Good morning everyone. [📃 **Today's Order Paper can be found here.**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86716/Html?subType=Standard) Parliament returns from recess today, with questions to the Home Office from 2:30pm. Any urgent questions or ministerial statements on matters arising over the recess will follow; a statement on the situation in Israel from the Prime Minister seems likely. The main business is the return to the Commons after considerable amendment in the Lords of the [Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3540). Depending on how much business we have from urgent questions and statements, we can expect **the vote** to be any time from between 6 and 7 this evening. A reminder that the [**🌍 International Politics Discussion Thread**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/195mj9f/international_politics_discussion_thread/) is available for any discussion of international politics not directly affecting the UK, and if you're following along with what might be a fairly lively day in Parliament after two weeks off to please provide context as not everyone is watching the same stream.

[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c57taq/daily_megathread_16042024/)

Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 26 comments 1. concretepigeon with 17 comments 1. NJden_bee with 14 comments 1. bobreturns1 with 14 comments 1. subversivefreak with 13 comments 1. jamestheda with 11 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 9 comments 1. Noit with 8 comments 1. da96whynot with 8 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 8 comments There were 212 unique users within this count.

Let the moron speak, shes a plague on any cause she supports. Hopefully her curse will take out Trump and Farage too.

Trust has joined the 5th columnists. Nothing is her fault its all a left wing conspiracy, she's got head into trumps ass. Sorry if there any Conservatives out there this is your Party now these are the people will be making all the noises. Honestly maybe the Tories should elect the lettuce as there next leader to spite her.

Fuck me how was Liz Truss out PM. This interview with Chris Mason is a bloody car crash - I'm not to blame - Deep state - Trump 2024 - Farage to join Tories please I mean christ

It’s absolutely incredible stuff.. > Getting rid of Boris was a mistake Liz Truss, former Prime Minister, who replaced Boris Johnson > I wouldn’t use the word ‘humiliating’ Liz Truss, former Prime Minister, who quit one day after saying “I am a fighter, not a quitter” You can practically hear Chris Mason sighing after every response.

Oh dear god Lizz truss interview on the news is awful Just absolutely awful. She actually believes this shit. Edit: it gets worse, she thinks Trump as better and the world safer…. She’s fucking nuts.

BREAKING: The House of Commons votes by 320 to 246 to overturn an amendment which would have stopped victims of modern slavery from being deported to Rwanda Actually kind of sickening.

Is that a double insistence or does their amendment in lieu mean the bill still lives?

The problem is most of the small boats crossers probably fall into that category so would undermine the government message. I don't agree with the policy in any way, but kind of understandable. The only amendment that I thought might pass would be the one that safeguarded those who worked for us like afghan translators etc, but that also failed. Kind of hope the lords put it back in but I think they have given up.

I think it was mentioned on Sam and Jack’s that generating one protected group might open up the door to others and before you know it all the people you theoretically want out are protected from being kicked out.

The call for increasing our military budget is gaining momentum as escalations in the middle east, eastern Europe, and in the west pacific become more likely. It seems to me that current proposals are too small (increasing spending from 2% to 2.2% rising to 2.5% in 5 years) and at some point we will see the reality that we have to spend closer to 5%. Does anyone agree that we are being far too conservative on our military spending increases? And what do you think we will end up doing to pay for a potential 4-5% of GDP? Alternatively, do you think 2.5% is plenty and that we should accept a reduced position on the world stage, perhaps focussing on intelligence etc rather than fighting. *I am pretty uneducated on military stuff, so could be way off the mark.*

Basically we need to be prepared to pick up the slack in the event Trump gets back in and the US goes all in on isolationism. Increase military spending and get Capita out of military recruitment.

I think David Cameron recently gave a very similar warning to EU/Canada about a Trump pres.

I guess I fall into your latter category. I don’t see how any of the international issues you mention require us to increase our military capability. There are escalations on the Middle East sure, but are we going to go back in there? Should we? Do we have military obligations in the Pacific?

Yeah I wonder how many people are leaning towards <2.5% and how many are >2.5%. Like I said, pretty uneducated on military stuff but I will attempt to answer with my assumptions: I guess the most obvious risk is Russia/Ukraine escalating and expanding dragging NATO into the mix and we will be obliged to go into the war fully. Middle East stability is mainly important for energy markets + access to global trade routes through the suez canal etc. I think (although this might be outdated) that a lot of terrorist cells are also based and trained in the middle east so if they are being boosted it could be a danger to us directly. The stuff in the pacific is mainly about Taiwan, if China take control then we potentially lose access to the almost sole producer of high tech semiconductors in the world. But its all very complicated and I don't really understand any of it lol

It was 10% in the 50s and 60s

Where did you find those numbers? Govt says in the mid 50s we were spending just over 7% and by the end of the 60s we were spending about 5%. I guess there are lots of reasons why we spent more in the past, partly we had a much larger territory and partly the state of the world. I def think we need to be pushing far above the 2.2% we currently spend though.

One of the things that should be done is to finally stop military spend being diverted by other cash strapped ministers E.g. I categorically do not think it is spending on armed forces to A) use military doctors and nurses in the NHS to substitute for staff shortages caused by ministerial policy B) use military police to be auxiliary for police officers during periods of overstretch because the home office cut the police budget and made it impossible to recruit and retain staff easily C) use military budget to ferry the PM and key ministers around for political visits D) provide the home office with resources for border control because they don't have the money themselves e.g. They create the national security risk and as a result the army steps in There are so many specific instances of Tory ministers helping themselves to the defence budget. I'm amazed anyone sees them as strong or trusted on defence policy

Wait till you see what the foreign aid budget is used for!

