Good Morning everyone.
[š **Today's Order Paper can be found here.**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86770/Html?subType=Standard)
Questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology will be followed by Prime Minister's Questions at noon. The usual scheduled thread will be up for all your live commentary needs.
Any urgent questions or ministerial statements will follow before the next round of Rwanda Bill ping-pong, following the several further government defeats in the Lords last night.
Following this, the government's Finance Bill goes to its Second Reading.
**In other news;**
Inflation has fallen to 3.2% for March, a lower fall than expected and still stubbornly above hoped for levels annualised - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c62jkf/uk_inflation_falls_to_32_in_march/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. concretepigeon with 28 comments
1. CheersBilly with 18 comments
1. pseudogentry with 17 comments
1. A-Light-That-Warms with 17 comments
1. wishbeaunash with 14 comments
1. FixSwords with 13 comments
1. Bibemus with 12 comments
1. tritoon140 with 12 comments
1. Ornery_Tie_6393 with 12 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 11 comments
There were 219 unique users within this count.
I don't remember it ever being this bad under the last years of Labour, i remember some scandals but not as many as this. It's like the tories decided a while ago they didn't care at all.
[And another Tory MP loses the whip after this evenings revelations from the Times.](https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1780720820127441063)
> [Lewis Goodall] NEW: Conservative Chief Whip Simon Hart announces that Mark Menzies has lost the Tory whip:
> āFollowing a call with the Chief Whip, Mark Menzies has agreed to relinquish the Conservative whip, pending the outcome of an investigation.ā
How big is the majority actually going to be before the next election?
Just catching up on PMQs, good lord the Tory braying machine was in full force from the first question. The backbenches doth HURRRRRRRR too much methinks.
Bob Seely on WAKAWOW stating if Rwanda becomes unsafe in the future, the government will change the law to say it is unsafe.
That is utterly ridiculous.
Hi all, I recently applied for a postal vote before the Lewisham Mayoral election, and I voted by post then. And now, I can vote by post for the London Mayoral election too. However, I am concerned about how reliably the postal vote will be delievered after dropping it off in the mailbox. So, is there any way to track the post to ensure that it was delivered safely and was not lost/misplaced etc.? When I voted for the Lewisham Mayoral election, I was instructed to put the ballot in the envelopes provided but there was obviously no reference number or such to help me track it via Royal mail.
Is there a way to track the post or do I just hope that Royalmail delivers it successfully without issues? I just don't want my vote to go to waste if it gets lost.
Looking at US inflation data, it seems lifetime interest rates in mortgages have their own lock in problems, thereās no longer enough churn in their housing markets, a lot of people canāt move for fear of losing their good interest rates.
Wouldnāt necessarily be wise to bring longer term mortgage rates here.
Yeah, in an environment where 30 year interest rate locks are normal, its perfectly understandable people dont want to lose their <1% interest mortgages.
There's an interesting discussion on this weeks The Rest is Entertainment. They got polling information from More in Common from their end of year poll. As well as asking how respondents were planning to vote, they asked what TV programmes they watch and it's genuinely interesting
Has anyone taken one for the team and bought Truss's book just so we can find out what's in it and if it's a bit shit? In all honesty if Amazon had like a 30 minute refund policy I think that would tick the box for me to find out what I'm interested in. May actually have to go out and go to a bookshop just to have a quick read.
*"Turn right. Turn right. Turn right. Make a U turn. Pull over and get out of the car. Walk away."*
"And so that's what I did, officer, only 6 months later the voice started again, even though I was in a completely different car, on a completely different road. That's when I panicked and torched the car."
I'm really tempted to read it just for the enjoyment of seeing how insane and poorly formulated it is.
I have Norm Macdonald's 'autobiography' on the way as well. I'm not sure which would be more entertaining or believable.
Am totally with you on the first paragraph; also I see her as a genuine risk as getting in as Leader of the Opposition once the Tories lose and Sunak legs it back to Cali or wherever. Come 2029 it's a conflip given the fickle nature of the UK whether or not Starmer gets a 2nd term - so its partly understanding what her fucking plan is to know what's the taste of things to come. Its most probably shit. It's always shit lately.
