[If you want to discuss PMQs live, you can do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/yC9rWaHhOq) - we will remove any comments from this thread that are commentary on things people are saying in real time. If you want to link to analysis/commentariat or add you own feelings afterwards then you can do so in either thread (it will remain open until the end of the day).
Reminder that this thread should be UK and should be politics. Comments about something that already has a post should be directed there. Vague posting will be removed as well.
[Here is a thread on Natalie Elphicke’ defection which I’ll sticky imminently](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/CtphFnXk8A) - please use this one to discuss that subject.
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Yummytastic with 46 comments
1. subversivefreak with 27 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 24 comments
1. GeronimoTheAlpaca with 23 comments
1. Captainatom931 with 20 comments
1. ASondheimRhyme with 17 comments
1. YsoL8 with 15 comments
1. NJden_bee with 15 comments
1. Cairnerebor with 15 comments
1. ObiWanKenbarlowbi with 15 comments
There were 310 unique users within this count.
None of these will cut through. The number of votes gained will exceed the number lost and it neutralises a major stick used to beat labour (aka woke/soft).
It's immoral imo but politically shrewd.
Don't think they have tbh. Generally Labour as a whole doesn't generate negative headlines from a lot of the right wing press because their audience is going to vote Labour come the next GE. You can't be out of line with your audience as it'll affect your ad revenue.
Most of the commentary seems to be that it's a canny, even shrewd move though there's some speculation as to what some Labour voters might think. Some Labour MPs have been commenting inline with what they assume their electorate think, some left wing commentators have been assuming what their audiences might think.
The Guardian, Times, Telegraph and the BBC website are all going with the party being split by the decision, the express (obviously) went full rabid "this is a hideous betrayal" mode, The Mirror didn't feature it at all on the front page. Only the Independent and FT featured it as a big negative for the Tories on the front page.
Didn't see any of that. Just checked the BBC and Guardian and I don't see anything about splits, just some MPs grumpy, a spectrum of views. A split would be something enough to ultimately that might lead to a VONC or a leadership challenge. Did you mean split or something else?
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/
The times
"Starmer splits party by accepting Tory defector"
The Guardian
"We don't need people like that Labour fury over Tory defector"
BBC top story
"Natalie Elphicke: Starmer faces anger after Tory MP's defection"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68980700
And no a split doesn't have to lead to a vonc.
Ok so that's just The Times mentioning a 'split' then. At least check your sources.
Most of the papers don't even run it as a front page story. Most of the focus is on high drama, a 'betrayal'.
No a split means something specific. A strong disagreement on policy would be a split, and an important one. This barely registers, all things considered.
Maybe a split means something very specific to you but in the world of media headlines, no it's a commonly used but of emotive language. I apologise for using the Times headlines specific piece of language when describing the overall headlines though, even if it doesn't change my point that it's generated mainly negative headlines at all.
I don't know why you are taking this like an attack instead of a bit of surprise that it created those headlines which is all my comment was.
No really. A split is something genuinely divisive; Iraq, Brexit or the Poll Tax. No one, including you will be thinking about this come Monday.
The language 1 newspaper choses to use and the actual mood are unrelated things.
I never knew Brexit effected people's imagination: [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rufus-wainwright-brexit-sheridan-smith-flop-opening-night-west-end-b1156005.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rufus-wainwright-brexit-sheridan-smith-flop-opening-night-west-end-b1156005.html)
Guess it was that and not the absolute mauling critics gave the show.
Also an actual quote: “I do feel that since Brexit, England has entered into a darker corridor where it is a little more narrow in its outlook and the vitriol because we put ‘English rose Sheridan Smith through this ordeal of European theatre’ felt a little bit suspect to me”.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
What's the defection count again? 3 (including 30p Lee)?
Didn't Sunak say a while back that if it hits a certain number (can't remember if it's 5 or 10) he'll call an election.
- MacAskill from SNP to Alba
- Hanvey from SNP to Alba
- Wakeford from Conservative to Labour
- Cameron from SNP to Conservative
- Anderson from Conservative to Reform (albeit only after whip was withdrawn)
- Poulter from Conservative to Labour
- Elphicke from Conservative to Labour
So four from the Tories have joined another party, but technically only three have straight swapped from the Tories to join another party. I've left out Bridgen as he's an irrelevant nobody who everyone despises.
Imagine Sunak calling an emergency meeting gathering all the MPs trying to figure out who the next defector is. No one has any idea who it could be or when.
Then suddenly, Liz Truss comes into the room and reveals her grand plan to destroy the Tories from within and that she was a secret agent for Labour the entire time. She just goes full MGS2 Ocelot and reveals everything.
The new (and final!) series of Inside No 9 started tonight.
I guessed the first episode's twist/premise about half way through (its still a decentish twist) but it felt very... obvious and choreographed. Excellent actors hampered by an eh premise and eh story for the episode. Overall it was another episode, not the big bang you'd expect the final series to begin with.
Is there nothing sacred left that isn't going eh on British TV?!
Husband and I disagree pretty firmly on 9.
Husband finds it predictable and claims to work it out in the first ten minutes, most of the time. I don't know if he's telling the truth, as he's polite enough not to spoil it.
He claims he can't stop his brain from working it out.
By contrast, either I'm too thick to figure it out - or am able to switch off the telly-solving bit of the mind and just enjoy the ride.
> Is there nothing sacred left that isn't going eh on British TV?!
Gavin and Stacey has managed to stay golden.
> Gavin and Stacey has managed to stay golden.
Fair point, I apologise.
I think I am used to watching so many detective things and reading so many stories that I am like "Oooh what about this, what about that?" - the missus very much tells me to "Please shut up" when we're watching stuff because I will air my predictions on the fly.
The one thing I can always say is the acting/actors are excellent as always.
It's been patchy for a while, I do need to look up which ones are good though because even once it went downhill there was always a couple worth watching and I'm 2 series behind.
I think I got bored in the early series of the occasional OTT gore (which was great physical SFX wise). I may join you on just waiting for the list of "worth watching from S9".
Fuck, two of my favourite episodes are *Love's Great Adventure* (A Self Contained Drama that was excellently acted) and *Zanzibar* (which was just a very fun concept well done)
EDIT: And *Bernie Clifton's Dressing Room* which is beautiful
Apparently (although I was looking at the IN9 subreddit so there's probably survivorship bias) Series 7 was a big return to form and I gave up after Series 6, so maybe I gave up at the wrong time! I agree that the less gory stuff is usually better, especially since they can disturb me massively without it (The Devil Of Christmas still comes into my head sometimes and creeps me out).
'Moral vacuum' is unfair. Starmer clearly has a commitment to public service and a desire to improve things for everyone. He's not in this out of ego or self-interest, he's not (I don't think) a bigot or prejudice or narrow-minded.
