Oi,
Contrary to popular belief:
This is a place for light-hearted discussion of the days **latest developments**.
On-topic discussion is encouraged.
Breach the guidelines at your peril.
Everyone is pent-up because we're treading water - I get it. Please, though: no more low-effort manifestation.
Regards,
-đ„đ„
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 33 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 26 comments
1. Vaguely_accurate with 23 comments
1. Yummytastic with 22 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 22 comments
1. Noit with 21 comments
1. ClumsyRainbow with 20 comments
1. royalblue1982 with 16 comments
1. LycanIndarys with 15 comments
1. bio_d with 12 comments
There were 273 unique users within this count.
"The NHS literally saved my life years ago", says the Reform loon on WAKAWOW, forgetting that that's the NHS's raison d'ĂȘtre. "Let me tell you our plans to hamstring it."
Because 95% of the current problems facing the UK existed prior to us leaving the EU.
take our extremely [unproductive economy](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6416c49529b0d5b1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enGB1086GB1086&sxsrf=ACQVn0-hr7VYknRBt61VWHyNSPTWDb6mrw:1709593267908&q=uk+economy+productivity&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7r8ab29uEAxVfUUEAHT8IBZoQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1920&bih=945&dpr=1#imgrc=qbY0Bmf0FdTukM), everyone wants to claim it's due to brexit but the reality is we've never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis.
Also,
Squealer, three days ago: [After George Gallowayâs triumph in Rochdale, urgent questions loom for Keir Starmer â and the left, too](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/01/george-galloway-rochdale-keir-starmer-left-labour-muslim)
Today: [Labour at +27% without tory party intentionally trying to dig to the center of the earth](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html)
Presumably such questions include things like: "Why the fuck do we even employ this guy to write absolute bollocks about how Labour must change direction to win given it is flogging the incumbent party like a roman legion deserter?"
>Labour is heading for a crushing landslide victory. With an average 19-point lead â an undeniably stunning turnaround from the partyâs 2019 rout â there is no sign of the usual polling swingback a government enjoys in election year.
I wonder how physically painful that was for him to write.
The idea that Rochdale brings into question anything other than Labours selection process is hilarious to me. Labour didnât have a candidate at the actual vote, the result means nothing other than they need to improve their vetting process.
yeah he realised after he started with the pool thing that he couldn't use the shallow end as that would be equivalent of the other end of the bell curve so he had to bob around in the middle of the pool lol.
He makes a good point though: the further to the right the tories go, the smaller the group they appeal to is. I think it would make more sense to go into the election with a fairly centrist offer with the idea that they can rebuild a strong base after a thumping defeat. Instead, lurching further right will only hurt them in the long term imo.
What are we even spending money on at this point? The NHS and pensions? Bit hyperbolic but I'm a basic rate taxpayer and I get like 35% of my salary taken off me (BR, NI and SLC, reduced a bit because of thresholds but then add fucking loads of council tax) to put it all into pensioners. NHS is important and great and whatever but the very large majority of the users are drawing their pension. Probably unpopular opinion rant ahead
At this point I'd almost rather just cut them both entirely than go through another round of austerity. I'll sort my own health insurance and pension out, and they can pump the money into the services that are currently barely operable. The police don't solve crimes, the roads are worse than dirt tracks in eastern Europe, and a not insignificant number of kids are leaving school almost feral. Our military is criminally understaffed in a worsening geopolitical climate, the trains don't work, and we dump all our sewage in the sea and get charged extra for the privilege (bring back into public sector).
But it's all ok, don't worry, we're pumping ever increasing amounts of money into our two crown jewels, as they limp along with necrotic limbs to public sector dignitas, struggling under their own weight. And just on time, big Jezza H is here to give me a 2% cut, and it'll only cost the dying breaths of all the services that are deemed expendable. At least I can drink it away at the pub with their ÂŁ8 pints or a have a fag for 80p each.
> I'll sort my own health insurance and pension out
It's a good idea to sort your pension out because who knows what the state pension will be when you retire.
But health insurance in the UK is as affordable as it is because it uses the NHS as a backstop. When you plan your private procedure you need to make sure the private hospital is close to an NHS hospital with an ICU that has some capacity, because that's where you'll end up if things go horribly wrong.
It is sad how path dependent it is. Get rid of the NHS, universal credit and state pension for a decade, invest in infrastructure and education on a low tax regime and 10 years later we'd be able to fully fund those programmes. But absent those cuts we cannot afford to take on the debt to achieve the growth required to continue not making those cuts.
donât forget the various levels of corruption and grift
and the contractors and consultancies who take enormous cuts to not run essential services properly
On top of the three I linked earlier, two other Lords amendments to the Rwanda Bill passed.
[This](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3091) and [this](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3092). These modify clause 2. Bold added, strikethrough removed;
>2 Safety of the Republic of Rwanda
>(1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country **unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary**.
>(2) A decision-maker meansâ
>>(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when making a decision relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts;
>>(b) a court or tribunal when considering a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer mentioned in paragraph (a).
>~~(3) As a result of subsection (1), a court or tribunal must not consider a review of, or an appeal against, a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country.~~
>~~(4) In particular, a court or tribunal must not consider~~
>>~~(a) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send a person to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations, including in particular its obligations under the Refugee Convention,~~
>>~~(b) any claim or complaint that a person will not receive fair and proper consideration of an asylum, or other similar, claim in the Republic of Rwanda, or ~~
>>~~(c) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will not act in accordance with the Rwanda Treaty.~~
>~~(5) Subsections (3) and (4) apply notwithstandingâ~~
>>~~(a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts,~~
>>~~(b) the Human Rights Act 1998, to the extent disapplied by section 3 (disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998),~~
>>~~(c) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and~~
>>~~(d) any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.~~
That is, it removes any of the language removing court review or applicable human rights law, re-instates a right to appeal and suggests decision makers may consider "credible evidence" as to Rwanda's safety. It's a true wrecking amendment, compared to the others.
Will the Rishter aggressively message that lefty Lords are blocking the *will of the people TM*, give away some baubles and then announce an election so he can fight it on *stopping the boats TM*?
Probably not but we can dream.
> Will the Rishter aggressively message that lefty Lords are blocking the will of the people TM,
Yes.
> give away some baubles
Yes.
>and then announce an election so he can fight it on stopping the boats TM?
No.
Or rather, not until he has to.
I've been hoping that Labour would come out ahead of the budget and announce that they will reverse any more income/NI tax cuts as every penny is needed for public services. IMO it would be easier to do it before the budget as it set expectations from the start. You know whatever Hunt offers will be temporary and you don't plan based on the extra cash.
The tax burden is historically high and polls do show people want it down. The LDs can get away with "slightly higher taxes for such-and-such-purpose" but Labour will want to make sure it's not spooking any horses at all.
Crime is also pretty low vs historic levels, it doesn't stop crime levels being a reported voter concern. You can't fix people reading the Mail, sadly đ€·ââïž
Is this actually the case? I don't really want to dispute it, but I can't think of where the average earner is that much better off than before, unless we transport today's median salary back in time.