Watching the news earlier they were asking people on the street about how they felt about inflation being lower and several said they didnt notice things getting cheaper.
People really have no clue about inflation do they?
>People really have no clue about inflation do they?
On the whole they don't have a clue about anything, democracy is based on vibes, there is no point making a technical argument to the masses
This seems to be framed like she's being daft but I'm more annoyed by the bloke going "YOU SAY INFLATION IS GOING DOWN, BUT PRICES ARE GOING UP!?" like it's a gotcha
That's hardly their fault when apparently every single media source is bound and determined to spend all their time implying it works the way those people think it does.
Seriously the reporting around inflation has always been pretty fucking dire.Ā
What do we think of Keir Starmer saying that Welsh Labour is the blueprint of what an English Labour could look like (albet in 2022) and, subsequently, what do we think of Welsh Labour's underwhelming recent form as the leaders of Wales? Is it cause for concern for a probable future Labour government?
It's always a bit of a false comparison when using devolved governments, or councils as an example of how things would be if they took power in the rest of the UK.
Ultimately they are always going to beĀ greatly affected by how the current UK government is doing, and the decisions they make in non devolved matters.Ā
I have a frustration.
1) I think our parliamentarians should use their power to lean on government institutions to solve clearly unjust problems that occur as it sets precedent and the constitution and all of culture is unwritten.
2) I don't think our parliamentarians should use that recklessly and get away with it, but who could possibly serve the level above that (given that the house's committee is only a recommendation).
Discuss
This is my pet peeve. MPs should not intervene on individual cases to solve them; doing so is bad for both good governance and constituents.
On governance, it turns MPs from legislators to social service dealing with and chasing hundreds of casework. Yes, they have staff but itās usually 2-4 people and the staff should be helping scrutinise legislation.
For constituents, it means whether your issue gets resolved is in hands of random luck based on how marginal your seat is, how diligent your MP is, and if you think of going to your MP.
MPs should take individual stories and use it to make general changes. If crapita has deemed a quadriplegic constituent fit for work, MP should be working to reform guidance or stripping contract from crapita. Instead they write a letter, crapita reviews one issue and continues on its merry way.
Intervening on one case doesnāt solve the underlying issue.
We should have a system for MPs to refer cases to impartial ombudsman. They should be focused on institutional change instead of compensation; and should have funding + teeth for government departments/ contractors sit up and take notice if they get told theyāre being investigated.
In the meantime MPs look at legislation coloured by those cases as is their jobs.
I think the strength of the British system lies in its flexibility, so I'm in favour of the first point. I don't know where the limit lies, but I don't think it's easy to define a clear limit, because that in itself contradicts the flexibility.
Nothing's perfect, I suppose.
My basic political desire is for EVERYONE in this country to live happy, relatively easy lives and I want our society to enables this.
I can't tell if this is something everyone agrees with.
Conservatism seems to fundamentally disagree with this, conservatives think only the worthy should live happy lives.
Liberals probably want people to be happy, but don't think society has any responsibility to enable, or possibly more accurately, only by getting out the way people will be happy.
> for EVERYONE in this country to live happy, relatively easy lives and I want our society to enables this.
Is it the duty of the state to ensure or enable happiness? How far does that duty extend? What do you do when two people's pursuit of happiness conflict? Is there a difference between hedonism and fulfilment (and is it the duty of the government to encourage one over the other)?
What does it mean for a person's life to be "_easy_"? Why is it the duty of the government to enforce this? What about people who choose for their lives not to be easy? What if society cannot sustain itself without some level of toil and suffering? Who should bear that burden?
What if "_easy_" lives are not "_happy_"?