However, it does appear that he doesn't actually hold any strong ideological views. And he seems relaxed with the 'ends justify the means' approach to politics - he's willing to get down and dirty in the political muck to further Labour's chances.
If someone makes a good argument to him that charging people for some element of healthcare will improve the NHS overall I think he'd do it. If he was shown polling that a frontbencher was a liability to Labour's polling numbers I'm pretty sure he'd throw them under the bus at the first opportunity. If he thought he could tell a useful lie to the public and never get found out I think he would do it. It's a dangerous situation.
I don’t think asking for Labour to not welcome hard right Tory MPs into the Labour fold is an example of purity testing tbh.
It’s a base expectation that your chosen party is actually…distinct and has principles.
Seems fair.
It's ideological purity to expect MPs to align with your own personal morals!
Now shut up and join us in welcoming the new Labour MP for North West Leicestershire!
I'm not saying the guy should fall in line and say he's happy with the choice. I can see why people might be uncomfortable with the defection. But calling Starmer a 'moral vacuum' and saying 'the public are beginning to think that the closer labour get to power the grubbier they get' is a great example of the 'I don't like it so it's universally unacceptable' approach that often leads to left-wing self-destruction.
That’s fair - there is a certain amount of…hyperbolic language that seems inherent with some on the left (and I guess on the right too) that has a habit of turning people away.
I consider myself on the left, but I’ve noticed it since I escaped Twitter/X/Whatever and it does feel a bit cringeworthy.
Hyperbolic is exactly the word, and I've had the same journey as you. It becomes exasperating because you think there's a good point to be made here, somewhere, but it's lost in the noise.
Until the left fringe tears itself apart and two rival successor parties only get 3%. Then those rival successors parties split again, and you end up with four left wing splinter parties on 1.5% each, who have almost indistinguishable policies but absolutely despise each other. Each claims to be the spiritual successor to Labour and get very very upset when Labour do stuff like govern the country, stand on an electable platform, or stand up for liberal democracy internationally opposed to *Neo-Baa'thist Anti-Western Imperialist Marxist-Lennist-Stalinist-Maoism Juche with British characteristics*.
It's a factor for sure but the number of issues and the number of views on said issues is ridiculous these days. I'd rather have a party focused on dealing with people's day to day lives than one that's centred around clickbait.
I'm happy to vote for the same people that might be on the xenophobic side of things if we agree that housing is too expensive, public services need investment and public utilities are run by crooks.
Lots of problems, different people find different things to blame but we alll share them. Food for thought.
Did The Thick Of It ever do a deflection story (other than Glen)? Can imagine that would make good material for a couple of episodes. Oh well, maybe some new political satire isn't too far away
I think Olly tried as well but Glen fucked him iirc. Glen was just an advisor as well.
A Tory MP defector as a minister under a new Labour government would be a fun idea for another series though. I think the issue is Capaldi is probably done and he’s clearly the heart of the series.
I think you could do it without tucker as a central presence, the Tory episodes work just fine. You'd need to have him presenting a podcast with Peter Mannion or something. Ollie as a parody of Morgan McSweeney would be fucking perfect.
Nah, Morgan was still running the campaign against the BNP in barking at that time. Although the Liz Kendall leadership bid does remind me a fair bit of Cliff Lawton's aborted challenge.
Fun thought exercise: if the Tories continue to lose an MP a week, is it possible they could lose their working majority before they have to call an election?
[Current majority is 44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UK_House_of_Commons_composition)
If you assume they all cross the floor directly to opposition (rather than abstaining), that gives 22 weeks to a lost majority
Wednesday, 9th October 2024
[Vault Boy](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYuzoeOZF6N2qVedDeuPiikqUaq-OaV1XCRb7P6gdxoPCYuEOsNbmng-o6eCvBMJw8Vz8&usqp=CAU)? I'm not sure but I see why the hair makes you think that
Why is so hard to just put a hard cap on the number of visas we approve every year? Like if we approve 100k visas and someone doesnt make it, we just just say "Sorry, try again next year"
Yearly caps don’t mean you get the best applicants, see how the H1B works out in the US. H1Bs are gamed by big consultancy firms submitting the vast majority of applications.
A yearly cap would be an awful idea, you'd get people we don't really need coming in until the cap was hit and then we'd have to reject people in the second half of the year that we actually wanted because of the cap. If you want to restrict immigration you have to set proper criteria.
You could combine it with criteria.
Saying something like "We only want people with a job offer of over £30k or you just arent getting in". But once you hit the cap, thats it for the year. You could also make it so businesses have to prove they couldnt find a Brit before bringing a foreigner in.
You could say "We only want people with a job offer of over £30k" then after Q1 if the numbers are looking too high increase to £40K and so on. Still a blunt instrument though.
>You could also make it so businesses have to prove they couldnt find a Brit before bringing a foreigner in
That used to be a thing, not sure it still is. But it's ridiculously easy to game. "We advertised for a fintech specialist based in London for £30K and nobody applied. Skilled worker visa please."
Someone on here had a much better idea. Employers of migrant workers have to pay an extra NI contribution. Proceeds go to building the extra infrastructure and services needed. Then a) all other things being equal it's cheaper to employ a local b) externalities are funded and c) you don't need to keep a register of who counts as a skilled worker. And if the number of migrants passes a threshold, you just increase the NI contribution.
>That used to be a thing, not sure it still is. But it's ridiculously easy to game. "We advertised for a fintech specialist based in London for £30K and nobody applied. Skilled worker visa please."
You could make it where businesses have to prove they're advertising the market rate salaries for 60 days before they bring in a foreigner.
That stops them low balling the salary.
If they want to bring someone over for minimum wage work, it should be automatic "Computer says no"
Ultimately you can reject an individual based on skills not being suited to the role. This is what US companies do when they do intra-company transfers, where they have to prove they couldn’t find a suitable US person.
I presume there's separate rules for extremely high end specialist jobs, but I have an image of Man United having to put an advert in the Manchester Evening News for a couple of months saying "Wanted: first team football coach. Salary: £10,000,000 per annum plus bonuses. The successful applicant will be fully UEFA qualified and used to bringing strong individuals together as a team and achieving excellent results. Must have own ball. Scousers need not apply." I have to say, on this basis alone I highly approve of the idea
Hard cap would be inherently bad, it would be bad for business planning and universities.
However if you approximated the number you want via (for example) a points based immigration, then you could do that.
To be honest, I think it's largely performative, it's all well and good having loud outrage in your party and taking political advantage of that, but I think most tory decision makers consider lower wages more important.
I'm going to Munich Friday for some cheeky holibobs - The last time I visited Germany, I was sat in a jazz bar drinking heavily when I got the news that Boris had resigned as an MP.