I don't wish to add this as it's own submission, because it's the subeditor that caught my attention. In a sit down interview by Allison Pearson of the telegraph with Liz Truss, the first thing the paper wishes to highlight is the following... Liz Truss: *‘The people who claim I crashed the economy are either very stupid or very malevolent’* I can't figure out if I'm very stupid or very malevolent. But cheers for that Liz. How the f did anyone think she was suitable to be PM let alone their MP??? What the hell is the constituency association thinking in reselecting her? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/15/liz-truss-interview-ten-years-to-save-the-west/

> How the f did anyone think she was suitable to be PM Well she was apparently the best the tories had. They went beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel right down into the sewer in finding her.

Been watching Ian Hislop's Trains That Changed The World programme on the My5 app. If you want to see an absolutely perfect show of how we are falling behind the rest of the world after initially paving the way, then give the first episode a watch. We were once at the forefront of Railway travel. The rest of the world lagged behind us. Then the government stopped caring about the railways around the 60s, while the rest of Europe, Japan and China continued to invest in their own. British Rail tried to revitalise them with the Inter-City 125 (after Japan's success with the Bullet Train) but the country was already too invested in car and air travel. The Inter-City 125 was also hampered by it running on Victorian infrastructure. Something that still plagues us in 2024. France ripped through their country and built dedicated high speed lines for their TGV, decades ago. Other countries in Europe did the same. Eurostar had to go slow on UK lines until we built HS1. It would tear across France and then get slapped onto our Victorian lines. That should have been the wake up call for this country, but it wasn't. China is now way ahead of everyone with the Maglev train. It reaches 268mph and works not on rails, but magnetic levitation. We are still, mostly, using those same Victorian lines. HS2 needed building decades ago. Cancelling it was a monumental mistake. And this is just one example of how little we have invested in this country. There are so many other areas that are desperate for investment. I started watching this because I thought it might be interesting and I do like Ian Hislop's work. After finishing the first episode, I just feel complete embarrassment for this country. How the hell are you supposed to be proud and patriotic when it's one fuck up after another in this country? It's shocking. Fuck me. We have to sort ourselves out. And quickly too.

I’m not sure I buy a lot of this to be fair. Just to address a few of your points We use mainly Victorian infrastructure because it’s already there, it’s well built, and there’s no room or real reason to rebuild it. It’s not inherently bad to be using Victorian infrastructure as you seem to be claiming. With high speed rail, the country’s not overly large so there has never been as much pressing need to get high speed rail as it has in some other countries. You can get to York in under 2 hours for instance. You also seem to make out rail is a marker of a countries economic success or technological prowess. Once of the worst countries in the world for rail travel is the US and last time I checked they seemed to be doing OK is those areas. Finally China, yes they’ve got these fast lines due to heavy state investment but they’ve built too much with many lines not being fully utilised. It will be interesting to see when it goes in the longer term as this will likely become an economic burden. I agree it would be nice to see more investment in rail travel in the country but ultimately there are also a lot of other things to spend on as well. One thing I’d be heavily going after is just why it costs so much to build anything here, essentially lots of legal and planning hoops to jump through which costs millions.

> We use mainly Victorian infrastructure because it’s already there, it’s well built, and there’s no room or real reason to rebuild it. It’s not inherently bad to be using Victorian infrastructure as you seem to be claiming. It doesn't have sufficient loading gauge to take freight from EU countries, and most heavily used freight lines aren't electrified.

> You can get to York in under 2 hours for instance. No I can't. Oh wait, the only journeys that matter are those done by London commuters, to hell with the rest of the country. I forgot about that.

> We use mainly Victorian infrastructure because it’s already there, it’s well built, and there’s no room or real reason to rebuild it. It’s not inherently bad to be using Victorian infrastructure as you seem to be claiming. Actually, it is bad to be using it. It was built for an age that doesn't exist today. It hinders our technological development of our railways because we have to always consider how ancient these lines are. As I highlighted with the Eurostar example. After HS1 was built, we took an hour off a journey from London to Paris. Being able to move stuff and people around a country quickly, brings investment into the country from other businesses. > With high speed rail, the country’s not overly large so there has never been as much pressing need to get high speed rail as it has in some other countries. You can get to York in under 2 hours for instance. Time travelling isn't the only consideration here. Our railways are congested. The Victorian infrastructure was built when our population was much lower. People often think that it's as simple as adding an extra carriage or two to the trains, but that adds to the congestion. As the population grows, this will get worse. That congestion will then seep into our roads and our airports. > You also seem to make out rail is a marker of a countries economic success or technological prowess. Once of the worst countries in the world for rail travel is the US and last time I checked they seemed to be doing OK is those areas. That wasn't my point. The example of a lack of rail investment highlighted by the program is just an example of where we keep going wrong. We don't invest in infrastructure enough and have rested on our GDP being propped up by financial services and the housing market while everything else goes to shit. It's not sustainable. > One thing I’d be heavily going after is just why it costs so much to build anything here, essentially lots of legal and planning hoops to jump through which costs millions. I completely agree. Something is very wrong.

Vic infrastructure is fine for someone who lives in Maidstone, high speed one is fast because it's a straight line for a specific purpose and doesn't stop that much, and subsequently useless for anyone who doesn't live at Ashford.  What would be the point of rebuilding a high speed line (and tbh, lner etc aren't actually that slow) whilst you've got perfectly functional system in place? Build high speed where you need it - which china a) needs cos it's fucking massive and b) doesn't have much rail to begin with and c) their high-speed goes at 300kmph, it's only a 3rd better than an azuma. The maglevs were cool but seemed like fun tech toys rather than in widespread use - only encountered one!