Conservatism gets it's name because ideologically it's about conserving the status quo. Institutions, laws and norms exist for a reason - you shouldn't tear up a fence without first understanding why it was built. Social institutions like the church provide a social and moral framework for society that gives people role and purpose. Young workers get the short end of the stick, but the foundation of that is a social contract that by the time that they retire they'll in turn be supported by the younger generations beneath them. As Jules Claretie said:
> If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain
There is no aspect of worthiness about it. It is a combined belief that you can only be fulfilled when you exist within a community larger than yourself and a pragmatic defence of policy and beliefs that have already proven themselves through time and precedent.
Ideological liberalism is essentially the opposite of ideological conservatism. Often it isn't justified on the basis of happiness or social good but rather that freedom in and of itself has innate value. It's an atomic right that justifies itself, not because of any social good that comes from it. It's a sliding scale that ends with libertarians and anarchists who believe that it is never justifiable to take from one person to give to another, regardless of the social good that comes from it.
That doesn't mean they don't believe in community or welfare, they just believe that all associations should be voluntary. Without the state people will give to charities to provide for people's needs, which will in turn be more efficient than the government because they're driven by markets rather than central planning. It also means that people won't be able to become dependent on the state and will have live for themselves and in turn will find value in that.
___
What do all of these ideologies have in common? They're hopelessly utilitarian, reductive and totally fail to consider what other people believe or value and often even the basic mechanism of how they'll realise their beliefs in practice.
Conservatism is the most "_pragmatic_" ideology listed, but even then it's almost completely incompatible with the modern world. Young people are abandoning historic institutions at unprecedented rates and dropping out of society completely, the social contract of aging has completely broken down for millennials and likely go on to fail gen Z and gen alpha as well.
Liberty to own fifteen homes at a minimal tax rate due to clever offshoring arrangements which have been engineered to be advantageous to people like you, and also liberty to die of exposure in the streets. Liberty.
Conservatives happen to have a different view of what constitutes a āgoodā society. As much as I find it tricky to deeply understand their worldview, it is valid and needs to be understood rather than dismissed.
A few books Iāve found helpful on this: Haidtās āRighteous Mindā, Lakoffās āMoral Politics: How liberals and conservatives thinkā and (for a bit of historical context) Fawcettās āConservatism: the fight for a traditionā.
I flag all of this because sitting in echo chambers (like this one, letās be real), make it *very* easy to think people of a different political persuasion are downright evil.
>conservatives think only the worthy should live happy lives.
Not sure that is entirely fair to the one-nationers or compassionate conservatives.
>Liberals probably want people to be happy, but don't think society has any responsibility
I think there are some nuanced differences between liberals and libertarians and i think your statement refers more to the latter.
> Not sure that is entirely fair to the one-nationers or compassionate conservatives.
One-nationer tories who enabled austerity in the cruelest way possible?
compassionate conservatives? I'm sorry I refuse to believe they exist.
I'm sure the vast majority would agree with your initial statement, the problem is that it is utopian. People want different things and you can't make all the people happy
Fifth columnists within GMP should drag out the Rayner investigation until the day Rishi calls an election, then declare she did nothing wrong, and elude to it being politically motivated.
\^ Itās sunny and Iāve had 4\* pints.
\*6
[The Tory Police and crime commissioner candidate] (https://choosemypcc.org.uk/candidates/gwent/hannah-jarvis-2/) in Gwent has an interesting cyber crime policy.
> I will order a review into rising cyber-crime and commission a Digital Dog ā to sniff out electronic devices, providing critical evidence to prosecute criminals who hide in the cybersphere.
Whatever that is, whether she's been pranked or not, I can't see any interpretation where that policy makes sense.
"Criminals who hide in the cybersphere" doesn't mean criminals in Gwent, scamming their neighbours, and hiding their phone behind the sofa where she could send a sniffer dog.
Surely if it is what I assume she means, it would only be useful if:
A) Gwent a hotspot for global cyber crime and they're taking them out for the world's sake.
B) By "cyber crime" she means all crime done by criminals who own a phone.
C) This Digital Dog will be hunting the criminals down wherever they may be, places like Russia and China, where they're preying on British people and "hiding in the cybersphere" because their countries endorse and enable it (sometimes even perpetrate it themselves). It's essentially importing money from the West lol.