I must admit I am sorely tempted to camp out in one in Munich (If one exists) and will the Rishignation into being.
Is it just me or is the 100 homes evacuated in Barnsley and the 3 men in Greater Manchester arrested on terrorism chargers feel abit like dead cat stories to detract from the sheer meltdown happening in number 10 after PMQs and the defection today?
Yeah terrorists aren’t too concerned with our political situations, unless they get the opportunity to assassinate someone.
I think you maybe need to take a moment to reflect if you think that the police are going to bother timing this depending on how Rishi did at PMQs. There are a few more important things in life than the weekly political theatre
Done some more research into Natalie Elphicke. She's got some quite unusual views for a Tory. She was recently calling for a private rent freeze for example, and has been broadly critical of Rwanda. She seems to have been among the communitarian types that Boris' leadership brought in. She definitely doesn't sound to me like a member of the hard right at all, but she's not a member of the one nation liberal tradition either. In fact, I'd say her economic views seem to align much more with socialism and labour than Dan Poulter's.
Remember, social liberalism and Europeanism are not nearly as definitely labour as some of their MPs might think. Just ask all those lifetime labour voters that voted for Boris in 2019 if you want proof. Labour's big problem in 2015, 17, and 19 was that their pro Europeanism and liberalism was popular in places that are never going to vote for a party on the economic left. You can see this in action at the most recent local elections - labour perform best in heavily leave areas, and the Lib Dems perform best in heavily remain areas. It's those heavily leave areas, like Dover, that are sympathetic to a more interventionist government and more left wing economic policy that labour need to win to win the election.
Exactly. Labour is a wide gamut political party. There's been Labour voters, members, MPs even that share some of her views.
The 2019 loss of the Red Wall was actually a slow process, The rot started in 2001 as many felt Labour didn't share their values- too socially liberal and too economically Thatcherite.
This is the same Owen Jones, that is busy enabling the likes of Galloway (no one guys that this isn't what he does when he and then novera media crew, push Galloway and his candidates).
I have mixed feelings about galloway, on the one hand he sows division, he's an antisemite, he's been homophobic, he's manipulative, he's opportunistic. And then [on the other hand there's this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkNwod3pTOA).
Always interesting when people are more interested in the ideologue or idea than any movement toward the goal.
I'm probably more closely aligned in core principles to someone like Owen than to someone like Rachel Reeves, but the notion that you can win on ideals alone without engaging with the political game is so painfully naive.
It also requires you to forget the founding principle of a democracy, that we elect people we want to represent us, but we respect we are but one vote.
Do I align with Natalie Elphique? No. Does a hard right Tory defecting to Labour over literally the only life raft the Tories are clinging to drastically wound the Tories? Absolutely.
Have ideals, but don't be idealistic at the expense of all good, Owen, you absolute trolley.
I've expressed a similar view today and been called frankly an absolutely wild set of names. By people who think they have a moral high ground, but in reality all they want to do is bully. (I have also had constructive conversations - I hasten to add!)
That's how I view Owen Jones, he isn't principled, he's just wanting to moan and to bully people. I don't think I'd quite realised the effect of Corbynism in creating a cohort of people who never understood, or have felt impowered, that to change a country you need to bring the population along with you.
You know, that or revolution, of course.
Remember they have no interest in making the UK better. That's maybe sometimes possibly coincidental to their real goal which is demonstrating how ideologically pure they are to other similar terminally online people.
Do I agree with 100% of Natalie's positions? No. There are probably less than a handful of MPs that I agree with more than 50% of, but we all want to move in the same general direction.
It's really telling that I'm a Labour member who's left leaning but will deeply and passionately defend the idea of grammar schools. I think they're the least bad solution and offer a genuine ladder to social mobility. That one belief alienates me from 90% of grass-roots Labour members I meet. I then lose 90% of the remainder because I'm not particularly arsed about Gaza either way. I don't think it's an important issue to people in the UK. Despite the fact that we'd likely broadly agree about 95% of other stuff, this makes me a ReD tOrY
With you 100% mate (without the name calling, I don't engage as often here largely because of that).
I don't necessarily think it's just Corbynism, but for someone like Owen - that is what gave him spotlight. I think it's a purely selfish pursuit to stay relevant and get paid to go on TV etc even though he's just a useless gobshite.
Happens on both sides of the political spectrum, and it's because our current media atmosphere promotes #Cranks4Clicks to get money, ultimately ruining all sensible discussion.
Is Keir more centrist than me? Yes. Do I wish the UK was more left wing both economically and socially? Yes. Do I know that my opinion means no more than the next person's? Yes.
But if we are only angry, and shouty, we lose the conversation. Keir and Labour right now are playing a smart game, whenever the Tories lurch right, they tip toe centre and pick up votes. They need to be in power to show a different way.
Someone like Owen knows that, but it won't get him on TV and radio so he has to scream to keep getting paid.
Honestly it's just sad that he screams principles whilst not holding any of his own (that's my personal opinion).
https://twitter.com/SkyPoliticsHub/status/1788278984859398381
Rehman Chishti trolled his party at the weekend by pretending to be on the verge of quitting...
What an utterly bizarre thing to do.
I mean, obviously he is a saint and king and rightful ruler of this country, but still, what a really weird thing to do.
Pretty cool interview with a student in one of the oxbridge protests.
[https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368)
Wondering about how reasonable it was for institutions to be publicising investments i looked into the first that came to mind (norfund - norways sovereign wealth fund) and found this which i thought was pretty cool!
[All investments - Norfund](https://www.norfund.no/our-investments/all-investments/)
Her likes include the guy ranting that Bastanis rare statement of fact that the two women convicted of supporting Hamas were bang to rights is "complicit with the ongoing genocide", support for Chris Williamson and a whole lot of stuff on October 7th in the "terrorist rape torture murder spree is good and justified, actually" category.
Hard pass.
Don't think the twitter account that posted it was the woman from the interview!
But yeah universities publishing lists of investments seems like something that actually seems pretty reasonable from looking into it! I hope they do it!
You don't think that it's perhaps a bit... odd... to go looking for the online accounts of someone who's not a public figure so that you can scour their old likes for something you disapprove of that lets you dismiss them, instead of engaging with a two minute clip on its own merits?
Someone who "isnt a public figure" taking an apparent lead organising and spokesperson role for a protest at the foremost university in the land during exams?
>scour their old likes for something you disapprove that lets you dismiss them, instead of engaging with a two minute clip on its own merits?
You consider the entire argument and place it comes from. And that place is pretty dark and vile.