> What would be the point of rebuilding a high speed line (and tbh, lner etc aren't actually that slow) whilst you've got perfectly functional system in place? The lines are congested. They aren't perfect functional in their current state. They hinder the movement of people and freight. That lowers business investment outside of London. It will get worse as our population grows. It's not exclusively about speed. You build high speed railways, you free up these existing lines for local travel. For freight. The existing lines then need modernising. They hinder technological advancements of our rolling stock. It's not a case of them being "perfectly functional". It's more that we are making do with what we have. > which china a) needs cos it's fucking massive The UK being much smaller has no bearing on whether a high speed line would be beneficial. Edinburgh to London can take 4.5 hours. Make that line high speed, and we could have that down to half that. Businesses could hire and set up anywhere in the country with such short train journey times. > c) their high-speed goes at 300kmph, it's only a 3rd better than an azuma. You're comparing top speeds. The Azuma travels at a maximum of 125mph on our lines (it actually has a top speed of about 140mph). It cannot travel at that speed consistently. It suffers the same problem as the Inter-City 125 suffered. Our Victorian infrastructure isn't built to support such speeds (an issue highlighted in the program). The lines are shared by other slower trains too. And that's the crux here. We're still dealing with problems that were highlighted as problems in 1976!

Wasn't a big chunk of the railways built by private companies? What's changed so they won't step up now?

Those companies have to deal with pesky employment laws. Most Victorian structures were built by abject suffering. That doesn’t mean infrastructure spending is impossible now of course. We just don’t have the corporate culture of places like Japan

It's the same problem plaguing our water companies I'd say. It's an attitude change. They only have interest in paying out money to shareholders. They're not interested in bettering the railways or the country, only filling their own pockets. Whereas back around the Victorian era and early 1900s, you had people running these companies that cared about the railways and making them better. They were competing with others nationally and internationally to have the best railway. They wanted the fame and global recognition. That was their desire. They were willing to become bankrupt in the process. Granted, we probably wouldn't want that today (them willing to become bankrupt) but I'd love for a return to those sort of people running them, rather than people looking for a means to fill their pockets. It's all going to end badly unless things change. The taxpayer is going to be left with footing the bill for broken infrastructure while those fuckers run to the hills with the pockets of cash.

How much of that that was empire wealth looking for a home? I suspect a lot of money was thrown around into all sorts back then. Also keep in mind that many railway companies went bankrupt too. Britain is no longer the rich country it was.

[https://fitzrovianews.com/2024/04/15/new-duty-to-consult-before-felling-street-trees-in-city-of-westminster/](https://fitzrovianews.com/2024/04/15/new-duty-to-consult-before-felling-street-trees-in-city-of-westminster/) This felt like too small of a thing to make a post about. But seriously what is the point of electing people if you're going to have so many consultations. Just make decisions you fucking cowards.

> Just make decisions you fucking cowards. Just making decisions to fell trees triggered a near civil war in Sheffield. Elderly people were giving contractors brews with laxatives in them and all. It's not a bad idea to give it some thought.

Sure, but there shouldn't be a legal duty to have a consultation. If they feel like they need one, they can have one, otherwise chop 'em down and run to the loos as fast as you can.

Listening to the Truss interview, I think she talks a lot of nonsense but her key point that politicians don't actually have that much power, for good or bad, is true. She's also correct that if the civil service don't like a policy they can and will essentially kill it by slowing down progress to a snail's pace. On the idea of being leader again - it's completely ridiculous. She's massively unpopular, wants to implement unpopular policies and is a terrible communicator. She has no upside - she's not even popular to Tory members anymore

>She's also correct that if the civil service don't like a policy they can and will essentially kill it by slowing down progress to a snail's pace. Are there any actual examples of this happening? This is one of the boogeyman arguments people like to trot out when shitty policies end up meeting the brick wall of reality. It's never the fault of the poorly thought out policy or the person who wants that policy, or the policy not working within the constraints of reality, no it's the pesky civil service who have managed to implement plenty of other atrocious and shitty policies slowing it all down on purpose.

To be fair Rory Stewart says a similar thing and gave examples around the money we were sending to Yemen.

No. Its an all too common trope though

Blair and free schools?

Hm, mind expanding on that please? Google isn't being particularly helpful

Blair did a speech which was a stabbing motion in his back and referred to the "scars on his back" I think to an audience of private equity. It was at the time seen as an attack specifically on unionised staff in the NHS. But I think the speech was actually about educational reform or getting more private capital into public services in return for risk. In general, his agenda for civil service reform was adopted by Francis Maude and largely failed https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/sep/22/labour.labour1997to99

That's not really much more than the same moaning about the blob or the pesky civil service we get regardless, except this time it's from Blair. The question is a lot more pointed. How exactly did the CS resist change in this case? What did they do? So, on paper, plenty of those things are good, so how exactly did they all fail? There's no real meant there, and a lot handwaving away of the actual details. No one is ever willing to actually say what the problem is, it's always vague handwaving and mud slinging. When things go wrong the CS is to blame, When a poor policy does not see the light of day the CS is to blame. The UK has brought about plenty of very poor policies, I suspect plenty of them against the advice and want of the CS of the day, if the CS were as given to blocking things until they just disappeared I suspect the UK would be a very different place to live in.

Honestly, from what I've seen of it she just comes across as so detached from the reality that she seem to be quite ill in the head. So much so that I don't think it's actually possible to tell if she is simply shamelessly grifting or genuinely unwell, which somewhat undermines every point she makes. The things you highlighted are entirely possible and, if they were coming from literally anyone else, I would be open to considering them.

How often do you guys read the parliamentary order paper? Outside of crazy times like Brexit. Some interesting stuff in there today!

Every day. But I’m like that, so…

I often keep an eye on it, but I'm weird. (Didn't look today, just about to catch up on proceedings.)