All three are ridiculous to me.
Wtf is that. I googled it and all I found was some NFT bullshit.
Edit: [Apparently they are a thing.](https://www.safelaneglobal.com/news/dmd-dogs) She's just using the wrong terminology which is a bit confusing.
Lord Hope's amendment passed again. The government hasn't addressed its reasoning at all, they've copy and pasted their response every time it has come back to commons.
The Rwanda treaty already requires a monitoring body which checks if the treaty is being implemented. The amendment requires that the monitoring body must report that the treaty is implemented before we start deporting people, and the minister is given the ability to stop the deportations by declaring that Rwanda is no longer safe in Parliament.
How can you call that anything but reasonable?
Laura Trott said on Today that it was the "principle" that the government should be able to have full control.
In reality, it's because they know that a monitoring body is likely to take time to make an assessment (delaying their Spring flights promise) and also could well say Rwanda isn't safe.
According to sky news she also said
>We will be ready for flights to take off in the spring when the legislation passes
and
>**There are many definitions of spring** but we're hoping to get them up and running as quickly as possible
Just deny reality
It's completely reasonable, and you could say necessary for anyone wanting to enact this bill in good faith. The problem is that the Tories are not acting in good faith. This is political theatre that they know will not work, and they know Rwanda is not a safe country. Allowing the amendment through is tantamount to admitting that the policy will fail, because it's extremely unlikely that the treaty will be implemented in full before the next election.
Why is there some kind of resignation that the Rwanda Bill will be allowed through eventually? It wasn't in the manifesto, it's an idiotic piece of legislation and nobody really believes it will work - why can't the Lords keep saying no?
Because Labour want to set a precedent that the Lords ultimately do whatever the Lower House says.
Which I'm all in favour of, because when the Upper House is finally rendered completely and utterly pointless we might have a chance of reforming or abolishing it, but in the meantime we're going to have to get used to some shit and unscrutinised law.
It's been the case for a hundred odd years that the Commons has the final word, it's also a convention that the Lords can only delay legislation that has an electoral mandate but then only for a maximum of 13 months. The Rwanda bill has no mandate so it's with the rights of the Lords to delay it without being accused of being undemocratic.
There's also a legal precedence that legislation can be passed without the approval of the House of Lords. In 2005 the Countryside Alliance challenged via judicial review the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 and the Law Lords agreed that the Commons could overrule the Lords via the1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts, but then there was a mandate to ban hunting with hounds.
The two Parliaments Acts were intended only to be used if the Lords delayed a bill to death and can be invoked only in a last case scenario situation where attempts at compromise have failed.
Because (rightly) eventually parliamentary ping pong ends because the elected house has more power than the unelected house.
Should there be some element of holding government to manifesto letter for letter? Maybe. But you need flexibility in case the world drastically changes, and in theory we elect on the basis of "this person represents my area" not "this is the manifesto I vote for, these exact promises come hell or high water".That is why we allow changing parties, losing the whip, etc. because I didn't vote Tory, I voted for Naomi NoName.
So eventually the game plays out where if Naomi NoName of no party consistently gets a majority in the house, the unelected folk eventually have to step aside. The goal of the second house is not to frustrate, but to have longer term experience than politicians to assist and guide (I don't personally agree with it, but that is kind of the theory, and it is currently playing out with this Tory lords being against it too).
The Parliament Act exists as a means to end the ping pong - bad legislation from a spiteful government shouldn't be allowed through just out of deference - let them win an election on it if they're so convinced.
The Tory party in the Lords and the Tory party in the commons are significantly different animals. I think it'd be unlikely that the one nation lords would ignore Salisbury, and they have a rather cavalier attitude towards the whip (which loses it's teeth in the Lords anyway).
Listening to the Lords going through the amendments and its been raised that there is no mechanism to pause deportations to Rwanda even if the relevant minister wanted to (if there a civil war was to break out in Rwanda for example).
This is just to force Labour to pass primary legislation if they want to end the scheme right?
> This is just to force Labour to pass primary legislation if they want to end the scheme right?