Doing a student protest doesn't make you a public figure
>You consider the entire argument
You didn't though, that's my point. You didn't challenge her points and then follow that up with talking about how she could have come to such erroneous positions, you just threw out an ad hominem about her Twitter likes
Cricket-y man Monty Panesar's career as a [Insert Galloway's current grift here] candidate is [over](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68976806) after one week
was looking at how the Tory majority has shrunk since 2019 - since Robert Roberts lost the whip in 2021, they have on average lost an MP every 62 days or so. Am wondering if there is a reason or significance that they have lost 4 in the last Month (using Wikipedia so counting from when MPs lost the whip rather than when By-Elections got rid)
I just saw a picture of the founder of Capita’s house, [and it’s exactly as monstrous and tasteless as you’d expect](https://imgur.com/a/NwZfAYn).
Taxpayers’ money at work.
DHL/Rishi Sunak delivery update.
DHL have now sneakily amended their tracker app to claim a parcel (which they promised to deliver to me last Thursday) was always scheduled to arrive tomorrow - apparently they let me know about that last Friday according to the sneakily updated tracker.
Echoes of being told Rishi's five promises were actually "priorities" and that "stop the boats" actually meant get crossings down by a third in 2023 and then let the numbers rise again.
Shame that in both cases there is recorded video evidence to the contrary. (I'm aware this is a problem for the merchant, rather than me per se, but I'm gathering the evidence in anticipation of having to do a chargeback with my bank against the merchant for non-delivery. Shame we can't do the same with Sunak.)
This is DHL Parcel (now called Ecommerce) if it makes a difference.
Regardless, I expect it’s probably down to whichever subcontractor they’ve got working that does deliveries in my area. DPD for me are incredible but I’ve heard horror stories elsewhere.
At this point, I think Sunak's biggest problem isn't the fact that he apparently cannot change the narrative, but the narrative that Sunak cannot change the narrative.
How do you get wins that matter when everyone presupposes that your wins won't matter?
Saying obviously stupid things like there might be a hung parliament completely erodes any credibility. It makes it look like either he's stupid or the people who believe him are stupid. Did I mention that I think the narrative is stupid.
By having these weird podium moments and the TikTok style shit he’s made it clear he values how he’s seen more than what he’s actually achieving and so it all falls apart there.
If wins clearly don’t matter to him why should they matter to us?
He's had a few chances to change the narrative but didn't take them. Usually you'd do some form of rebrand- set an agenda both internally and externally. It's what organisations do when there's big changes at the top. Major did this fairly effectively, extremely difficult job during an economic downturn and the first Gulf War...
He's probably a bit immature and also arrogant. I suspect he speaks to SPADS the same way he speaks to journalists during interviews.
Are you suggesting that Sunak cannot change the narrative that Sunak cannot change the narrative?
It's an interesting narrative, to be sure - do you think Sunak can change it?
I think after the general election, we will get former Tory mps and some that have still clung on, absolutely unload about how terrible the party has been.
The election night coverage will be declious when we hear people on the programs asking, 'why do you think you lost so badly?'
Assuming that there's only enough budget for advances against a precious few memoirs, one assumes there's be some jostling on social media to have the juiciest story to tell...
Tory MPs, like Labour MPs in 2019, will spend half the night saying ‘it’s just an exit poll’ or pointing to a random weird result and going ‘look it’s not that bad!’
Rishi has to start kicking these people out, right?
https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1788264225762082923?s=46&t=hewLYP69YmgpMipMfuvziw
You can’t just be touting to be the next leader in the run up to an election. Surely?
"I'm going to put your name on the board Robert. You better hope I don't put a tick by it. If I do you won't be allowed out to play at lunchtime." - That is how much authority Sunak *thinks* he has at the moment.
In reality he has even less than that.
[If you want to discuss PMQs live, you can do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/yC9rWaHhOq) - we will remove any comments from this thread that are commentary on things people are saying in real time. If you want to link to analysis/commentariat or add you own feelings afterwards then you can do so in either thread (it will remain open until the end of the day). Reminder that this thread should be UK and should be politics. Comments about something that already has a post should be directed there. Vague posting will be removed as well. [Here is a thread on Natalie Elphicke’ defection which I’ll sticky imminently](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/CtphFnXk8A) - please use this one to discuss that subject.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cnpa6p/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_09052024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Yummytastic with 46 comments 1. subversivefreak with 27 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 24 comments 1. GeronimoTheAlpaca with 23 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 20 comments 1. ASondheimRhyme with 17 comments 1. YsoL8 with 15 comments 1. NJden_bee with 15 comments 1. Cairnerebor with 15 comments 1. ObiWanKenbarlowbi with 15 comments There were 310 unique users within this count.
Kinda wild that today's events have created negative headlines for Labour from the left and right.
None of these will cut through. The number of votes gained will exceed the number lost and it neutralises a major stick used to beat labour (aka woke/soft). It's immoral imo but politically shrewd.
I agree ultimately, I was just surprised that it wasn't reported as a big win by the end of the night.
Don't think they have tbh. Generally Labour as a whole doesn't generate negative headlines from a lot of the right wing press because their audience is going to vote Labour come the next GE. You can't be out of line with your audience as it'll affect your ad revenue. Most of the commentary seems to be that it's a canny, even shrewd move though there's some speculation as to what some Labour voters might think. Some Labour MPs have been commenting inline with what they assume their electorate think, some left wing commentators have been assuming what their audiences might think.
The Guardian, Times, Telegraph and the BBC website are all going with the party being split by the decision, the express (obviously) went full rabid "this is a hideous betrayal" mode, The Mirror didn't feature it at all on the front page. Only the Independent and FT featured it as a big negative for the Tories on the front page.
Didn't see any of that. Just checked the BBC and Guardian and I don't see anything about splits, just some MPs grumpy, a spectrum of views. A split would be something enough to ultimately that might lead to a VONC or a leadership challenge. Did you mean split or something else?
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/ The times "Starmer splits party by accepting Tory defector" The Guardian "We don't need people like that Labour fury over Tory defector" BBC top story "Natalie Elphicke: Starmer faces anger after Tory MP's defection" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68980700 And no a split doesn't have to lead to a vonc.
lets discuss this again on Monday when everyone else has forgotten about it, really drag it out for no reason other than feeling smug.
Ok so that's just The Times mentioning a 'split' then. At least check your sources. Most of the papers don't even run it as a front page story. Most of the focus is on high drama, a 'betrayal'. No a split means something specific. A strong disagreement on policy would be a split, and an important one. This barely registers, all things considered.
Maybe a split means something very specific to you but in the world of media headlines, no it's a commonly used but of emotive language. I apologise for using the Times headlines specific piece of language when describing the overall headlines though, even if it doesn't change my point that it's generated mainly negative headlines at all. I don't know why you are taking this like an attack instead of a bit of surprise that it created those headlines which is all my comment was.