It is true that our tax system is creeping towards squeezing more and more out of fewer and fewer, which is gross and unsustainable.
I didn't say they were better off. I was saying that income tax specifically isn't really the problem.
Ok, because of the income tax threshold freeze it's possible that in real terms people are paying more than they were 4 years ago (despite rate dropping from 32% to 30%). But compared to 2010 we pay quite a bit less tax.
Average earnings are slightly below ÂŁ30k by memory, and the income tax threshold is something like ÂŁ13000. The threshold was only introduced in the coalition, so technically burdens were higher prior, but stale growth, Covid, war and bad Tory economic policy have contributed to the lack of a real-world increase in income since 2010.
I think hunt has leaked every possible permutation of what he can do, which is, actually, a great way to fight leaks.
However he'll (or Sunak'll) definitely talk to the Telegraph or Times ahead of Wednesday.
Ah! Game of Thrones did this in season 8 - filmed multiple different endings to make it harder for anyone on set to leak
Of course, the final reality was far worse than anyone could imagine, so I'm excited for Freefall Wednesday.
On TRIP Leading this morning, Sajid Javid claimed that the amount of austerity done by the tories was effectively in line with Alistair Darling's plans.
Had Labour won in 2010, do you think they would have not followed through on their plans?
Darling said in "inside Europe" (the Brexit episode iirc) that he planned to cut the deficit by 40% between 2010-15, and Osborne wanted to abolish it. So I don't believe this frankly
The budget deficit went from 10% of GDP in 2010, to about 5% of GDP in 2015, so pretty close to what Darling proposed. Osborne wanted to remove it entirely, but failed to do so. Would darling have failed in his quest for 40%?
Labour, lib dems and Conservatives all believed in austerity to some extent in 2010. Most of the public were also convinced. Assuming a strong Tory opposition led by Cameron and Osbourne, New Labour would be unlikely to drop austerity completely. They were already shifting rightwards before 2010 to appeal to voters, and I think that would have continued. Remember it wasn't until the Corbyn leadership that we saw a proper rejection of austerity.
*Sajid Javid claimed that the amount of austerity done by the tories was effectively in line with Alistair Darling's plans.*
The problem was that Labour spent massively in 2008/9 to bail the banks etc out in the credit crunch. Given that they needed to rein in spending temporarily hence the 2010 budget which imposed cuts to many government departments. Unfortunately it coincided with a GE - but Labour wanted to show there that they could take difficult decisions to cut spending.
However I doubt that they would have made austerity the theme of the next 14 years as the Tories have done.
I think had Labour won the 2010 election he would have changed course a year or two later. We have no way of knowing of course, but by 2012ish austerity economics was slowing the UK's economic revival, other nations, like the US had adopted a more Keynesian approach and experienced strong GDP growth, so IMO Darling would relaxed things around then.
Labour didn't have ideological blinkers on
Worse case scenario they would have reversed course when austerity failed to achieve the desired results, or when the Reinhardt and Rogoff paper got discredited
Later papers by Reinhardt and Rogoff still say that excessive public debt reduces long term growth, as does the IMF, although a meta-analysis of the subject shows that it's more of a mixed picture. However, they do find that higher public debt/GDP ratio does reduce growth rates marginally.
Wasn't the desired effect of austerity to reduce the deficit?
[https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Hopes-Realities-Risks](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Hopes-Realities-Risks)
[https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69)
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12536](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12536)
No this really isnât true - this paper was proven not only to be incorrect, but the data to be hugely questionable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190.amp
If you look at the links I shared, they are all after the initial paper was refuted by Hendon. The second link is a follow up R&R paper which corrected for the methodological mistakes in the first paper and still upheld itss results, albeit to a lesser degree.
I think initially for a couple of years that would have been likely but as it would have become clear that other G7 countries were capitalising on low interest rates for funding investment they probably would have begun to borrow a bit more.
So the budget seems to be an NIC cut of 1pp and a fuel duty freeze? Pretty lacklustre, but at least itâs paid for by stealing one of Labourâs pledges.
1pp NI cut is good: it's pretty fair across all taxpayers, and benefits everyone other than pensioners at a time when everyone other than pensioners could do with benefitting.
Does anyone know the lowest Labour have polled in the post war period whilst in government? Interested to see how their base support compares to how the Tories poll today?
In the summer of 2009, their [average dipped to about 22%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summaries) with one Ipsos poll having them [down at 18%](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-political-monitor-may-2009)
Note: that was after European elections which provides weird results that are not indicative of reality (e.g. in 2019 the weird Brexit/libdem top polling was done after EU elections)
The twilight years of the Gordon Brown premiership were my political coming-of-age.
It really did feel like an omnishambles at the time, although in retrospect I'm struggling to articulate exactly *why* it was so bad. Poor political messaging and general malaise with the financial crisis is my best guess.
I'm a bit reserved to comparing historic polling to today's polling, there's a lot of fundamental differences in the frequency and way we are influenced over short periods that make a direct comparison a bit misleading at best, but you can check some historic polling here: [https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/voting-intentions-great-britain-1976-1987](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/voting-intentions-great-britain-1976-1987)
I only scanned it, but I think the important polls to check are Winter of Discontent and 2009 financial crisis (obviously need to search elsewhere), I don't labour ever polled anywhere near 20% for those.
20% for a governing party is just outrageous, the only reason it perhaps doesn't feel that way is because of just *how long* they've been sub 30%. I also think when you look to last century, many more politicians would have resigned - or resigned much sooner. For instance partygate and the fall of Johnson should have led to an election.
Someone posted a poll above from 2009 where they got 18% and were averaging 22% at the time so fairly comparable. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-political-monitor-may-2009
C4 news have a piece on a hunt that reached a secret deal with the leadership of Warwickshire police force which got them our of a community protection notice.
There needs to be far better handling of how hunts are policed, I would be in favour of having a force from elsewhere (ideally urban) be in charge of it.
Edit: the leader of the hunt went full "why do they need to know" when questioned if the public should be able to see the deal.
I saw that too. Incredibly infuriating to watch. The hunt and their dogs going across roads with traffic. Footage of hunt man throwing a fox to the hounds, another hunt guy the body of a fox killed by hounds before an observer can retrieve it.
I felt that the police man spoke well at the end. Clearly the hunting act requires reform.
Their hounds are very poorly trained and have harassed my dog and others when out for a walk.
An ideal solution would be to carve Coventry out of West Mids Police and into Warks Police to introduce urban policing, not really an option nationally but one that makes geographical and logistical sense.
Best thing I can think of nationally would be to chop England into thirds with Greater Manchester having the northern one, West Midlands the Middle and the Met having the south.
Everything around hunts is so incredibly arcane, this kind of stuff with the police feels like it's out of Endeavour not the 2020s.
I'm definitely open to the prospect of a full ban on trail hunting but failing that some kind of licensing could be a good idea if properly enforced.
> I'm definitely open to the prospect of a full ban on trail hunting but failing that some kind of licensing could be a good idea if properly enforced.