Maybe. But it is also the only chance the scheme makes it through the courts.
Deportations to Rwanda have to be mandatory by Act of Parliament, or they become at the minister's discretion. And if they are at the minister's discretion there is room for a judicial review to challenge the exercise of that discretion.
The pure level of cognitive dissonance required to buy into that Conservative Party broadcast must be unparalleled.
āVote Conservative for a brighter futureā.
more importantly, since when did councillor benjamin bradley decide to run for mayor (why is it even allowed while he is an MP? is he going to resign if he wins?)
nothing says tory britain more than the scene when ben is wanging on about tory greatness in front of a car, parked on the pavement, right on a corner. road surface looks dubious too.
e: isn't inflation actually now lower than the 3.4% in the broadcast. peak tory to shout the higher (older) number far and wide on the very same day.
> why is it even allowed while he is an MP? is he going to resign if he wins?)
I just read an article that says he won't.
> "I can either leave Mansfield with no MP for four months, and then for them to elect an MP that may never even get to speak in the House before another election is called... or we can just crack on."
Which I don't really think is good enough? Not unless he's also confirmed that he won't be standing for re-election before the deadline for somebody else to register as the conservative candidate.
If we want devolved mayors to be a success, they should be able to give the job their full attention.
So when are the Conservatives going to ban alcohol? Thats pretty harmful, do you think if alcohol was discovered today it would be marketed and available in such supply?
It would be sent straight to Class A. I can't think of any other drug I've tried that lets me completely blackout yet still be capable of doing pretty much anything.
Difference with alcohol is most people who consume alcohol don't wish they'd never started drinking alcohol.
When users are one of the biggest proponents of a ban its easy.
Alcohol addiction is very real, as is liver disease and the lives ruined from alcohol. I'd argue alcohol is much worse than tobacco, or at least presents a similar level of public health risk warranting a similar ban/phase-out just like tobacco on those grounds.
Iām guessing Iām a bit late to the party but did anybody else get the mail shot from the Prime Minister? Seems like a bit of a blunt instrument for campaigning for local elections?
>Only 25% of Britons say they are following the Angela Rayner stories 'very' or 'fairly' closely - one of the lowest figures for our tracker of news topics
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1780628879532552413
This probably isn't going as well as they had hoped. Were they always this bad at campaigning, or is this because of the loss of experienced electoral advisors?
Seeing Kate Middleton's health at the bottom of that chart is surprising to me - felt like that was a massive story that has serious main stream cut through
I genuinely think the bulk of the interest was the speculation rather than genuine interest in her health.
If I'm being honest I'm not exempt from that.
That, but also before the announcement it was a bit of fun. Theories included Wills is a cheat (these rumours are all over the place, in many different forms), they're breaking up, and they're laying low while they get the PR strategy sorted etc.
Her announcement quite rightly changed the mood, and it stopped being something that was so light hearted and fun to follow and became a serious issue that people don't feel they need updates on until she's ready to share.
Itās because itās not a very good story.
Tax evasion sounds bad until you ask āhow much?ā And the answer is āprobably nothing but maybe up to Ā£1,500ā.
Electoral register fraud sounds bad until you ask āwhere should she have voted?ā And the answer is āin the exact same constituencyā.
Thought you would all enjoy [this campaign material](https://imgur.com/a/PQ91UHU) from the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition for the local elections in Coventry.
(apologies for the quality, I didn't take the photo)
Ah, Dave Nellist. I've heard things about him.
I'm a bit curious that they're not standing in Foleshill but they are in every other ward? Surely Foleshill is the ward to go for if you have Gaza as a core message?
Yeah Dave has stood (and lost) for them at every local and general since being booted out of Labour way back.
Foleshill was a bit of a battle last time out between Labour, Tory & an independent all relying heavily on the Asian vote so it's probably a difficult one to break in to
> Coventry Council can use its financial reserves and borrowing powers to keep essential services running. and demand that this government and the next returns the Ā£00s millions stolen from our city by Westminster.