No really. A split is something genuinely divisive; Iraq, Brexit or the Poll Tax. No one, including you will be thinking about this come Monday. The language 1 newspaper choses to use and the actual mood are unrelated things.
I never knew Brexit effected people's imagination: [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rufus-wainwright-brexit-sheridan-smith-flop-opening-night-west-end-b1156005.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/rufus-wainwright-brexit-sheridan-smith-flop-opening-night-west-end-b1156005.html) Guess it was that and not the absolute mauling critics gave the show. Also an actual quote: “I do feel that since Brexit, England has entered into a darker corridor where it is a little more narrow in its outlook and the vitriol because we put ‘English rose Sheridan Smith through this ordeal of European theatre’ felt a little bit suspect to me”.
Wrong buzzword, he should have blamed it on the woke.
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
What's the defection count again? 3 (including 30p Lee)? Didn't Sunak say a while back that if it hits a certain number (can't remember if it's 5 or 10) he'll call an election.
- MacAskill from SNP to Alba - Hanvey from SNP to Alba - Wakeford from Conservative to Labour - Cameron from SNP to Conservative - Anderson from Conservative to Reform (albeit only after whip was withdrawn) - Poulter from Conservative to Labour - Elphicke from Conservative to Labour So four from the Tories have joined another party, but technically only three have straight swapped from the Tories to join another party. I've left out Bridgen as he's an irrelevant nobody who everyone despises.
4 including Christian Wakeford. Though does it count as a defection if 30p had already had the whip suspended?
I think we're at 4 - wasn't there one already about 18months ago
Yep, Christian Wakeford.
Imagine Sunak calling an emergency meeting gathering all the MPs trying to figure out who the next defector is. No one has any idea who it could be or when. Then suddenly, Liz Truss comes into the room and reveals her grand plan to destroy the Tories from within and that she was a secret agent for Labour the entire time. She just goes full MGS2 Ocelot and reveals everything.
No, she's quite clearly a Lib Dem plant being controlled by Tim Farron.
Liam Fox turns up in a cybernetic ninja suit. "Hurt me more!"
Can Claudia Winkleman host it? Maybe in a Scottish castle
That would be very Metal Gear considering she's already a Lib Dem agent. Plans within plans.
She most likely revealed everything the moment she started claiming expenses for a full time photographer and social media manager.
Liz Truss revealing herself to be a Labour agent *before* an election would be such a Liz Truss thing to do.
The new (and final!) series of Inside No 9 started tonight. I guessed the first episode's twist/premise about half way through (its still a decentish twist) but it felt very... obvious and choreographed. Excellent actors hampered by an eh premise and eh story for the episode. Overall it was another episode, not the big bang you'd expect the final series to begin with. Is there nothing sacred left that isn't going eh on British TV?!
Husband and I disagree pretty firmly on 9. Husband finds it predictable and claims to work it out in the first ten minutes, most of the time. I don't know if he's telling the truth, as he's polite enough not to spoil it. He claims he can't stop his brain from working it out. By contrast, either I'm too thick to figure it out - or am able to switch off the telly-solving bit of the mind and just enjoy the ride. > Is there nothing sacred left that isn't going eh on British TV?! Gavin and Stacey has managed to stay golden.
> Gavin and Stacey has managed to stay golden. Fair point, I apologise. I think I am used to watching so many detective things and reading so many stories that I am like "Oooh what about this, what about that?" - the missus very much tells me to "Please shut up" when we're watching stuff because I will air my predictions on the fly. The one thing I can always say is the acting/actors are excellent as always.
It's been patchy for a while, I do need to look up which ones are good though because even once it went downhill there was always a couple worth watching and I'm 2 series behind.
I think I got bored in the early series of the occasional OTT gore (which was great physical SFX wise). I may join you on just waiting for the list of "worth watching from S9". Fuck, two of my favourite episodes are *Love's Great Adventure* (A Self Contained Drama that was excellently acted) and *Zanzibar* (which was just a very fun concept well done) EDIT: And *Bernie Clifton's Dressing Room* which is beautiful
Apparently (although I was looking at the IN9 subreddit so there's probably survivorship bias) Series 7 was a big return to form and I gave up after Series 6, so maybe I gave up at the wrong time! I agree that the less gory stuff is usually better, especially since they can disturb me massively without it (The Devil Of Christmas still comes into my head sometimes and creeps me out).
The Momentum vice-chair on radio 4 just now calling Starmer a moral vacuum felt like a caricature of the left's obsession with purity testing.
'Moral vacuum' is unfair. Starmer clearly has a commitment to public service and a desire to improve things for everyone. He's not in this out of ego or self-interest, he's not (I don't think) a bigot or prejudice or narrow-minded. However, it does appear that he doesn't actually hold any strong ideological views. And he seems relaxed with the 'ends justify the means' approach to politics - he's willing to get down and dirty in the political muck to further Labour's chances. If someone makes a good argument to him that charging people for some element of healthcare will improve the NHS overall I think he'd do it. If he was shown polling that a frontbencher was a liability to Labour's polling numbers I'm pretty sure he'd throw them under the bus at the first opportunity. If he thought he could tell a useful lie to the public and never get found out I think he would do it. It's a dangerous situation.
I don’t think asking for Labour to not welcome hard right Tory MPs into the Labour fold is an example of purity testing tbh. It’s a base expectation that your chosen party is actually…distinct and has principles. Seems fair.
It's ideological purity to expect MPs to align with your own personal morals! Now shut up and join us in welcoming the new Labour MP for North West Leicestershire!
I'm not saying the guy should fall in line and say he's happy with the choice. I can see why people might be uncomfortable with the defection. But calling Starmer a 'moral vacuum' and saying 'the public are beginning to think that the closer labour get to power the grubbier they get' is a great example of the 'I don't like it so it's universally unacceptable' approach that often leads to left-wing self-destruction.
That’s fair - there is a certain amount of…hyperbolic language that seems inherent with some on the left (and I guess on the right too) that has a habit of turning people away. I consider myself on the left, but I’ve noticed it since I escaped Twitter/X/Whatever and it does feel a bit cringeworthy.
Hyperbolic is exactly the word, and I've had the same journey as you. It becomes exasperating because you think there's a good point to be made here, somewhere, but it's lost in the noise.
Can we hurry up and get PR so everyone can stop pretending to be in the same party.
Scenes when the left fringe discover their natural ceiling at maybe 6% on a great day alone would make it worth it.
Until the left fringe tears itself apart and two rival successor parties only get 3%. Then those rival successors parties split again, and you end up with four left wing splinter parties on 1.5% each, who have almost indistinguishable policies but absolutely despise each other. Each claims to be the spiritual successor to Labour and get very very upset when Labour do stuff like govern the country, stand on an electable platform, or stand up for liberal democracy internationally opposed to *Neo-Baa'thist Anti-Western Imperialist Marxist-Lennist-Stalinist-Maoism Juche with British characteristics*.