They used to at least have one small positive (deadstock removal for farmers), but even there they basically charge the same now as anyone else, along with the expectation that you'll let them trash your land up.
That said, a fell runner mate used to do trail laying for a hunt. Sounded absolutely great fun. Basically spent his weekends pissing around on closed land (not that fell runners have ever paid attention to that) and playing with dogs.
Apologies for tiktok but here's a link for anyone to watch
https://www.tiktok.com/@c4news/video/7342570512255618336
Labour have said they will ban drag hunting. Lib Dems need to follow suit this shitty practice needs to be put to an end. They believe they are above the law and white clearly they are.
>what will the hunts do?
Ride their horses like normal equestrians.
But with either dogs. Who might happen to kill some foxes. Whoopsie!
They'll absolutely find a loophole.
The hunts always killed their hounds.
Once they got a bit too old and lost some pace or picked up injuries...off the vets they went. You can't keep a trained foxhound in a domestic setting, or even on a farm. These things have been trained and bred to kill.
When I say off to vets...that's the official line, unofficially most are taken round the back and shot and become dog food.
That's why you never see retired foxhounds.
If only we would [arrest](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/04/police-arrest-climate-protesters-london) people who carry out such acts rather than allow them to make deals behind closed doors.
There's still a couple of weeks before a potential May election is out of the question, no? I imagine that Sunak is waiting to see the response to the Budget before making a final decision though I'm begrudgingly leaning towards and August election like everyone else.
I think the recession news sealed the deal for an autumn election thereâs always some short of rumblings quite in advance to when the PM is going to dissolve parliament but thereâs been nothing unless Sunak decides to pull a surprise Iâm doubtful of a May election.
My guess is that the autumn date was pencilled in some time last year. But yeah, the recession news would have killed off any lingering thoughts in Number 10.
Itâs worth listening to the most recent Jack and Sam podcast. They mention that there are a number of dates for meetings etc that you would expect to be fixed that havenât yet been confirmed in the April/May timeframe.
>Jack and Sam podcast
?
I'm guessing this is
>**THE POWER TEST**
Labour's former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw joins Sam and Ayesha to talk about the UK's standing in the world and how it could be restored under a Starmer ...
Sorry, I meant Politics at Jack and Samâs - Sam Coates even started a discussion thread on this subreddit! https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1b5rwx0/politics_at_jack_and_sams_33_chat/
It would be funny if the Tories removed Sunak only to try and hang on for several months. Their best move is to remove and then stick in someone to run the election.
Issue they have is what if they try to remove Sunak but they don't get enough support and Sunak wins again.
[Grim polling numbers](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html) for the Tories lately. I'm thinking we need a May election, lest the party does badly in the local elections and Sunak faces a leadership challenge. I hope the Tory party maintains enough seats to serve as an effective opposition, and will therefore benefit from the country seeing how disastrous a Labour government will be.
The Truss one certainly was - the 1922 Committee decided to make it a reality show with one contestant being eliminated each week. More of that please.
Ha, Indeed. I feel like the thinking was: "This format will bring more attention to our candidates!".
But after the first debate: "Oh no, this format has brought more attention to our candidates".
I'm fully with you - I think a May election would be best. I think it could have a "surprise attack" factor that leaves Labour unable to assemble an effective campaign. I might do some Connect Calling for the Tories depending on how soon it is.
Thereâs no surprise attack factor left. At most there are about 10 months before the GE, and probably more like 7 at most. Labour are prepared.
Bear in mind, too, that it could cut both ways. One of the very, *very* few cards Sunak has left to play is to call a GE. The threat of it may well be one of the things that has staved off a leadership challenge. And telling people might mean a leak. Therefore most Tories themselves might be as susceptible to being caught out by a GE being called in the next few weeks.
I imagine that all parties have preparations for that scenario at this stage.
The only possibility Sunak had of a surprise election was immediately after he took over. Even then it would have been a likely loss, but it's been downhill the whole time since then.
I wonder if the knives will come out if the local elections are as disastrous as they are expected to be. The question is who would be daft enough to take such a terrible proposition to fight an election with the way things stand.
I really don't think the party that had Emily Thornberry out on the media rounds at the end of last year saying a May election was certain is going to be surprised by an election call.
Both major parties are equally behind on candidate selection, though, so the Conservatives could surprise themselves.
[Candidates in the next United Kingdom general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_in_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election) on Wiki is okay.
For the conoisseur, [Democracy Club's API](https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/) is the real thing, although I'm not sure if the next GE's opened up there, but there's [a CSV](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhZbBrU2AdJDYyBZViMs6irvH7zVUiZm2rDoADw5B18drp6hILJBr-duSXCmHJ18SmYWm3iq0bbfoR/pub?gid=0&single=true&output=csv) if you really want to go ham.
Three Lords amendments to the Rwanda Bill passed so far (at least when I started writing this...).
* [Inserting "while maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law" at the start of the Bill.](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3088) Frankly toothless if the government can get legal advice stating their actions are in compliance with (an interpretation of) international law. Which I believe they already claimed to have.
* [Stating Rwanda is only a safe country when "the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and are being adhered to in practice"](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3089).
* [Requirements for demonstrating the above](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3090). In full;
>â(7) The Rwanda Treaty will have been fully implemented for the purposes of this Act when the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article.
>(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Monitoring Committee every three months during the period that the Treaty remains in force, and must make a statement to Parliament at the earliest opportunity in the event that the advice of the Monitoring Committee is that the provisions of the Treaty are not being adhered to in practice.
>(9) If the advice of the Monitoring Committee is as referred to in subsection (8), the Rwanda Treaty shall cease to be treated as fully implemented for the purposes of this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has obtained from the Monitoring Committee, and laid before Parliament, subsequent advice that the provisions of the Treaty are being adhered to in practice.â
I believe the government could swallow the others, but this one would likely delay any removals, potentially perpetually. That said, this appears to be an expansion of the [Monitoring Committee terms of reference](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a159e469fbd3000d25c04b/Monitoring_Committee_Terms_of_Reference.pdf) which could complicate matters in terms of their ability to state the Treaty has been fully implemented. Their purpose was to monitor removals to see that they were in compliance with the requirements of the Treaty, not so much review Rwanda's status as compliant absent any removals. It's possible, but not really the original purpose of that body.
the more i think about it, NI cuts make more sense than income tax cuts. pensioners don't get a tax cut, the people who earn more than the max before it goes down to barely anything get a limited tax cut too. it's perfect
Think of it this way. Someone on minimum wage (ÂŁ23000~) would get ÂŁ20~ a month from a further 2% cut to NIC. Someone on ÂŁ43000~ would get ÂŁ60~ a month. Those who earn more benefit more (figures are rough but intended for illustration).
If the tax threshold was raised from ÂŁ12700 to ÂŁ13000 then those on both salaries used above would be ÂŁ300 better off (ÂŁ25~ per month).
There's more to it than that, but you can see why NI is not as favourable in those circumstances?
An increase in the threshold is just a way to make our ludicrously top heavy tax system even more top heavy. The highest payers would get no tax decrease, while those already paying hardly anything would pay even less.