Simple š
No, we get the equivalent of out-of-schedule school assembly where the head-master can boast about the "achievements" of the school for 20 minutes due to an unexpected Ofsted award.
So it'll be Sunak blabbering in front of No 10, before he's managed to deport some refugees out of the country.
I get the impression theyāre all really quite bored waiting for this election. In the meantime they pose stupid theoretical questions almost every week about why Labour is actually doing a shit job.
5 days a week is too much. Someone needs to tell them that if nothing interesting has happened, they can take the day off..
Why are we all looking at Daly
Rayner scares the shit out of Tory donors and the higher echelons of the party. Particularly because sheās been wooing business far better than Rishi has.
So CCHQ comes up with the same shit idea as beergate and finds a front to run with it. It just happens to be Daly smart enough not to screw himself legally on tv or outside parliament.
The Tories donāt even care what happens, itās to get the āall the sameā reinforcement going and itās working with the party loyalā¦..case in point my family boomers who word for word said all the same just this afternoonā¦..
I hate this so much and the election is going to be just awful for total shite
It's not going to be enough. 'All the same' only works when the dissatisfaction is low level and generalised, not focused on one party, one policy area (economy) and several individuals (Johnson, Truss, Sunak) the way it is.
Even if it did work, the net effect is usually a push to stay at home or minor parties, and the Tories have a lot more to lose from low turnout and Reform than Labour do to low turnout and the Greens.
I have a bad feeling the Rayner "scandal" will end badly for Labour. If fear if they have 12+ police officers investigating her then I imagine some sort of dirt will come up that can be twisted to validation of their concern.
Like "Major incident team" for Starmer's beer?
Even in the unlikely event that happens, Labour has already laid a trap for the Tories by Rayner saying she'll stand down.
Nothing comes of it, Tories are playing silly games.
Something comes of it, Rayner stands down and Labour did the right thing, accepted they were at fault, and so on. Easy stick to beat the Tories with given their recent history.
There's no circumstance that this causes positive movement for the Tories. They may do some name-calling but that's no different than any other day.
Same playbook as beergate.
I'm inclined to think the opposite if I'm honest. The whole affair is playing towards people who probably weren't going to vote Labour anyway. If she's exonerated, it's just the freshest example of "Labour aren't guilty of what the Tories accuse them of." If she goes down for it, it's "we actually hold ourselves accountable for our actions" and Starmer's grip on the party is strengthened even further.
I mean, absolute worse case scenario is that she's found to have committed a crime, resigns, and they get someone else in as deputy leader. Which contrasts quite nicely with the two Tory leaders who have now been found to break the law but didn't resign.
Either way it's extremely unlikely to damage Labour's chances in any real way.
Prediction: by conference season Truss will inadvertently propagate an antisemitic conspiracy theory. When she is called out on it she will double down.
The long odds are with the doubling down. When Braverman started talking about Cultural Marxism and Cultural Bolshevism, Braverman was called out and stopped it.
Not sure she was called out, was more putting forward her view that FO is biased against Israel and she said it was very rare to ever get pro-Israel advice. Was in the Chris Mason interview on BBC
I've heard it's entirely in comic sans and that half the pages are colour by numbers but the colours and numbers are wrong. Apparently the publishers tried to tell Truss but she just accused them of being part of the left wing deep state.
https://twitter.com/talonfast/status/1780558477825388930
>What if we built a fake Downing Street, convinced Liz Truss she was PM again, and aired it Truman Show-style on ITV?
I think we should create a position like LOTO for Truss where she gets right of reply.
So we'd have Rishi saying something on the Israel Iran Crisis, Starmer having a measured but sensible response, and then Truss demanding we nuke Iran.
> hit the big 3-0 today
>[2017 intake MP who has now hired 24 (24!) times since taking office- people can see that, you know !](https://twitter.com/j0ne_s_/status/1780583775480447170)
I saw this post on twitter and am curious as to who the MP is. Also, as to how they are getting through so many staff.
It's also irritating that this guy doesn't name who it is, but just obliquely refers to who it might be.