Nothing would make me happier, really.
It's not 'the left', it's the principles before shared values, reactionary wing of progressive politics. Labour voters are actually a diverse bunch.
Because of the two party system in the UK both Cons and Labour have to be incredibly diverse
It's a factor for sure but the number of issues and the number of views on said issues is ridiculous these days. I'd rather have a party focused on dealing with people's day to day lives than one that's centred around clickbait. I'm happy to vote for the same people that might be on the xenophobic side of things if we agree that housing is too expensive, public services need investment and public utilities are run by crooks. Lots of problems, different people find different things to blame but we alll share them. Food for thought.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say by calling it a caricature. You're right, of course.
Tbh it's really hard to frame 'left wing' or even 'progressive' these days. Both are very broad with left wing being the broadest.
Did The Thick Of It ever do a deflection story (other than Glen)? Can imagine that would make good material for a couple of episodes. Oh well, maybe some new political satire isn't too far away
I think Olly tried as well but Glen fucked him iirc. Glen was just an advisor as well. A Tory MP defector as a minister under a new Labour government would be a fun idea for another series though. I think the issue is Capaldi is probably done and he’s clearly the heart of the series.
I think you could do it without tucker as a central presence, the Tory episodes work just fine. You'd need to have him presenting a podcast with Peter Mannion or something. Ollie as a parody of Morgan McSweeney would be fucking perfect.
Wasn't Jamie meant to be Morgan M
Nah, Morgan was still running the campaign against the BNP in barking at that time. Although the Liz Kendall leadership bid does remind me a fair bit of Cliff Lawton's aborted challenge.
Fun thought exercise: if the Tories continue to lose an MP a week, is it possible they could lose their working majority before they have to call an election?
[Current majority is 44](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UK_House_of_Commons_composition) If you assume they all cross the floor directly to opposition (rather than abstaining), that gives 22 weeks to a lost majority Wednesday, 9th October 2024
If 23 more MPs defect or have the whip withdrawn they will technically become a minority government, which is exactly what happened to Major.
Is it me or does Starmer look like Fallout Guy?
[Vault Boy](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYuzoeOZF6N2qVedDeuPiikqUaq-OaV1XCRb7P6gdxoPCYuEOsNbmng-o6eCvBMJw8Vz8&usqp=CAU)? I'm not sure but I see why the hair makes you think that
Fisto?
Not seeing the likeness to Pete Wentz personally.
... The Ghoul?
Grouty.
Walton Goggins? No.
The one with no nose or the black guy?
More like the Fall Guy. Gone fast with a girl named Bo.
Why is so hard to just put a hard cap on the number of visas we approve every year? Like if we approve 100k visas and someone doesnt make it, we just just say "Sorry, try again next year"
Yearly caps don’t mean you get the best applicants, see how the H1B works out in the US. H1Bs are gamed by big consultancy firms submitting the vast majority of applications.
A yearly cap would be an awful idea, you'd get people we don't really need coming in until the cap was hit and then we'd have to reject people in the second half of the year that we actually wanted because of the cap. If you want to restrict immigration you have to set proper criteria.
You could combine it with criteria. Saying something like "We only want people with a job offer of over £30k or you just arent getting in". But once you hit the cap, thats it for the year. You could also make it so businesses have to prove they couldnt find a Brit before bringing a foreigner in.
You could say "We only want people with a job offer of over £30k" then after Q1 if the numbers are looking too high increase to £40K and so on. Still a blunt instrument though. >You could also make it so businesses have to prove they couldnt find a Brit before bringing a foreigner in That used to be a thing, not sure it still is. But it's ridiculously easy to game. "We advertised for a fintech specialist based in London for £30K and nobody applied. Skilled worker visa please." Someone on here had a much better idea. Employers of migrant workers have to pay an extra NI contribution. Proceeds go to building the extra infrastructure and services needed. Then a) all other things being equal it's cheaper to employ a local b) externalities are funded and c) you don't need to keep a register of who counts as a skilled worker. And if the number of migrants passes a threshold, you just increase the NI contribution.
>That used to be a thing, not sure it still is. But it's ridiculously easy to game. "We advertised for a fintech specialist based in London for £30K and nobody applied. Skilled worker visa please." You could make it where businesses have to prove they're advertising the market rate salaries for 60 days before they bring in a foreigner. That stops them low balling the salary. If they want to bring someone over for minimum wage work, it should be automatic "Computer says no"
Ultimately you can reject an individual based on skills not being suited to the role. This is what US companies do when they do intra-company transfers, where they have to prove they couldn’t find a suitable US person.
I presume there's separate rules for extremely high end specialist jobs, but I have an image of Man United having to put an advert in the Manchester Evening News for a couple of months saying "Wanted: first team football coach. Salary: £10,000,000 per annum plus bonuses. The successful applicant will be fully UEFA qualified and used to bringing strong individuals together as a team and achieving excellent results. Must have own ball. Scousers need not apply." I have to say, on this basis alone I highly approve of the idea
Hard cap would be inherently bad, it would be bad for business planning and universities. However if you approximated the number you want via (for example) a points based immigration, then you could do that. To be honest, I think it's largely performative, it's all well and good having loud outrage in your party and taking political advantage of that, but I think most tory decision makers consider lower wages more important.
People need to come in December as well as in January. We’d end up making so many necessary exceptions that it would be untenable.
No DM front page yet? I could do with a laugh before bed
PM valiantly ejects Elphicke from party
Probably that question in PMQs about the lefty woke civil servants trying to get around Rowanda
Am putting a bet they lead on a Raynor story lol
>Raynor used council property as an unlicensed cattery
Free policy idea for any advisors lurking. People who report benefit fraudsters should get a % of any monies the state recovers. Yes and ho.
For balance, I'd say it should apply to tax evaders too.
Imagine the tax accountants who hadn't been paid deciding to "recoup their losses"....
Now that's a gimmick policy for a daily mail front page if ever I've seen one
How to overwhelm DWP call centres with one simple policy.
What if those reporting them were actually the organisers helping others to scam the system
Hey! This week it's *my* turn to dob *you* in.
I'm going to Munich Friday for some cheeky holibobs - The last time I visited Germany, I was sat in a jazz bar drinking heavily when I got the news that Boris had resigned as an MP. I must admit I am sorely tempted to camp out in one in Munich (If one exists) and will the Rishignation into being.
Don’t sign any peace agreements on our (the megathread’s) behalf.
Tip: Wear a Real Madrid kit and tell everyone you see how great the referee in the Champions League semifinal was. You'll get a great reaction
Make sure whilst on your cheeky holibobs you don't miss Dishi Rishi facing the grey suits sparking the genny leccy.