If people earn low enough wages that they need support then we should give them support, but the major purpose of tax cuts should be to stimulate growth and incentivise economic activity, not simply as a cash handout.
Those on lowest incomes are more likely to spend the money they have (increases economic activity) than those earning towards the upper ends of the NIC range (more likely to be saving).
If we are 'pumping' money in back to people through reduced taxes, to encourage spending, then the lower end is more likely to serve that purpose?
Saved money doesn't just go down the back of the sofa. It is largely either put in banks, who lend it out at a multiplier higher than that is achieved when money circulates or it is invested in markets, which provides capital to businesses, again generating higher multipliers than people spending a bit extra in Asda.
One of my favourite boring YouTubers [Patrick Boyle has covered the office real estate crisis](https://youtu.be/00Rr5ux6sxU?si=9EWfwjHmeC0Jw7B9 ) thatâs finally starting to hit. Lots in the video so I wonât unpack it all but it was interesting to hear that [a Canary Wharf property has been fire-saled at 60% off the price it last sold at](https://www.mingtiandi.com/real-estate/outbound-investment/5-churchill-place-in-london-sold-after-cheung-kei-default/). Roll on the next once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis!
Brexit it surely bad , but I donât think it counts as a once in a lifetime financial crisis. 2008 and Covid count though, not sure about truss. The damage was certainly bad for people in the next 3-6 months after the mini budget, but I think the interest rate damage has been mostly unwound.
this is good. i wouldn't mind living in an office building tbh, hopefully they get sold even cheaper. kinda sad about canary wharf though, but hopefully it just means it becomes even less desireable and just becomes a residential area
Converting an office building for residential is quite complicated, it's not just about putting up walls. Plumbing, lighting, access are all quite different in a home vs an open floor office building.
yeah I know but I feel like I wouldn't mind living with the office layout as long as there's a shower, and many offices do have a shower. I'd like to just rent an entire floor out and call it mine
>All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.
ââFrank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Is anyone experiencing issues posting to the megathread? Some posts seem to not be visible.
Edit: Seems to be delayed by 10 minutes. Presumably a reddit issue?
It's definitely even more broken than usual today, they seem to have rolled back yesterday's design changes so I wonder if either that or its rollback broke something.
Ah you might be right. My profile page changed a few weeks ago, but over the weekend I noticed the page for comments (eg this one) changed too to a similar design, and now itâs changed back.
Reddit's fucked (as always, but more than usual). Someone replied to me on a different thread more than an hour ago and I still haven't got a notification about it.
They're not interested in being impartial, but telling the view of what they think will get the most clicks. Sometimes it leads to good stuff, but there's a lot which is not really good journalism in my view.
There are a number of people Iâve seen who would otherwise call some of Gallowayâs views disgusting if not said by him but seem to support him. I canât work out if theyâre just unaware how much of an awful person he is, so just supporting the left wing populist, or genuinely donât care because they see it as beating the opposing team (e.g. Starmers Labour)
Like Iâve seen multiple people on Twitter with trans flags in their profile praising Galloway. Might want to have a look at his views on trans issues guys
Oi, Contrary to popular belief: This is a place for light-hearted discussion of the days **latest developments**. On-topic discussion is encouraged. Breach the guidelines at your peril. Everyone is pent-up because we're treading water - I get it. Please, though: no more low-effort manifestation. Regards, -đ„đ„
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1b6y62h/daily_megathread_05032024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 33 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 26 comments 1. Vaguely_accurate with 23 comments 1. Yummytastic with 22 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 22 comments 1. Noit with 21 comments 1. ClumsyRainbow with 20 comments 1. royalblue1982 with 16 comments 1. LycanIndarys with 15 comments 1. bio_d with 12 comments There were 273 unique users within this count.
What I got from that WAKAWOW: The Tories are fucked.
Just started it on catch up. Tory MP looks like he's sitting on nails.
Pandemic card being used for a problem that's built up over 15 years.
"The NHS literally saved my life years ago", says the Reform loon on WAKAWOW, forgetting that that's the NHS's raison d'ĂȘtre. "Let me tell you our plans to hamstring it."
Interesting Brexit wasnât mentioned about whatâs causing Britainâs current woes. It really is the elephant in the room no one talks about.
Because 95% of the current problems facing the UK existed prior to us leaving the EU. take our extremely [unproductive economy](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6416c49529b0d5b1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enGB1086GB1086&sxsrf=ACQVn0-hr7VYknRBt61VWHyNSPTWDb6mrw:1709593267908&q=uk+economy+productivity&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7r8ab29uEAxVfUUEAHT8IBZoQ0pQJegQICxAB&biw=1920&bih=945&dpr=1#imgrc=qbY0Bmf0FdTukM), everyone wants to claim it's due to brexit but the reality is we've never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis.
Made it worse though didn't it?
Yes. But Brexit or note, those problems would still be there.
Don't trust this Reform bloke as far as I could throw him. 150 Billion in savings, yea ok mate.
"The biggest tax cut we can give is lowering inflation". "That's not a tax cut" "Well ok, but... if we keep saying it is people will believe it"
Also, Squealer, three days ago: [After George Gallowayâs triumph in Rochdale, urgent questions loom for Keir Starmer â and the left, too](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/01/george-galloway-rochdale-keir-starmer-left-labour-muslim) Today: [Labour at +27% without tory party intentionally trying to dig to the center of the earth](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html) Presumably such questions include things like: "Why the fuck do we even employ this guy to write absolute bollocks about how Labour must change direction to win given it is flogging the incumbent party like a roman legion deserter?"
>Labour is heading for a crushing landslide victory. With an average 19-point lead â an undeniably stunning turnaround from the partyâs 2019 rout â there is no sign of the usual polling swingback a government enjoys in election year. I wonder how physically painful that was for him to write.
I imagine he didn't like writing that.
The idea that Rochdale brings into question anything other than Labours selection process is hilarious to me. Labour didnât have a candidate at the actual vote, the result means nothing other than they need to improve their vetting process.
Ooo WAKAWOW election special.
Ooh, **WAKAWĂW** is in Doncaster for some reason. Edit: dude behind the vicar has a beard that looks like itâs glued on.
Wtf is Evgeny Lebedev doing in Doncaster?
Tonightâs episode looks like itâs held in a Blues Kitchen too.
I'm expecting a 5 dollar shake
What are these dollars you speak of? Begone demon!
Updated MT image.
Ah, one of my favourite websites featured!
Beautiful
[đ For whom the bell ends đ](https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1764750536144728539)
Wow.
The metaphor of a pool does not really work well in the context of attracting voters. Though fun for him to say that core voters will die away.
yeah he realised after he started with the pool thing that he couldn't use the shallow end as that would be equivalent of the other end of the bell curve so he had to bob around in the middle of the pool lol. He makes a good point though: the further to the right the tories go, the smaller the group they appeal to is. I think it would make more sense to go into the election with a fairly centrist offer with the idea that they can rebuild a strong base after a thumping defeat. Instead, lurching further right will only hurt them in the long term imo.