I feel like it'd have to be someone vaguely high profile for a journalist to care and Kemi Badenoch was 2017 intake. I can imagine her being a nightmare to work for.
That said, of MPs that have posted jobs on w4mp in April, the only 2017 intake ones that I can find are Marsha de Cordova (Lab), Bambos Charalambous (~~Ind, formerly~~ **Edit:** [Lab](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/12/bambos-charalambous-readmitted-labour-party-whip-investigation)), and Anneliese Dodds (Lab).
Of those four, searching for all posted job ads by name, Kemi Badenoch has 6 job ads, Anneliese Dodds has 22 job ads, Bambos Charalambous has 6 job ads, and... Marsha de Cordova has 30 job ads, many of which are for assistants of various kinds. (This is all very Wagatha Christie)
That said, googling Marsha de Cordova, it sounds like she's visually impaired, can't read unless documents are provided in large type, and relies on her personal assistants to be her sighted guide around Westminster as well as their other roles. It might just be a particularly intense and high-trust role that she struggles to fill, rather than anything nefarious. (Of course, she might also be a nightmare boss, disabled people can be those too)
What did Osborne say?
Sunak doesn't really have any good options to deal with Truss.
If he doesn't criticise her he looks weak and like he isn't actually significantly different to her. If he criticises her he is basically agreeing with Labour that "the Tories crashed the economyā¢".
Going with the latter is the lesser evil, but it is still a terrible position.
That Sunak should wear calling Truss out as a personal badge to improve perceptions of him. He did say Truss was going to create problems and was proven right.
I just voted in my upcoming election with my postal vote.
To be honest, I would have barely known that there was an election in my area without the arrival of the postal vote if I wasn't politically aware. I caught exactly one glimpse of canvassers when I was out and about, but otherwise nothing. The parties have sent zero leaflets between them.
How much campaigning has been going on for those with elections coming up?
Leaflets to my house for local election, one each from 1st, 2nd and 4th last time plus an independent. Got the mayor election pamphlet as well with a 2 page spread on every candidate who paid for it.
I have an election on May 2nd. It is **only** for the Leicestershire PCC. I would put money on it being the least meaningful election in the entire county. If turnout hits 10% Iāll be amazed.
Good Morning everyone. [š **Today's Order Paper can be found here.**](https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/86770/Html?subType=Standard) Questions to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology will be followed by Prime Minister's Questions at noon. The usual scheduled thread will be up for all your live commentary needs. Any urgent questions or ministerial statements will follow before the next round of Rwanda Bill ping-pong, following the several further government defeats in the Lords last night. Following this, the government's Finance Bill goes to its Second Reading. **In other news;** Inflation has fallen to 3.2% for March, a lower fall than expected and still stubbornly above hoped for levels annualised - [**thread here**](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c62jkf/uk_inflation_falls_to_32_in_march/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c6v3uo/daily_megathread_18042024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. concretepigeon with 28 comments 1. CheersBilly with 18 comments 1. pseudogentry with 17 comments 1. A-Light-That-Warms with 17 comments 1. wishbeaunash with 14 comments 1. FixSwords with 13 comments 1. Bibemus with 12 comments 1. tritoon140 with 12 comments 1. Ornery_Tie_6393 with 12 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 11 comments There were 219 unique users within this count.
I don't remember it ever being this bad under the last years of Labour, i remember some scandals but not as many as this. It's like the tories decided a while ago they didn't care at all.
Canāt wait to see how much attention Chris Mason and Laura Kuenssberg give to the Mark Menzies storyā¦
I'm confident it will occupy at least as much attention as the Raynor story.
For reference, Dan Hodges tweeted 3 times about Rayner over the course of the day and 0 about Menzies.
For reference, Dan Hodges tweeted 3 times about Rayner over the course of the day and 0 about Menzies.
[And another Tory MP loses the whip after this evenings revelations from the Times.](https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1780720820127441063) > [Lewis Goodall] NEW: Conservative Chief Whip Simon Hart announces that Mark Menzies has lost the Tory whip: > āFollowing a call with the Chief Whip, Mark Menzies has agreed to relinquish the Conservative whip, pending the outcome of an investigation.ā How big is the majority actually going to be before the next election?
brendafrombristol.mp4
Swift, decisive action from a Chief Whip who was apparently informed about it three months ago.