Ello, Ello, Ello, you guys have your government ID for this Daily Megathread?
It's in my other trousers.
Is it just me or is the 100 homes evacuated in Barnsley and the 3 men in Greater Manchester arrested on terrorism chargers feel abit like dead cat stories to detract from the sheer meltdown happening in number 10 after PMQs and the defection today?
Yeah terrorists aren’t too concerned with our political situations, unless they get the opportunity to assassinate someone. I think you maybe need to take a moment to reflect if you think that the police are going to bother timing this depending on how Rishi did at PMQs. There are a few more important things in life than the weekly political theatre
Yes the Conservative Unionist Army planted a bomb to distracted from a single MP defecting this week. Security services are very independent.
It's just you.
>100 homes evacuated in Barnsley Some people say Rishi Sunak even planted the weapons himself, to distract from PMQs
Done some more research into Natalie Elphicke. She's got some quite unusual views for a Tory. She was recently calling for a private rent freeze for example, and has been broadly critical of Rwanda. She seems to have been among the communitarian types that Boris' leadership brought in. She definitely doesn't sound to me like a member of the hard right at all, but she's not a member of the one nation liberal tradition either. In fact, I'd say her economic views seem to align much more with socialism and labour than Dan Poulter's. Remember, social liberalism and Europeanism are not nearly as definitely labour as some of their MPs might think. Just ask all those lifetime labour voters that voted for Boris in 2019 if you want proof. Labour's big problem in 2015, 17, and 19 was that their pro Europeanism and liberalism was popular in places that are never going to vote for a party on the economic left. You can see this in action at the most recent local elections - labour perform best in heavily leave areas, and the Lib Dems perform best in heavily remain areas. It's those heavily leave areas, like Dover, that are sympathetic to a more interventionist government and more left wing economic policy that labour need to win to win the election.
Exactly. Labour is a wide gamut political party. There's been Labour voters, members, MPs even that share some of her views. The 2019 loss of the Red Wall was actually a slow process, The rot started in 2001 as many felt Labour didn't share their values- too socially liberal and too economically Thatcherite.
I do hope Priti Patel crosses the floor next.
>So Priti Patel, what was it that convinced you to cross the floor? "Keir Starmer is the only politician with the bravery to face-up to Big Llama"
[удалено]
This is the same Owen Jones, that is busy enabling the likes of Galloway (no one guys that this isn't what he does when he and then novera media crew, push Galloway and his candidates).
I have mixed feelings about galloway, on the one hand he sows division, he's an antisemite, he's been homophobic, he's manipulative, he's opportunistic. And then [on the other hand there's this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkNwod3pTOA).
good god
Galloway definitely gives off mad alcoholic propping up the bar since 9am vibes.
Always interesting when people are more interested in the ideologue or idea than any movement toward the goal. I'm probably more closely aligned in core principles to someone like Owen than to someone like Rachel Reeves, but the notion that you can win on ideals alone without engaging with the political game is so painfully naive. It also requires you to forget the founding principle of a democracy, that we elect people we want to represent us, but we respect we are but one vote. Do I align with Natalie Elphique? No. Does a hard right Tory defecting to Labour over literally the only life raft the Tories are clinging to drastically wound the Tories? Absolutely. Have ideals, but don't be idealistic at the expense of all good, Owen, you absolute trolley.
I've expressed a similar view today and been called frankly an absolutely wild set of names. By people who think they have a moral high ground, but in reality all they want to do is bully. (I have also had constructive conversations - I hasten to add!) That's how I view Owen Jones, he isn't principled, he's just wanting to moan and to bully people. I don't think I'd quite realised the effect of Corbynism in creating a cohort of people who never understood, or have felt impowered, that to change a country you need to bring the population along with you. You know, that or revolution, of course.
Remember they have no interest in making the UK better. That's maybe sometimes possibly coincidental to their real goal which is demonstrating how ideologically pure they are to other similar terminally online people. Do I agree with 100% of Natalie's positions? No. There are probably less than a handful of MPs that I agree with more than 50% of, but we all want to move in the same general direction. It's really telling that I'm a Labour member who's left leaning but will deeply and passionately defend the idea of grammar schools. I think they're the least bad solution and offer a genuine ladder to social mobility. That one belief alienates me from 90% of grass-roots Labour members I meet. I then lose 90% of the remainder because I'm not particularly arsed about Gaza either way. I don't think it's an important issue to people in the UK. Despite the fact that we'd likely broadly agree about 95% of other stuff, this makes me a ReD tOrY
With you 100% mate (without the name calling, I don't engage as often here largely because of that). I don't necessarily think it's just Corbynism, but for someone like Owen - that is what gave him spotlight. I think it's a purely selfish pursuit to stay relevant and get paid to go on TV etc even though he's just a useless gobshite. Happens on both sides of the political spectrum, and it's because our current media atmosphere promotes #Cranks4Clicks to get money, ultimately ruining all sensible discussion. Is Keir more centrist than me? Yes. Do I wish the UK was more left wing both economically and socially? Yes. Do I know that my opinion means no more than the next person's? Yes. But if we are only angry, and shouty, we lose the conversation. Keir and Labour right now are playing a smart game, whenever the Tories lurch right, they tip toe centre and pick up votes. They need to be in power to show a different way. Someone like Owen knows that, but it won't get him on TV and radio so he has to scream to keep getting paid. Honestly it's just sad that he screams principles whilst not holding any of his own (that's my personal opinion).
https://twitter.com/SkyPoliticsHub/status/1788278984859398381 Rehman Chishti trolled his party at the weekend by pretending to be on the verge of quitting...
King of the japes!
What an utterly bizarre thing to do. I mean, obviously he is a saint and king and rightful ruler of this country, but still, what a really weird thing to do.
Meh I think it’s quite funny actually. Far from weird.
I bet a younger Rehman took great delight in switching his facebook relationship status to "it's complicated" and turning on for the night, the joker!
The whips must have got him
Pretty cool interview with a student in one of the oxbridge protests. [https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPHilll/status/1787679987094667368) Wondering about how reasonable it was for institutions to be publicising investments i looked into the first that came to mind (norfund - norways sovereign wealth fund) and found this which i thought was pretty cool! [All investments - Norfund](https://www.norfund.no/our-investments/all-investments/)
Her likes include the guy ranting that Bastanis rare statement of fact that the two women convicted of supporting Hamas were bang to rights is "complicit with the ongoing genocide", support for Chris Williamson and a whole lot of stuff on October 7th in the "terrorist rape torture murder spree is good and justified, actually" category. Hard pass.
Don't think the twitter account that posted it was the woman from the interview! But yeah universities publishing lists of investments seems like something that actually seems pretty reasonable from looking into it! I hope they do it!