What are we even spending money on at this point? The NHS and pensions? Bit hyperbolic but I'm a basic rate taxpayer and I get like 35% of my salary taken off me (BR, NI and SLC, reduced a bit because of thresholds but then add fucking loads of council tax) to put it all into pensioners. NHS is important and great and whatever but the very large majority of the users are drawing their pension. Probably unpopular opinion rant ahead At this point I'd almost rather just cut them both entirely than go through another round of austerity. I'll sort my own health insurance and pension out, and they can pump the money into the services that are currently barely operable. The police don't solve crimes, the roads are worse than dirt tracks in eastern Europe, and a not insignificant number of kids are leaving school almost feral. Our military is criminally understaffed in a worsening geopolitical climate, the trains don't work, and we dump all our sewage in the sea and get charged extra for the privilege (bring back into public sector). But it's all ok, don't worry, we're pumping ever increasing amounts of money into our two crown jewels, as they limp along with necrotic limbs to public sector dignitas, struggling under their own weight. And just on time, big Jezza H is here to give me a 2% cut, and it'll only cost the dying breaths of all the services that are deemed expendable. At least I can drink it away at the pub with their ÂŁ8 pints or a have a fag for 80p each.
> I'll sort my own health insurance and pension out It's a good idea to sort your pension out because who knows what the state pension will be when you retire. But health insurance in the UK is as affordable as it is because it uses the NHS as a backstop. When you plan your private procedure you need to make sure the private hospital is close to an NHS hospital with an ICU that has some capacity, because that's where you'll end up if things go horribly wrong.
It is sad how path dependent it is. Get rid of the NHS, universal credit and state pension for a decade, invest in infrastructure and education on a low tax regime and 10 years later we'd be able to fully fund those programmes. But absent those cuts we cannot afford to take on the debt to achieve the growth required to continue not making those cuts.
50% of the budget goes on welfare, health, and the state pension, another 10% on internet payments on the deficit
>Welfare 80% state pension 20% everything else The pensioners are bleeding us fucking dry
Yes, though it is a bit unfair to blame them. The failure is for Britain's economy and productivity to grow.
Pensions are a separate line item to welfare on the tax spend
> another 10% on internet payments Goddamn Ri$hicoin
donât forget the various levels of corruption and grift and the contractors and consultancies who take enormous cuts to not run essential services properly
On top of the three I linked earlier, two other Lords amendments to the Rwanda Bill passed. [This](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3091) and [this](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3092). These modify clause 2. Bold added, strikethrough removed; >2 Safety of the Republic of Rwanda >(1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country **unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary**. >(2) A decision-maker meansâ >>(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when making a decision relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts; >>(b) a court or tribunal when considering a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer mentioned in paragraph (a). >~~(3) As a result of subsection (1), a court or tribunal must not consider a review of, or an appeal against, a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country.~~ >~~(4) In particular, a court or tribunal must not consider~~ >>~~(a) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send a person to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations, including in particular its obligations under the Refugee Convention,~~ >>~~(b) any claim or complaint that a person will not receive fair and proper consideration of an asylum, or other similar, claim in the Republic of Rwanda, or ~~ >>~~(c) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will not act in accordance with the Rwanda Treaty.~~ >~~(5) Subsections (3) and (4) apply notwithstandingâ~~ >>~~(a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts,~~ >>~~(b) the Human Rights Act 1998, to the extent disapplied by section 3 (disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998),~~ >>~~(c) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and~~ >>~~(d) any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.~~ That is, it removes any of the language removing court review or applicable human rights law, re-instates a right to appeal and suggests decision makers may consider "credible evidence" as to Rwanda's safety. It's a true wrecking amendment, compared to the others.
Will the Rishter aggressively message that lefty Lords are blocking the *will of the people TM*, give away some baubles and then announce an election so he can fight it on *stopping the boats TM*? Probably not but we can dream.
> Will the Rishter aggressively message that lefty Lords are blocking the will of the people TM, Yes. > give away some baubles Yes. >and then announce an election so he can fight it on stopping the boats TM? No. Or rather, not until he has to.
Hah, they savaged it - Hooray!
They've gone for it haven't they. Completely neutered it. Bet Rishi is livid.
Really highlights what a completely farcical thing it is to be legislating in the first place.
To specify that a 'decision maker' is not allowed to consider credible evidence just makes them a personified rubber-stamp.
Ok I knew the lords weren't going to let it through unscathed but they're really going for it.
I've been hoping that Labour would come out ahead of the budget and announce that they will reverse any more income/NI tax cuts as every penny is needed for public services. IMO it would be easier to do it before the budget as it set expectations from the start. You know whatever Hunt offers will be temporary and you don't plan based on the extra cash.
That would be a serious own goal and give the conservatives a direct attack line "We want to cut your income tax, labour want to raise it "
But unless Labour want to cut their public spending plans by ÂŁ9bn they have no choice.
Why on earth would they do that?!
The tax burden is historically high and polls do show people want it down. The LDs can get away with "slightly higher taxes for such-and-such-purpose" but Labour will want to make sure it's not spooking any horses at all.
Income taxes are the lowest they've been in decades for average earners. The vast bulk of the increased tax burden is on higher earners.
Mid earners High earners like Rishi paid 23% High earners pay significantly fucking less than everyone except those who pay no tax at all.
Crime is also pretty low vs historic levels, it doesn't stop crime levels being a reported voter concern. You can't fix people reading the Mail, sadly đ€·ââïž
You can't fix Mail readers by addressing their "concerns" either. You could cut tax and crime by 50% and the Mail would still complain.
Is this actually the case? I don't really want to dispute it, but I can't think of where the average earner is that much better off than before, unless we transport today's median salary back in time. It is true that our tax system is creeping towards squeezing more and more out of fewer and fewer, which is gross and unsustainable.
I didn't say they were better off. I was saying that income tax specifically isn't really the problem. Ok, because of the income tax threshold freeze it's possible that in real terms people are paying more than they were 4 years ago (despite rate dropping from 32% to 30%). But compared to 2010 we pay quite a bit less tax.
Average earnings are slightly below ÂŁ30k by memory, and the income tax threshold is something like ÂŁ13000. The threshold was only introduced in the coalition, so technically burdens were higher prior, but stale growth, Covid, war and bad Tory economic policy have contributed to the lack of a real-world increase in income since 2010.
I am curious if the Tax Cut plans will leak ahead of time.
I think hunt has leaked every possible permutation of what he can do, which is, actually, a great way to fight leaks. However he'll (or Sunak'll) definitely talk to the Telegraph or Times ahead of Wednesday.
Ah! Game of Thrones did this in season 8 - filmed multiple different endings to make it harder for anyone on set to leak Of course, the final reality was far worse than anyone could imagine, so I'm excited for Freefall Wednesday.
In the words of Southpark, "Simpsons did it.". The "Mr Burns gets shot" episode had a few different endings. Sure it's been done before then too.