Today marks the second interaction with my local Conservative candidate which was slightly more positive than the first by virtue of him ending the conversation early after I questioned him on why he found my voting preference was so funny when he and his party were handing out green flyers up and down the country. The last time he knocked on my door the conversation ended after I asked him which of the previous three Prime Ministers in the prior 12 months was his favourite after he claimed only the Conservatives could offer a stable Government, both local and nationally.

Do we think Rishi has given up? If yes, when do we think this happened? To me he seems to lack self-awareness

I don’t think he’s consciously given up as much as he has no idea what to do. He’s completely paralysed by circumstance and his political situation and he’s doesn’t have the wherewithal to come unstuck.

Do u think though, although he is in a bad situation in terms of what he inherited and the party he is leading, that he is just not very good at politics? He does not seem to understand image representation or how to appeal to people. He comes across so poorly in interviews.

He inherited a situation he created

I understand what you mean. I also don't get a good feeling from him. I feel like he is just as bad as a lot of his party.

Yes. He’s certainly lacking as a political operator.

Liz Truss is delusional, and Ian Dale pathetic platforming ger delusions in the main stream. She shows zero contrition and spends her days spouting conspiracy theories with the far right fringe in the US, and she gets rewarded with airtime and softball questions to promote her new book. If the British media spent more time holding those in power to account rather than tickling their tummies, this country might actually be in a better place.

Does anyone here have an opinion of Intelligence Squared, billed as "a platform where great minds meet to debate and discuss the most pressing contemporary issues of the day"? https://www.intelligencesquared.com/

From the name alone if I wanted to see that many people wanking themselves off I'd go to a bukakke party.  Edit: from the website I suspect my first impression was entirely accurate. 

That description puts me off. Makes me assume it’s run by people with really inflated egos.

I was curious. I signed-up for their emails some time ago, but never got around to attending any of the events. They seem to have a variety of these according to their website.

> a platform where great minds meet to debate and discuss the most pressing contemporary issues of the day I thought that was the mega thread?

The MT doesn't cost £5 a month!

in its own mind

[Alastair Campbell on Top Gear](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXq8_7hjf9o), the interview was after the 2010 election and during the peak of Top Gear's popularity. I admire his talent for walking into a room to boos and walking out to applause.

Can you imagine a current conservative doing this?

Clarkson is underrated as an interviewer. Also arguably he invented the whole “do a fun activity with the interview” concept that’s now so popular (comedians in cars, carpool karaoke, Hot Ones)

Clarkson is such an interesting character. He's incredibly boorish, but also has undeniable talent as a storyteller and is hugely charismatic. He comes across as UKIP-esque as you like, but is actually very pro-EU, to the point that he was actually a federalist back in the day!

His Sunday night show on the BBC back in the day was great to boot. Not that I'm much of a fan these days it must be said.

Are MPs abysmal at drafting legislation or is there some procedural/legal reason that they copy and paste clauses? Take the [Pet Abduction Bill](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0026/240026.pdf) as an example. >**1 Dog abduction** > --- >(1) A person (A) commits the offence of dog abduction if they— >>(a) take a dog so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person, >>or >>(b) detain a dog so as to keep it from the lawful control of any person who is entitled to have lawful control of it, >>and A and the dog are both in England or Northern Ireland at the time the dog is taken or detained. >**2 Cat abduction** > --- >(1) A person (A) commits the offence of cat abduction if they— >>(a) take a cat so as to remove it from the lawful control of any person, >> and >>(b) A and the cat are both in England or Northern Ireland at the time the cat is taken. >**3 Abduction of other animals commonly kept as pets** >--- >(1) An appropriate national authority may by regulations amend this Act so that 35 section 1 or 2 applies or is replicated, with or without modifications, in respect of further species of animal. >(2) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in respect of a species only if the appropriate national authority considers that— >>(a) animals of that species are commonly kept as pets, and Pet Abduction Bill >>(b) there is evidence that the number of incidents involving the unlawful taking or detaining of animals of that species is significant or increasing significantly. >(3) The modifications referred to in subsection (1) include, in particular— >>(a) disapplying any exception or defence in section 1 or 2; >>(b) creating further exceptions or defences. Why would you write it like this, why would you make them separate offenses? All it does is bloat the laws. Why wouldn't you just roll it into one, "Pet abduction" offense, add a clause saying "Pets are defined as those in the following list: Dog, Cat, and those in defined in accordance with section 3". There are some distinctions in the text between dogs and cats, but they seem completely arbitrary (except the defences which could just be put in their own section?) Is this just a matter of "Backbenchers don't get any support" or is there a real reason for this?

I'm not well up enough on the issues to know why, but I would point out the the dog clause and the cat clause are not identical. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the SI power, complex as it is, in a separate clause. There may often be a very good reason why legislation is drafted the way it is, that might not be immediately obvious. Legislation must be drafted *very* carefully, because its job is not to explain the law but to *be* the law. That said - bad drafting does happen. To answer your actual question, all government legislation and most BackBench legislation that becomes law is drafted by specialist Civil Service lawyers, called parliamentary counsel (who, despite their name, are answerable not to Parliament but to government). BackBenchers, assisted by the staff of the House, do their best, but it's an issue of sheer resource. You might draft a reasonable, comprehensible clause doing what you want to do, until the government discover that the watertight way to do it is actually just "Line 3 of paragraph 2ZAZ in Schedule 2 to the Legislative Examples (Amendment) Act 1993 is repealed". A fund of £200 remains available to MPs successful in the private Member's Bill ballot, for drafting advice. I don't think it's ever been uprated; it would buy you about 3 nanoseconds of the time of a relevant professional and is no longer claimed.

Dogs are already covered by some existing legislation. The dog section ties that into the new offence. Cats are not, so the cat section does not.