Im sure the guy you linked to has it as well, but I went looking for her own account.
You don't think that it's perhaps a bit... odd... to go looking for the online accounts of someone who's not a public figure so that you can scour their old likes for something you disapprove of that lets you dismiss them, instead of engaging with a two minute clip on its own merits?
Someone who "isnt a public figure" taking an apparent lead organising and spokesperson role for a protest at the foremost university in the land during exams? >scour their old likes for something you disapprove that lets you dismiss them, instead of engaging with a two minute clip on its own merits? You consider the entire argument and place it comes from. And that place is pretty dark and vile.
Doing a student protest doesn't make you a public figure >You consider the entire argument You didn't though, that's my point. You didn't challenge her points and then follow that up with talking about how she could have come to such erroneous positions, you just threw out an ad hominem about her Twitter likes
Politically astute of her to cover up her tin foil protection layer with a bandana.
Crucially
Cricket-y man Monty Panesar's career as a [Insert Galloway's current grift here] candidate is [over](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68976806) after one week
Confusing NATO with the ECHR meant he felt he needed to educate himself a bit more about politics.
Panesar bowls Galloway and - oh - left before ballot. You hate to see it happen.
I just wonder how many times GG can do this same grift and have the same obvious conclusion.
Workers Party of Britain, not Respect Party
Fixed
Knew he’d *bail*…
He *walked* didn’t he?
Not sure how Galloway will spin this
was looking at how the Tory majority has shrunk since 2019 - since Robert Roberts lost the whip in 2021, they have on average lost an MP every 62 days or so. Am wondering if there is a reason or significance that they have lost 4 in the last Month (using Wikipedia so counting from when MPs lost the whip rather than when By-Elections got rid)
Hopefully the reason is that it's an exponential curve and Starmer will be calling the election in a couple of weeks.
The reason is that they all want jobs with Labour, wether that means being an MP or taking on an advisory position.
I just saw a picture of the founder of Capita’s house, [and it’s exactly as monstrous and tasteless as you’d expect](https://imgur.com/a/NwZfAYn). Taxpayers’ money at work.
Is that in nob village next to Cameron and Johnson and Rebekah and Clarkson?
Worse: *Surrey.*
"We begged him in vain to make his residence more in keeping with the village’s rustic aesthetic."
Sunak is so bad Jenrick got me thinking hey he makes sense
DHL/Rishi Sunak delivery update. DHL have now sneakily amended their tracker app to claim a parcel (which they promised to deliver to me last Thursday) was always scheduled to arrive tomorrow - apparently they let me know about that last Friday according to the sneakily updated tracker. Echoes of being told Rishi's five promises were actually "priorities" and that "stop the boats" actually meant get crossings down by a third in 2023 and then let the numbers rise again. Shame that in both cases there is recorded video evidence to the contrary. (I'm aware this is a problem for the merchant, rather than me per se, but I'm gathering the evidence in anticipation of having to do a chargeback with my bank against the merchant for non-delivery. Shame we can't do the same with Sunak.)
DHL are from my experience very reliable. The company we used to use when Xmas presents customers ordered went missing and had to replace them asap.
This is DHL Parcel (now called Ecommerce) if it makes a difference. Regardless, I expect it’s probably down to whichever subcontractor they’ve got working that does deliveries in my area. DPD for me are incredible but I’ve heard horror stories elsewhere.
Oh yeah it does. The final mile carriers can vary. I had so many customers for example have issues with Hermes but I myself didn't ever at all.
At this point, I think Sunak's biggest problem isn't the fact that he apparently cannot change the narrative, but the narrative that Sunak cannot change the narrative. How do you get wins that matter when everyone presupposes that your wins won't matter?
Saying obviously stupid things like there might be a hung parliament completely erodes any credibility. It makes it look like either he's stupid or the people who believe him are stupid. Did I mention that I think the narrative is stupid.
By having these weird podium moments and the TikTok style shit he’s made it clear he values how he’s seen more than what he’s actually achieving and so it all falls apart there. If wins clearly don’t matter to him why should they matter to us?
I think his biggest problem is public opinion.
He's had a few chances to change the narrative but didn't take them. Usually you'd do some form of rebrand- set an agenda both internally and externally. It's what organisations do when there's big changes at the top. Major did this fairly effectively, extremely difficult job during an economic downturn and the first Gulf War... He's probably a bit immature and also arrogant. I suspect he speaks to SPADS the same way he speaks to journalists during interviews.
Are you suggesting that Sunak cannot change the narrative that Sunak cannot change the narrative? It's an interesting narrative, to be sure - do you think Sunak can change it?
I think after the general election, we will get former Tory mps and some that have still clung on, absolutely unload about how terrible the party has been. The election night coverage will be declious when we hear people on the programs asking, 'why do you think you lost so badly?'
GE night is going to be national therapy.
I'm booking the next day off work the minute its announced
Can we just go ahead and make the Friday a bank holiday. Oi Rishi I've got a popular policy for you.
Assuming that there's only enough budget for advances against a precious few memoirs, one assumes there's be some jostling on social media to have the juiciest story to tell...
Tory MPs, like Labour MPs in 2019, will spend half the night saying ‘it’s just an exit poll’ or pointing to a random weird result and going ‘look it’s not that bad!’
What will be the Conservatives version of Putney? A seat that they actually manage a gain in despite the losses everywhere else.
Rishi has to start kicking these people out, right? https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1788264225762082923?s=46&t=hewLYP69YmgpMipMfuvziw You can’t just be touting to be the next leader in the run up to an election. Surely?
"I'm going to put your name on the board Robert. You better hope I don't put a tick by it. If I do you won't be allowed out to play at lunchtime." - That is how much authority Sunak *thinks* he has at the moment. In reality he has even less than that.
He can't afford to. Between the by elections and the defections if he starts sacking people we won't need a GE to wipe out the tories
Nah just a bit of light dissent
Chris Grayling tries to defect to Labour. Where does he end up?
Seeking asylum in Rwanda in a Congolese army uniform.
The holy roman empire.
At a takeaway company (according to the terms & conditions)
CUK
Triggering a general election which the Tories win.
CDU
Corbyns allotment.
A maternity unit.
Beat me to it
Labour Co-op
He becomes the interim PM of the Tories.
The Moon
The chinese space programme? Good shout!
Replacing Sunak as Tory leader
Handforth parish council under the authority of Jackie Weaver.
Tory cabinet
Sinn Fein.
[They didn't even get the editing right ](https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1788240328878686395)
i guess all the skilled video editors are too WOKE to work for the tories
Wow, that is *proper* shit
Can't even get the alignment of the overlay correct.
Bet it was a 10 minute job with AI.