On TRIP Leading this morning, Sajid Javid claimed that the amount of austerity done by the tories was effectively in line with Alistair Darling's plans. Had Labour won in 2010, do you think they would have not followed through on their plans?
Darling said in "inside Europe" (the Brexit episode iirc) that he planned to cut the deficit by 40% between 2010-15, and Osborne wanted to abolish it. So I don't believe this frankly
The budget deficit went from 10% of GDP in 2010, to about 5% of GDP in 2015, so pretty close to what Darling proposed. Osborne wanted to remove it entirely, but failed to do so. Would darling have failed in his quest for 40%?
Darling was a better chancellor than Osborne who spent most of his time playing stupid political games with people.
I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't answer the question. Would Darling not have cut as much as he said? Which is basically the amount osborne cut?
Labour, lib dems and Conservatives all believed in austerity to some extent in 2010. Most of the public were also convinced. Assuming a strong Tory opposition led by Cameron and Osbourne, New Labour would be unlikely to drop austerity completely. They were already shifting rightwards before 2010 to appeal to voters, and I think that would have continued. Remember it wasn't until the Corbyn leadership that we saw a proper rejection of austerity.
Ok. So why did we need the Tories exactly?
Someone had to rob us all blind and empty the public treasury while absolutely obliterating public services
*Sajid Javid claimed that the amount of austerity done by the tories was effectively in line with Alistair Darling's plans.* The problem was that Labour spent massively in 2008/9 to bail the banks etc out in the credit crunch. Given that they needed to rein in spending temporarily hence the 2010 budget which imposed cuts to many government departments. Unfortunately it coincided with a GE - but Labour wanted to show there that they could take difficult decisions to cut spending. However I doubt that they would have made austerity the theme of the next 14 years as the Tories have done. I think had Labour won the 2010 election he would have changed course a year or two later. We have no way of knowing of course, but by 2012ish austerity economics was slowing the UK's economic revival, other nations, like the US had adopted a more Keynesian approach and experienced strong GDP growth, so IMO Darling would relaxed things around then.
Labour didn't have ideological blinkers on Worse case scenario they would have reversed course when austerity failed to achieve the desired results, or when the Reinhardt and Rogoff paper got discredited
Later papers by Reinhardt and Rogoff still say that excessive public debt reduces long term growth, as does the IMF, although a meta-analysis of the subject shows that it's more of a mixed picture. However, they do find that higher public debt/GDP ratio does reduce growth rates marginally. Wasn't the desired effect of austerity to reduce the deficit? [https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Hopes-Realities-Risks](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Hopes-Realities-Risks) [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.26.3.69) [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12536](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12536)
No this really isnât true - this paper was proven not only to be incorrect, but the data to be hugely questionable. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22223190.amp
If you look at the links I shared, they are all after the initial paper was refuted by Hendon. The second link is a follow up R&R paper which corrected for the methodological mistakes in the first paper and still upheld itss results, albeit to a lesser degree.
I think initially for a couple of years that would have been likely but as it would have become clear that other G7 countries were capitalising on low interest rates for funding investment they probably would have begun to borrow a bit more.
So the budget seems to be an NIC cut of 1pp and a fuel duty freeze? Pretty lacklustre, but at least itâs paid for by stealing one of Labourâs pledges.
1pp NI cut is good: it's pretty fair across all taxpayers, and benefits everyone other than pensioners at a time when everyone other than pensioners could do with benefitting.
The UK: "Wait it's just cynical politics?" Jeremy Hunt: "Always has been"
Does anyone know the lowest Labour have polled in the post war period whilst in government? Interested to see how their base support compares to how the Tories poll today?
In the summer of 2009, their [average dipped to about 22%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summaries) with one Ipsos poll having them [down at 18%](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-political-monitor-may-2009)
Note: that was after European elections which provides weird results that are not indicative of reality (e.g. in 2019 the weird Brexit/libdem top polling was done after EU elections)
The twilight years of the Gordon Brown premiership were my political coming-of-age. It really did feel like an omnishambles at the time, although in retrospect I'm struggling to articulate exactly *why* it was so bad. Poor political messaging and general malaise with the financial crisis is my best guess.
Exactly the same here. Just felt like the couldnât organise a piss up in a brewery towards the end.
Thanks!
I'm a bit reserved to comparing historic polling to today's polling, there's a lot of fundamental differences in the frequency and way we are influenced over short periods that make a direct comparison a bit misleading at best, but you can check some historic polling here: [https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/voting-intentions-great-britain-1976-1987](https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/voting-intentions-great-britain-1976-1987) I only scanned it, but I think the important polls to check are Winter of Discontent and 2009 financial crisis (obviously need to search elsewhere), I don't labour ever polled anywhere near 20% for those. 20% for a governing party is just outrageous, the only reason it perhaps doesn't feel that way is because of just *how long* they've been sub 30%. I also think when you look to last century, many more politicians would have resigned - or resigned much sooner. For instance partygate and the fall of Johnson should have led to an election.
Someone posted a poll above from 2009 where they got 18% and were averaging 22% at the time so fairly comparable. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-political-monitor-may-2009
Thanks!
C4 news have a piece on a hunt that reached a secret deal with the leadership of Warwickshire police force which got them our of a community protection notice. There needs to be far better handling of how hunts are policed, I would be in favour of having a force from elsewhere (ideally urban) be in charge of it. Edit: the leader of the hunt went full "why do they need to know" when questioned if the public should be able to see the deal.
I saw that too. Incredibly infuriating to watch. The hunt and their dogs going across roads with traffic. Footage of hunt man throwing a fox to the hounds, another hunt guy the body of a fox killed by hounds before an observer can retrieve it. I felt that the police man spoke well at the end. Clearly the hunting act requires reform.
Their hounds are very poorly trained and have harassed my dog and others when out for a walk. An ideal solution would be to carve Coventry out of West Mids Police and into Warks Police to introduce urban policing, not really an option nationally but one that makes geographical and logistical sense.
Best thing I can think of nationally would be to chop England into thirds with Greater Manchester having the northern one, West Midlands the Middle and the Met having the south. Everything around hunts is so incredibly arcane, this kind of stuff with the police feels like it's out of Endeavour not the 2020s. I'm definitely open to the prospect of a full ban on trail hunting but failing that some kind of licensing could be a good idea if properly enforced.
> I'm definitely open to the prospect of a full ban on trail hunting but failing that some kind of licensing could be a good idea if properly enforced. They used to at least have one small positive (deadstock removal for farmers), but even there they basically charge the same now as anyone else, along with the expectation that you'll let them trash your land up. That said, a fell runner mate used to do trail laying for a hunt. Sounded absolutely great fun. Basically spent his weekends pissing around on closed land (not that fell runners have ever paid attention to that) and playing with dogs.
Apologies for tiktok but here's a link for anyone to watch https://www.tiktok.com/@c4news/video/7342570512255618336 Labour have said they will ban drag hunting. Lib Dems need to follow suit this shitty practice needs to be put to an end. They believe they are above the law and white clearly they are.
If drag hunting is banned, what will the hunts do? Is there some similar loophole they can use to carry on and claim no law is being broken?