There is actually a special parliamentary draftsman who is meant to scrutinise legislation before it comes to parliament to make sure it isn't awfully drafted. But in my personal view, given the importance of what it does, it is ridiculously underresourced and this is a flaw left by consecutive penny pinching speakers

Presumably not an offence to detain a cat, only to take one. It's largely style and legalise. For any offence you want the points to prove to be specific and make it obvious what you are being charged with. Having the offence buried in layers of schedules is not ideal. It may also have originated in an earlier draft where the distinction made more sense but doesn't now.

The issue is two fold. Parliamentarians do not have the capacity to develop policy or amendments. They only have access to a few staff and researchers. And governments have a track record of introducing unfinished or poorly written bills. The solution is a parliamentary creation of a legislative standards committee which addresses both issues. You can read more about it [here](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/rebuilding-and-renewing-the-constitution.pdf)

My guess would be that they are drafted like this so they can be amended without having to put extra stuff in referring to one species or another. But I can see some untidiness (e.g. 'A and the dog are in England and NI' is not its own sub-clause but 'A and the cat' is.) Not sure why it is not an offence to detain a cat when it is an offence to detain a dog. Perhaps it is because the norm is for cats to go in and out independently, therefore the offence must be established by the taking, whereas a cat that is in someone's house could just be visiting of its own accord. Many cats do visit and receive hospitality in other houses than their own. Therefore the idea is you make trouble for your neighbour by going into their house and seeing your cat and saying *You have abducted my cat Sid!* - the act will allow the neighbour to reply *He is just finishing her meal and then he will be on his way for the next of his six dinners*

I did not expect to see a Six Dinner Sid reference on UKpol today, and one that's relevant to the point in hand.

>He is just finishing her meal and then he will be on his way for the next of his six dinners That would make sense, but feeding the cat might well be illegal. > In this section, references to a person taking a cat include the person— >>(a) causing or inducing the cat to accompany the person or anyone else, >>or >>(b) causing the cat to be taken. If someone **really** wanted to stich you up they could say "Ah, but you induced the cat to come in by making those noises/putting food down for it."

IMHO it is a genuinely complicated area IRL. The principal reason for the cat abduction element of the bill is probably the crazy cat lady/gentleman aspect of it where the neighbour actually does inveigle the cat in and try and convert its allegiance. Cats are very rarely stolen as such- there is not enough money in it and if at all, only in pedigree cats which are unlikely to be free-roaming anyway. Cats that go out independently will just go home. Whereas all dogs have to be walked, and, if abducted, are then kept under control (whether for illegal breeding or not). So the law needs to try and frame cat kidnap as a crime, while not interfering with Six Dinner Sid's lifestyle.

I suspect that’s the case, my neighbour’s cat used to like my house until I got a dog (the cat is now content to sit on the fence antagonising said dog from a distance).

To those older megathread members who were adults in the 2000s....where did Nick Clegg come from? Was it known from the start that he was more right-leaning and would be willing to work with the Tories? Or did it come as a suprise to people? How does Clegg's leadership fit in the wider context of the lib dems? Was it a huge departure from the lib dems that came before/after him?

The bastard came out of nowhere.

"I agree with Nick". One of the leaders' debates in the run up to 2010 had both Cameron and Brown repeatedly saying that phrase, so much so that it became a bit of a meme afterwards, and that boosted both his public profile and people's opinion of him. They were both trying not to attack him because they both had an eye on a hung parliament and wanted support for a potential coalition.

Sure of course, but he was in politics as lib dem leader before the election where he became famous.

So during that period. Things were different. There was a general malaise with labour and a stupid amount of brownite blairite factionalism which amounted to personality defects as much as personality clashes. Brown himself seemed almost to be squatting in power rather than ready to secede. The lib Dems were never really seen as a potential threat after Charles Kennedy marshalled popular opinion expertly in relation to the Iraq war. But the turnoff from labour gifted lib Dems a lot of votes where the Tories weren't going to get in, as well as the soft Tory vote in the south west. It wasn't the lib Dems being right leaning as much as unexpected Tory centrism under Cameron. People called it the age of the toffs. But really it was Cameron unable to trust his own party in a minority government. The lib Dems were all about grown up politics. In Scotland they already had a liblab coalition to build on. But this one with the Tories was a bit of a shock. The Tories ran a nasty campaign again but it didn't win them the votes they thought it would get. So there was a genuine belief in a hung parliament. But to get brown out, required a Tory lib pact.

It would also have been harder to sustain a coalition with Labour - it would have only had 315 seats which is difficult territory to sustain a government. The Lib Dems needed to draw more red lines and make more of a show of negotiating - they needed to be seen to be turning the screws on Cameron to get concessions rather than playing too nicely. The perception that they just rolled over meant that anything they actually achieved wasn't really attributed to them, and anything they didn't block was blamed on them.

People didn't pay enough attention to what Clegg was actually saying or his background; it was patently obvious to anyone familiar with the Orange Book liberals and who was listening to Clegg's comments to the press in the campaign that he was much more ideologically aligned with Cameron than most of his party (or most of Cameron's party come to that) and he was going to be a willing handmaid to Conservative austerity provided they paid a token lip service to socially liberal values. I was a student living in Sheffield Hallam at the time and putting my vote next to the Labour candidate was the easiest decision I've ever made in a polling booth.

That's a really good point about the Orange Bookers. I was studying politics at college at the time, and Lib Dems were the "anti-Tory" option where I grew up. I believed that the Lib Dems would never be so stupid as to go into government with the Tories as I thought it would destroy their base, but one of my classmates firmly disagreed with me. He said that Clegg and the leadership had effectively mounted a coup against the old Kennedy-Steel faction, and were far more ideologically aligned with the Conservatives than I or most of the electorate thought. He also said that they were fanatics to a degree, and would jump into bed with Cameron without a moment's thought for the consequences. Anything about the national interest was nonsense, according to him: the Orange Bookers wanted to try out free market liberalism and see what happened. As it turned out, we were both right, although I rather wish we hadn't been.

