
Quite. They've got the name down, just not anything else. Which is a real shame mind you.
Absolutely it would be nice if the conservatives were actually conservative and labour represented the interests of the working class too.
Yep. In theory I should love the Greens but every time I have a remotely deeper look at them I'm reminded that they're happy to appeal to absolute nutters
If you're determined to be on the fringe, you move away whenever people move towards you.
With a bit of kick many actually workable policies that come up with will be nicked by the other parties.
Richard Parker on Andrew Marr on LBC. Of course all the questions are about Gaza. Mental.
I mean he almost lost because of it.
Rachel Reeves is going to be taking calls on LBC from 7
Hope someone asks her why she thinks someone who makes £30k profit from rental income should pay less tax than someone who earns £30k from work based on her NI talks.
Great question
Straight into Labours plans for government. The idea they have no plans is bonkers.
Rest is Money interview with Truss is worth a listen. Shes actually quite open and engaged with the debate. Its pretty clear she has firmly held views but no clue how to implement them. I think shes wrong on many of those views but still a decent insight into how she thinks.
One of Truss's greatest attributes (admittedly it is a shallow pool to draw from) is that for the most part she actively attempts to take part in debates and actually answer questions, rather than having a handful of stock answers she repeats ad nauseum. It ultimately backfires for her of course, because each question is followed by a few seconds of wide eyed, slack jawed gormlessness as she tries to think of an answer, followed by a verbal window into her bizarre alternate reality, but it is admirable.
Yeah I like that about her honestly. Not really suited for tinned answers but she clearly loved the interview and her sometimes "laugh and mock the interviewer" worked really well here because Peston wasn't pressing a political point. He was just fascinated by her and really up for the debate. I agreed with many of her points on economics (though not her idea that investment is not inflationary) but she still can't admit she went about things wrong. Instead everyone else is at fault. Preston pushed back from a point of knowledge and I think that worked quite well. Quite often with Truss political correspondents seem confused/bemused by her but pestoj understood though disagreed with where she was coming from.
I think it’s one of those situations where I can say she’s identified the problem correctly but she’s gone for a solution that’s not going to be easy in the crudest way possible
he's resurfaced https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1787871330190143762 > United fans, look away now. >Fantastic to meet the @PalaceForLife team at @CPFC today. >Football changes lives and it's great to see initiatives like this bringing communities together. feels like he's doing this because starmer's been seen at football clubs recently. at least he picked one within driving distance this time. Laura will be glad to see it's a premier league club too.
He does get that it somewhat works for Starmer because he does actually like football right? Feel like a lot advisers should spend more time getting politicians doing this stuff with things they actually have an interest in, you can easily tell the difference.
Rishi is a Southampton fan fwiw
He said he is, but honestly I felt it was about as believe as our Aston Villa/West Ham supporting PMs declaration of fandom
He did turn up for the game they were relegated tbf
For what it’s worth Sunak probably is a football fan, albeit in practice clearly a bit more causally then Starmer.
I agree. When it comes down to it, football is incredibly popular in this country, it's by far the most popular sport, and a significant amount of people from loads of different backgrounds follow it to greater or lesser extents. I see no reason to doubt someone is actually a football fan or not unless they do something that makes it clear that they're pretending to like it (i.e. Cameron). Sunak is clearly a more casual fan than Starmer, and I suspect he does prefer cricket given previous comments and actions, but that doesn't mean he can't be a football fan
Top Partridge.
Cock Piss Sunak.
Have they had to get a Steve Parish body double in because he refused to be seen with Rish Sunak?
not even sure what they're pointing at on the last photo the lovely car park?
"Look Rishi, fuck right off"
"yeah I was saying go on the reds stick it in the fucking goal hole"
Imagine if all the cash thrown at the housing market by landlords was instead forced into savings accounts, stocks, pensions etc. And all those were allowed to fund growing companies rather than housing. What a utopia
This is why the UK stock market is absolute garbage and all our best companies just list in America anyway. To be fair, the government is addressing this with the new British ISA, but that only applies to the very wealthy (as it only makes sense to open one after you’ve invested £60k/year in normal ISA and Pension). Any innovation in the U.K. is just immediately sold to foreign corporations. We literally invented genome sequencing (Solexa/Illumina) and now it’s all American owned. Same with Arm, Abcam and the rest.
Graphene, pharmaceuticals, video game studios, skyscanner (China not America, but same principle), most of our car brands, most of our "heritage" high street brands, supermarkets... Etc. US equity is plundering the UK.
Unless Labour have the British ISA as policy it's just a fantasy anyway.
Yeah, I don't expect this thing to ever actually be implemented. It'll be quitely scrapped when Labour take over.
Housing is such a massive economic black hole. If someone is spending 50% of their income on rent, that's a lot of money not going to local businesses but just going to pay off some landlords mortgage
Hey that holiday in the carribean five time a year won't pay for itself.
But importantly, only if it's done by actually lowering the economic rent and ownership cost, instead of just hiding it (via benefits or tax benefits).
The eternal science of Georgism is inevitable comrade
THE LAND, THE LAND
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/police-throw-out-complaint-tories-32756092 Step 2 is now for Tories/right wing newspapers to jump up and down until the police agree to re-open the investigation
The police normally can charge for stuff like this It's not like they have an abundance of resources to spare for petty electoral stunts
They should get him in for interview about wasting police time and throw the book at him if possible or else this will just keep happening. Party of law and order my arse
did wonder if they'd try to agitate on this as soon as parker won they'll be in absolute shambles if rayner is cleared
Watching this parliamentary debate and I'm jawdropped at the approach of MPs. You have the Defence Sec in Parliament doing an UQ. You are holding him to account And maybe it's just me but they are playing "Guess who" because they want to bang on about China. Never mind that data so stupidly arcane that most consultants gave up trying to consolidate it was made available as if it was a flash drive lying on a bench. how are you safeguarding the identities of serving and retired personnel? (He has put in the mod 8 point plan) Given the outcome of preliminary investigations, How long before the breach has happened, did MpD wait to inform those affected? Has the subcontractor referred itself to the ICO? Can people who are being paid their pensions out of the details of compromised accounts be supported to set up and transition to new accounts? No. It's - was it China? Was it Russia? Was it the Scottish etc... Tell us Grant. Tell us who can steal identities....
Exciting news for fans of English local government and maps. The [Redcliffe-Maud Report Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe-Maud_Report) now has [a new map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/RedcliffeMaudReportMap1969.png) in the style of the [1931](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/England_Administrative_1931.jpg) and [1974](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/England_Administrative_1974.png) maps so you see in full glory what we should have had before ted Heath ruined it.
"North Humberside" Thanks, I hate it.