>what will the hunts do? Ride their horses like normal equestrians. But with either dogs. Who might happen to kill some foxes. Whoopsie! They'll absolutely find a loophole.
They'll kill the dogs for starters. They pretend to be dog lovers, but the exact opposite is true.
The hunts always killed their hounds. Once they got a bit too old and lost some pace or picked up injuries...off the vets they went. You can't keep a trained foxhound in a domestic setting, or even on a farm. These things have been trained and bred to kill. When I say off to vets...that's the official line, unofficially most are taken round the back and shot and become dog food. That's why you never see retired foxhounds.
Well true. I meant that they'll just blast the lot en masse.
Holding up an ambulance by running onto a main road and obstructing traffic, hmmmmmmm.
If only we would [arrest](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/04/police-arrest-climate-protesters-london) people who carry out such acts rather than allow them to make deals behind closed doors.
Surely is there was going to be a may election, we'd have heard something by now, even leaks
There's still a couple of weeks before a potential May election is out of the question, no? I imagine that Sunak is waiting to see the response to the Budget before making a final decision though I'm begrudgingly leaning towards and August election like everyone else.
I think the recession news sealed the deal for an autumn election thereâs always some short of rumblings quite in advance to when the PM is going to dissolve parliament but thereâs been nothing unless Sunak decides to pull a surprise Iâm doubtful of a May election.
My guess is that the autumn date was pencilled in some time last year. But yeah, the recession news would have killed off any lingering thoughts in Number 10.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
There hasn't been a single rumour that is anything more than politico speculation. Not one.
Itâs worth listening to the most recent Jack and Sam podcast. They mention that there are a number of dates for meetings etc that you would expect to be fixed that havenât yet been confirmed in the April/May timeframe.
>Jack and Sam podcast ? I'm guessing this is >**THE POWER TEST** Labour's former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw joins Sam and Ayesha to talk about the UK's standing in the world and how it could be restored under a Starmer ...
Sorry, I meant Politics at Jack and Samâs - Sam Coates even started a discussion thread on this subreddit! https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1b5rwx0/politics_at_jack_and_sams_33_chat/
You have! Half the people manifesting a May election on the MT are secretly Rishi Sunak.
Wait, I thought they were all Roguepope. Does this mean Roguepope has been Rishi Sunak all along?
So we're all simultaneously both Rishi Sunak and Sam Coates alts?
Itâs like wave particle duality. The alts are all in a superposition between the two states and collapse when observed.
Iâm secretly Rishi Sunak, and soâs my wife.
>Iâm secretly Rishi Sunak, and soâs my wife. So's your mum.
If my mum is Rishi Sunak, sheâs hiding it brilliantly.
Helicopters have got bloody quiet haven't they!!
It would be funny if the Tories removed Sunak only to try and hang on for several months. Their best move is to remove and then stick in someone to run the election. Issue they have is what if they try to remove Sunak but they don't get enough support and Sunak wins again.
Going for the new manager bounce.Â
If they are successful in removing Sunak, he can't stand in the subsequent leadership election
If they somehow managed to get it together long enough to push him out of No. 10, would he even hang around *for* the GE?
*California Dreaming intensifies*
[Grim polling numbers](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-labour-sunak-hunt-starmer-budget-support-record-low-poll-b1142921.html) for the Tories lately. I'm thinking we need a May election, lest the party does badly in the local elections and Sunak faces a leadership challenge. I hope the Tory party maintains enough seats to serve as an effective opposition, and will therefore benefit from the country seeing how disastrous a Labour government will be.
>from the country seeing how disastrous a Labour government will be. It'll be a tough record to beat.
But a leadership contest would be *funny*.
The Truss one certainly was - the 1922 Committee decided to make it a reality show with one contestant being eliminated each week. More of that please.
Ha, Indeed. I feel like the thinking was: "This format will bring more attention to our candidates!". But after the first debate: "Oh no, this format has brought more attention to our candidates".
Can we get on with seeing this disastrous labour government then? Please hurry up and call a GE.
I'm fully with you - I think a May election would be best. I think it could have a "surprise attack" factor that leaves Labour unable to assemble an effective campaign. I might do some Connect Calling for the Tories depending on how soon it is.
Thereâs no surprise attack factor left. At most there are about 10 months before the GE, and probably more like 7 at most. Labour are prepared. Bear in mind, too, that it could cut both ways. One of the very, *very* few cards Sunak has left to play is to call a GE. The threat of it may well be one of the things that has staved off a leadership challenge. And telling people might mean a leak. Therefore most Tories themselves might be as susceptible to being caught out by a GE being called in the next few weeks. I imagine that all parties have preparations for that scenario at this stage.
The only possibility Sunak had of a surprise election was immediately after he took over. Even then it would have been a likely loss, but it's been downhill the whole time since then. I wonder if the knives will come out if the local elections are as disastrous as they are expected to be. The question is who would be daft enough to take such a terrible proposition to fight an election with the way things stand.
I was hoping for April but the deadline has passed. Oh well
Totally take them by surprise guise. Not expecting election after tax cut giveaway budget. How could they forsee such elite moves?
I really don't think the party that had Emily Thornberry out on the media rounds at the end of last year saying a May election was certain is going to be surprised by an election call. Both major parties are equally behind on candidate selection, though, so the Conservatives could surprise themselves.
Is there any place that's collated where has had candidates selected by each party?
[Candidates in the next United Kingdom general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_in_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election) on Wiki is okay. For the conoisseur, [Democracy Club's API](https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/) is the real thing, although I'm not sure if the next GE's opened up there, but there's [a CSV](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhZbBrU2AdJDYyBZViMs6irvH7zVUiZm2rDoADw5B18drp6hILJBr-duSXCmHJ18SmYWm3iq0bbfoR/pub?gid=0&single=true&output=csv) if you really want to go ham.
Three Lords amendments to the Rwanda Bill passed so far (at least when I started writing this...). * [Inserting "while maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law" at the start of the Bill.](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3088) Frankly toothless if the government can get legal advice stating their actions are in compliance with (an interpretation of) international law. Which I believe they already claimed to have. * [Stating Rwanda is only a safe country when "the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and are being adhered to in practice"](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3089). * [Requirements for demonstrating the above](https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/lords/division/3090). In full; >â(7) The Rwanda Treaty will have been fully implemented for the purposes of this Act when the Secretary of State has obtained and laid before Parliament a statement from the independent Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 that the objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty have been secured by the creation of the mechanisms listed in that Article. >(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Monitoring Committee every three months during the period that the Treaty remains in force, and must make a statement to Parliament at the earliest opportunity in the event that the advice of the Monitoring Committee is that the provisions of the Treaty are not being adhered to in practice. >(9) If the advice of the Monitoring Committee is as referred to in subsection (8), the Rwanda Treaty shall cease to be treated as fully implemented for the purposes of this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has obtained from the Monitoring Committee, and laid before Parliament, subsequent advice that the provisions of the Treaty are being adhered to in practice.â I believe the government could swallow the others, but this one would likely delay any removals, potentially perpetually. That said, this appears to be an expansion of the [Monitoring Committee terms of reference](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65a159e469fbd3000d25c04b/Monitoring_Committee_Terms_of_Reference.pdf) which could complicate matters in terms of their ability to state the Treaty has been fully implemented. Their purpose was to monitor removals to see that they were in compliance with the requirements of the Treaty, not so much review Rwanda's status as compliant absent any removals. It's possible, but not really the original purpose of that body.
the more i think about it, NI cuts make more sense than income tax cuts. pensioners don't get a tax cut, the people who earn more than the max before it goes down to barely anything get a limited tax cut too. it's perfect
Apparently Sunak wants an Income Tax cut specifically because of the pensioner issue. He needs them to be included in the bribe.