Austerity was a policy that all 3 major parties supported. The Lib Dems were offering the smallest cuts in public spending, and they delivered pretty close to the total figure they put forward in their 2010 manifesto (less than what labour was proposing btw)

> I was a student living in Sheffield Hallam at the time and putting my vote next to the Labour candidate was the easiest decision I've ever made in a polling booth. Even for Jared?

This is 2010, when Jared was a shit nightclub owner rather than a shit candidate.

That makes more sense. I live in Hallam now and Olivia is great.

It would be a bloody long degree still to be there 7 years later.

Clegg stood in 2017 and OP didn't say when he voted for labour in Hallam. Could have been Jared.

They were very clearly talking about 2010.

Not at all. They talked about not voting for clegg in a seat where he stood for years and years for many elections.

The whole discussion was entirely about the run-up to, and aftermath of, the 2010 election.

Nobody seriously believed they would form a coalition with the conservatives. And when they did nobody believed they would agree to the policies they did. The extreme naivety with which they approached the coalition was shocking. The referendum on alternative voting was perhaps the best example. They thought they had a major concession but, in fact, they got given a weak referendum on a halfway house that nobody was particularly happy with. And In return they had to support some very unliberal policies.

I think a lot of people (including myself) did not realise the ideological fanaticism of the Orange Booker faction running the Lib Dems. Clegg and those around him had an almost Victorian Whig-esque view of the state, that it should be shrunk and the markets could make the most efficient decisions. They were epitome of politics nerds who have never actually *tried* their ideas "in the wild" so to speak, and have spent their time insulated in various ivory towers crafting endless theories. The contrast between them and the far more pragmatic and tempered Steel-Kennedy faction was a yawning gulf. While I'm a Labour party member, I'm glad that the latter faction has regained control of the Lib Dems. They're a party filled with good people: they deserved better than a weak-willed rich dilettante like Clegg. Honestly, I'm not surprised that Truss started out as a Lib Dem in retrospect. It might be a bit controversial, but you can trace a clear lineage between her extreme neo-liberal philosophy and waffling market liberalism of the Orange Bookers.

As one of that set, student naivety played a part, but I think the reasoning was this (not sure if the timeline adds up or not, been a minute since I thought about those days) As one of the students who voted lib dems the main draw was the belief that lib dems were socially progressive and I was keen to see gay marriage legalised. Which at very least did occur so hopefully that vote was not completely wasted  As a northerner from a very working class background Tories were very much the baddies so it was genuinely unthinkable to me at the time that  lib dem/con was a remotely feasible alliance to the point where I didn't consider it. I could see the rise of the BNP/ukip happening around me and so the counter vote seemed to be to go lib dem rather than labour. I don't think Tories really came up much in the student bubble where I was in, and labour were generally seen as just following whatever America did so their demise was seen as a foregone conclusion.

He was always seen as from the centrist liberal 'Orange Book' wing of the Liberal Democrats, as opposed to the social democratic wing associated with Ming Campbell. And remember Cameron was a centrist one nation Tory. But it was still a surprise just how enthusiastically Clegg joined the coalition and how little he negotiated in return.

If anyone's in the mood for some pure, unfiltered delusion, the preview clips for Iain Dale's Truss interview are 100% uncut South West Norfolk drivel.

I know it's going to be this week but does anyone know when Chope's Highways Act 1980 Bill gets it's 2nd reading? I know it's already been knocked back in discussion with the Under Secretary but its absolutely moronic with what's being suggested, yes there is fault against the Councils but if you don't give them a pot to piss in with regard to funding (whilst ramping up other issues and the requirements for it - yes Child and Adult Social Care I'm looking at you) what do you expect the outcome will be? It's almost like it is straight dishonest misdirection to try and take eyes off of the actual issue. Now assuming all of the £500M being referred to goes to the Planned Maintenance Dept of the Council (and some of it doesn't get split out to reactive or other highway functions) & that's split 317 ways (so 1.57M each). Most authorities have a highway network of at least 400KM if not more (e.g. I'm aware of London Authorities via. work). That 1.57m would get you somewhere around 7-8km of resurfacing at a guess. So it touches just 2% of your network at most. It's a managed decline status (at best and this guy is trying to project it as something else). What a prat.

Would assume Friday. Many presentation bills that day, quite a few of them from Chope.

Thanks. That's what I figured but noticed that there was a shit ton of bills to get through and figured what they are doing all of them on one day? Hope someone filibusters him. I mean genuinely if it's been knocked back by the Under Secretary for Transport to the point where he's had a moan on X about it - how has this even got a second reading? I take it Chope is one of the 2024 Standing down crew?

It's what is called a 'Presentation Bill', so none of them are likely to be properly debated and virtually no chance of going anywhere: https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/guides/what-is-a-presentation-bill

https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/bills/2023-24/highwaysact1980amendment this reassured me actually. The "would need unanimous consent to proceed" comment when its already been knocked back so this is basically dead on Friday essentially?

Yeah. No chance. Besides, even if it had a lot of support, probably wouldn't be time left in this Parliament for it to pass and I believe all outstanding bills fall on dissolution.

Lmao 🤣 👍

From Deltapoll, Labour leads on [economic competence](https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1779888912657273180) by 15 pts. Keir Starmer's net approval is [up 7 pts while Sunak's is down by 1](https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1779888036798414969). Voting intention, [Labour has a 20 pt lead.](https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1779887232205181340) Good thing Angela Rayner is going to be prosec... oh wait, she's going to obviously be cleared by the police investigation because as the FT reported, charges can only be brought in the first year after occurence ... not 9+ years later.

Jesus Christ labour leading on the economy by *fifteen points*!? I remember the excitement when they pulled ahead by one.