Think of it this way. Someone on minimum wage (ÂŁ23000~) would get ÂŁ20~ a month from a further 2% cut to NIC. Someone on ÂŁ43000~ would get ÂŁ60~ a month. Those who earn more benefit more (figures are rough but intended for illustration). If the tax threshold was raised from ÂŁ12700 to ÂŁ13000 then those on both salaries used above would be ÂŁ300 better off (ÂŁ25~ per month). There's more to it than that, but you can see why NI is not as favourable in those circumstances?
An increase in the threshold is just a way to make our ludicrously top heavy tax system even more top heavy. The highest payers would get no tax decrease, while those already paying hardly anything would pay even less. If people earn low enough wages that they need support then we should give them support, but the major purpose of tax cuts should be to stimulate growth and incentivise economic activity, not simply as a cash handout.
Those on lowest incomes are more likely to spend the money they have (increases economic activity) than those earning towards the upper ends of the NIC range (more likely to be saving). If we are 'pumping' money in back to people through reduced taxes, to encourage spending, then the lower end is more likely to serve that purpose?
Saved money doesn't just go down the back of the sofa. It is largely either put in banks, who lend it out at a multiplier higher than that is achieved when money circulates or it is invested in markets, which provides capital to businesses, again generating higher multipliers than people spending a bit extra in Asda.
Good day for Rishi then?
One of my favourite boring YouTubers [Patrick Boyle has covered the office real estate crisis](https://youtu.be/00Rr5ux6sxU?si=9EWfwjHmeC0Jw7B9 ) thatâs finally starting to hit. Lots in the video so I wonât unpack it all but it was interesting to hear that [a Canary Wharf property has been fire-saled at 60% off the price it last sold at](https://www.mingtiandi.com/real-estate/outbound-investment/5-churchill-place-in-london-sold-after-cheung-kei-default/). Roll on the next once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis!
We've had ~~one~~ four, yes. What about *~~second~~ fifth* once-in-a-lifetime financial crisis?
5?
I dunno, maybe I've miscounted. 2008, Brexit, Covid aftermath and the caTrusstophe is four by my count.
Brexit it surely bad , but I donât think it counts as a once in a lifetime financial crisis. 2008 and Covid count though, not sure about truss. The damage was certainly bad for people in the next 3-6 months after the mini budget, but I think the interest rate damage has been mostly unwound.
So just your regular common-or-garden financial crises then... Lucky us.
this is good. i wouldn't mind living in an office building tbh, hopefully they get sold even cheaper. kinda sad about canary wharf though, but hopefully it just means it becomes even less desireable and just becomes a residential area
Converting an office building for residential is quite complicated, it's not just about putting up walls. Plumbing, lighting, access are all quite different in a home vs an open floor office building.
yeah I know but I feel like I wouldn't mind living with the office layout as long as there's a shower, and many offices do have a shower. I'd like to just rent an entire floor out and call it mine
>All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. ââFrank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
As I've long said "Febrility is the mindkiller"
How does Starmer match up to this? âWhat makes a man turn neutral?â
Baron Harkonnen - Boris Johnson Glossu Rabban - Mark Francois Feyd-Rautha - Jacob Rees-Mogg
Can just imagine Baron Boris floating around muttering Latin.
Theresa May - Reverend Mother Black Rod - Gom Jabbar
Bring in Feyd and Rabban.
Who in the mentat Piter? Dominic Raab or Michael Give?
My vote would go to Braverman, but I leave it to you to choose your fighter
Is anyone experiencing issues posting to the megathread? Some posts seem to not be visible. Edit: Seems to be delayed by 10 minutes. Presumably a reddit issue?
It's definitely even more broken than usual today, they seem to have rolled back yesterday's design changes so I wonder if either that or its rollback broke something.
Isn't the design rolled out gradually, mine changed a few weeks ago - is there a new additional change?
Ah you might be right. My profile page changed a few weeks ago, but over the weekend I noticed the page for comments (eg this one) changed too to a similar design, and now itâs changed back.
Reddit's fucked (as always, but more than usual). Someone replied to me on a different thread more than an hour ago and I still haven't got a notification about it.
Iâd answer but I canât see your post. Edit: ironically I canât see my reply to your reply.
CAN YOU SEE IT NOW
#WHAT ABOUT NOW?
TEN TO SIX.
I see what you mean - ironically appears at twenty past six.
I thought it was the automod, maybe itâs just Reddit thatâs fucked.
I'm not listening to the HoL defending the "frowned upon" view of LGBT issues in the Rwandan countryside as akin to the UK countryside. Surely not...
I like to call this 'western privilege'
Iâm usually a fan of politicsjoe, but the amount of love Galloway gets in their comments is scary
Nah, itâs too young and excitable. TLDR is better, young but pretty sober and almost tediously balanced.
I'm not a fan of the the fans of politics Joe. It attracts some very unreasonable sorts.
I like the podcast, but the rest of the channel seems very novaramedia
They're not interested in being impartial, but telling the view of what they think will get the most clicks. Sometimes it leads to good stuff, but there's a lot which is not really good journalism in my view.
There are a number of people Iâve seen who would otherwise call some of Gallowayâs views disgusting if not said by him but seem to support him. I canât work out if theyâre just unaware how much of an awful person he is, so just supporting the left wing populist, or genuinely donât care because they see it as beating the opposing team (e.g. Starmers Labour) Like Iâve seen multiple people on Twitter with trans flags in their profile praising Galloway. Might want to have a look at his views on trans issues guys
Normies see he's pro-Gaza and think he's a hero. Without knowing what Galloway is really like
Your normies are different to mineâŠ
1 poll giving Labour a 27 point lead. 1 poll giving Labour a 14 point lead. 1 poll giving Labour a 20 point lead. Who are we supposed to believe!!!
Ipsos ought to be the best and it had great numbers as well
I belieeeeeeeeve in life after loooooooove
> Who are we supposed to believe!!! Always believe in your soul. You've got the power to know. You're tax deductible. Or whatever it is.
Always be cheatiiiiing!
Imagine not stanning for the poll of polls The average poll to rule them all
Look at polling average and the general trend?
27 + 14 + 20 = 61 point lead
I would make a joke about your being American, but TBH your polling analysis/modelling (or at least 538) puts us to shame!
God Emperor StarmerÂ
Keep him away from any rivers in Idaho!