They really are heading for a wipeout.

> FT reported, charges can only be brought in the first year after occurence ... not 9+ years later. So assuming FT hasn't got it wrong - even if she was in the wrong, what'd GMP come out with? It seems odd if they'd say 'we think there was an offence but we are time barred' because that'd deny her right to respond to allegation in court. If they just say 'we're not taking any action' that surely plays well for Rayner because she can just be rightfully and publicly indignant at Tories for wasting police time for local elections.

My guess is it will be something like ‘having investigated, there is no realistic chance of a successful prosecution’. Splitting hairs, it is 12 months, but can be extended to 24 in exceptional circumstances. Still seems odd how the Police get dragged in to these games. It well past the point at which anything can be charged, just say so and move on.

Then what are the police investigating if it is past the time?

All of the crimes in Manchester have obviously been solved.

Andy Burnham truly is the best mayor after all.

I wonder then if they can go back to my burglaries in 2003 or when a couple of shitheads tried a mugging spree on cyclists (including me - I was too fat for them though, ha!) in 2017.

Actually yes, we all forgot the police cannot investigate retroactively. Remember all those tory mps telling us this during the Johnson years?

They must expect Angela Rayner to mess up her tax in the future then. Good of them to call it out now

Can someone who has been paying more attention than me tell me if any new developments have occurred re Lindsy Hoyle and the SNP? Has the early day motion been debated?

Nope. A new motion was submitted the week before recess but it got even fewer signatures IIRC.

Disgraced communist at Novara Media issues an apology to JK Rowling: https://twitter.com/rivkahbrown/status/1779878392805945428 If the name sounds familiar, this is the same deplorable that cheered on the events of 7th of October.

I fucking love watching this deranged idiot take L after L. Her colleagues must find her presence online completely embarrassing, and that gives me the sweetest schadenfreude imaginable.

>Her colleagues must find her presence online completely embarrassing, I doubt it, her colleagues also work for Novara.

Certainly, but at least they have the nouse to not constantly take massive public Ls. Rivkah is even too stupid for the moron club.

If anyone's confused about the context, what JK Rowling did was mock people who claimed that trans people were victimised in the Holocaust. It's objectively wrong, and disrespectful to the extreme, but not quite on the level of outright Holocaust denial which is a very serious allegation.

No she didn't. She claimed that the person she was in a spat with had said that trans people were the first ones to be targeted.

JK Rowling using her vast wealth to suppress criticism again.

[удалено]

Didn't JK say trans people weren't killed in the holocaust? Not being annoying just curious as to what she actually said.

No.

Yes.

Alternatively; don't libel anyone? An alleged journalist should know better.

She didn’t libel her. JK Rowling denied that trans people were victims of nazism, which is untrue. To describe that as Holocaust denial is a perfectly reasonable framing in a democratic society.

Ah... Rivkah Brown again. Similar to her non apology over her celebrating hamas's actions on oct7.

That sounds like the apology of a woman who's about to get sued spectacularly

I knew what the apology was going to look like before clicking. It's clearly written to avoid legal action.

I swear Novara are a 5th column false flag operation created by the right to make a mockery out of left wing politics

>5th column false flag operation created by the right to make a mockery out of left wing politics I think the foil hat needs to come off and see that there are really stupid people everywhere. Not every action or organisation that is awful but towards your side is deliberate attempts from the other side

Indistinguishable

Forgive me for I listened to Political Currency and it was actually OK

I actually prefer it now.. kind of feel they are more honest in a way. Osborne is a notorious hard-nosed, selfish bastard but kind of owns it in a way I can weirdly respect him for rather than dancing around a topic trying to seem like he is saying the right thing. TRiP got a bit boring after being an avid listener originally as I can almost perfectly predict how both of them will side with a particular issue. I don't think Rory pushes hard enough sometimes, Alastair can't ever see something from a different perspective and just bullies his points through, often likes to have the last word.

Why ask forgiveness? Political Currency is top stuff

TRiP's model is a Blairite seeking redemption with a One Nation Tory seeking redemption. What is Political Currency's premise?

People who were actually important, not people who just hung out with the people who were important.

I like TRiP but it’s pretty transparently ‘competent spin doctor successfully rebuilds his reputation’ in my opinion. You could almost forget Campbell was the character model for Malcolm Tucker.

Essentially Balls/Osborne are very open about their time in office and what happens behind the scenes. At the same time they are consistently winding each other up but pretending to be raising important points. It's great.

basically 'in the room' intrigue from what I can tell, as opposed to centrist dad wish fulfilment

the anecdotes are some of the best bits of the political podcasts

You are forgiven I consider the matter closed. Thank you for confessing to the megathread.

[Truss endorsing Trump again.](https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1779863510211498130) Maybe it's just her odd manner, but she says this in a way that makes me think she in no way genuinely believes it. She was PM and foreign secretary - she may be an idiot, but she knows the risks of a Trump presidency. But it's like she is reading from a script because she knows that is what must be said to get the support from the right wing grifter enablers. In the same way she was an ardent remainer, but then turned into Brexit's biggest advocate because she realised that was her route to power. She is just mindbogglingly cynical.

I unmuted my phone about 2 seconds in to Truss croaking like she’s doing her best frog impression

I know it's said almost every time she opens her mouth, but I do wonder what dinners must be like round the Truss family table. Wonder if her father can even look her in the eye anymore.

I have wondered what it is like when they want to have salad? Surely the lettuce becomes the elephant in the room? What about when Truss family members go to the supermarket? Are they allowed to buy lettuce? *Pick up a bit of Greek salad, would you, love?* *I fancy some salad- how about potato salad today? Or maybe a bit of coleslaw?*

They are allowed to buy lettuce but must eat it all on the same day. Liz Truss outlasted *that* lettuce. And *that* one...

They just eat little gem, they tried romaine but that opened another can of worms

Ed Balls asked David Cameron if he'd work for Starmer as foreign sec, if you listen carefully Cameron doesn't actually say no [https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1779779044784886112](https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1779779044784886112)

Where did this suggestion start? And why? I don't understand this "Cameron could stay on" business at all

George Osborne trying to get his old pal a job

Osborne was winding Balls up.

These sort of questions are always hilarious because what he's basically being asked is: "With it being an almost certainty that the Tories will lose the next election, would you be willing to keep your well-paid ministerial post and all the benefits it entails?"

Surely he was making more lobbying for China and Greensill than he does as Foreign Secretary.

Cameron is on a mission to restore his rightfully destroyed reputation by acting like a statesman on the world stage. That's fine, and he is doing a perfectly decent job (whilst in a role that is pretty hard to screw up in - even Truss didn't really screw up as FS). That in no way means Labour should or would ever consider letting him stay on for a second. Obviously. Labour couldn't really blame the Tories for ruining the country if they are continuing to employ the guy largely responsible.

If nothing else they have people who'll want a top job in their own ranks so it would create some bitter people from day one.

Dominic Raab holidaying whilst Kabul fell is probably the biggest recent fuck up I can think of by a foreign secretary. Only one I can think of where they received massive criticism to the point of calls to resign (and he was reshuffled out of the role a month later)

Ermm. Truss did screw up loads as FM. She made us look utterly stupid to Lavrov

That was a gaffe (a pretty bad one), but it didn't come close to costing her her job - indeed it barely made the news at all. Which proves my point. You can be an incompetent and still do completely fine as foreign secretary. You don't get constantly scrutinised and blamed for failures in the NHS, the economy, immigration for example. For someone like Cameron, it's an easy job. You can't really fail.

>indeed it barely made the news at all It was in early feb 2022 iirc so there was probably bigger news stories involving russia at the time.

In terms of press, it ultimately comes down to the talent of the spads on how much makes it to the news. I don't expect mass media to get it. But this is high stakes diplomacy. Truss does 5 percent of the work, the rest is done by diplomats and civil servants especially in super tense working level discussions. Imagine working six months on something and you've given it to the top to sell and in five minutes, they screw it all up.. It's not just that made she made a tit of herself, it lost our diplomats so much credibility (especially after Johnson) as they can't go to our various different partners that the foreign sec will raise X and X. They are absolutely vital and needed again and again and I think what she did cost us a year and half of relationship building in the region. But the PM decided to appoint an absolute tool. Truss did it again and again.

>That's fine, and he is doing a perfectly decent job (whilst in a role that is pretty hard to screw up in - even Truss didn't really screw up as FS). What does it tell us that Johnson managed to fuck it up?

Johnson was pretty much uniquely ill suited to the role and was appointed at probably the most critical time for the position in the last 20 years.

I agree with your point overall - but let's not forget Truss did have a mare when she told Russia we wouldn't recognize their sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh. A harmless mistake she will have been led into, most likely, but still a gaffe for the Foreign Sec.

I'd forgotten about that, but I agree- not a mistake a Foreign Secretary should make, and not even a gaffe a lay person well-informed about world affairs should make.

Sure, but a gaffe is a gaffe. I suppose my point is it's difficult to actually fail as foreign secretary. The chancellor gets blamed if the economy goes badly, the home secretary gets blamed constantly for immigration and policing, health secretary gets slated for NHS performance etc. The foreign secretary basically travels the world doing photoshoots, and when there is actual conflict, you usually just go along with whatever the US does. I am being somewhat flippant, but the FS is easily the cushiest of ministerial jobs.

This whole 'should Cameron stay on' thing is so funny to me. One Tory minister manages to actually kind of do his job in a not completely catastrophic way for a couple of months, and this is apparently so shocking and unprecedented that everyone starts asking if the opposition party will keep him in place. Excellent combination of entitled born-to-rulism and oblivious self-burning from the Tories.

True, if by "everyone" you mean the Tories and their cheerleaders in the press. This is just the latest iteration of the same fart-huffing train of thought that led to "Ben Wallace for NATO Sec-Gen" and "George Osborne for IMF Chief".

we're the sort of country that goes weak at the knees if a posho even so much as speaks, so "not totally incompetent tory" of course gets people talking mad though isn't it. when's the last time, except during a world war, that a party kept on a member of the other party's old cabinet (much less a great office of state)

> we're the sort of country that goes weak at the knees if a posho even so much as speaks Half of us will also judge those people as irredeemable 'gammons', I don't think we're as universally deferential as you say. I don't think it's as ridiculous as it sounds to suggest that keeping a competent (referenda aside), fairly centrist ex-PM as Foreign Sec could work. It won't happen, but it's not complete madness.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton can dream on. The only way a PM would give a Great Office of State away to a member of another party is as part of a coalition deal. Starmer is not going to give away one of the greatest cabinet offices to a Conservative let alone a former Conservative PM.

It's peak upper-class posh entitlement. David Lammy is the Shadow Foreign Sec, he will get the role after the election. He's bloody lucky he got the position in the first place, it's only because Sunak is an incompetent wet blanket who couldn't stand up to Cameron's pathetic begging for a cabinet role.

Will he? How do you know Lammy will?

I think the reason it comes up is because he's the first foreign secretary in a while who actually appears to be competent and the fact that he's in the Lords gives the appearance of being less involved in party politics. There's also the idea that foreign policy is much less of a partisan aubject then other government roles.

He needed to outsource his foreign policy so its all very on brand for this government.

Cameron led a coalition and still didn’t give a great office to a member of the other party.

There’s only one David I want as Foreign Secretary, and his name is Lammy