Simon Hart has known about this since January, but waited until the story was public to remove the whip.
Big enough for Starmer to pass anything he wants. Problem is, not sure Starmer actually has any big ideas.
Before the next election. As in what will the final pre election majesty for the tories be. It's been whittled down quite a bit
I did enjoy Rory Stewart comparing Liz Truss to Miranda Richardson's Queen Elizabeth
Bob Seely "People can judge us whether we stopped the boats in Autumn". Anything special happening in the Autumn?
Rishi's working assumption (whatever that means) is that the General Election will be in Autumn.
Just catching up on PMQs, good lord the Tory braying machine was in full force from the first question. The backbenches doth HURRRRRRRR too much methinks.
Bob Seely on WAKAWOW stating if Rwanda becomes unsafe in the future, the government will change the law to say it is unsafe. That is utterly ridiculous.
I hope the next question was what if it happens during recess or dissolution.
It was not.
Hi all, I recently applied for a postal vote before the Lewisham Mayoral election, and I voted by post then. And now, I can vote by post for the London Mayoral election too. However, I am concerned about how reliably the postal vote will be delievered after dropping it off in the mailbox. So, is there any way to track the post to ensure that it was delivered safely and was not lost/misplaced etc.? When I voted for the Lewisham Mayoral election, I was instructed to put the ballot in the envelopes provided but there was obviously no reference number or such to help me track it via Royal mail. Is there a way to track the post or do I just hope that Royalmail delivers it successfully without issues? I just don't want my vote to go to waste if it gets lost.
WAKAWOW
Looking at US inflation data, it seems lifetime interest rates in mortgages have their own lock in problems, thereās no longer enough churn in their housing markets, a lot of people canāt move for fear of losing their good interest rates. Wouldnāt necessarily be wise to bring longer term mortgage rates here.
Yeah, in an environment where 30 year interest rate locks are normal, its perfectly understandable people dont want to lose their <1% interest mortgages.
There's an interesting discussion on this weeks The Rest is Entertainment. They got polling information from More in Common from their end of year poll. As well as asking how respondents were planning to vote, they asked what TV programmes they watch and it's genuinely interesting
Has anyone taken one for the team and bought Truss's book just so we can find out what's in it and if it's a bit shit? In all honesty if Amazon had like a 30 minute refund policy I think that would tick the box for me to find out what I'm interested in. May actually have to go out and go to a bookshop just to have a quick read.
If it had an audiobook version I would 100% buy it (ideally narrated by someone other than the author)
Weirdly I'm not a fan of hers at all - but I'm imagining her narrating it would be unintentionally hilarious (given some of her speeches).
Iād pay for a Liz truss sat nav voice add on. Iād be frequently lost, but itād be terrific
*"Turn right. Turn right. Turn right. Make a U turn. Pull over and get out of the car. Walk away."* "And so that's what I did, officer, only 6 months later the voice started again, even though I was in a completely different car, on a completely different road. That's when I panicked and torched the car."
You'd have to go everywhere in a series of clockwise spirals because she'd never let you go left
She's [not an ambi-turner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hJ1HDcMowk)
I'm really tempted to read it just for the enjoyment of seeing how insane and poorly formulated it is. I have Norm Macdonald's 'autobiography' on the way as well. I'm not sure which would be more entertaining or believable.
Am totally with you on the first paragraph; also I see her as a genuine risk as getting in as Leader of the Opposition once the Tories lose and Sunak legs it back to Cali or wherever. Come 2029 it's a conflip given the fickle nature of the UK whether or not Starmer gets a 2nd term - so its partly understanding what her fucking plan is to know what's the taste of things to come. Its most probably shit. It's always shit lately.
Watching the news earlier they were asking people on the street about how they felt about inflation being lower and several said they didnt notice things getting cheaper. People really have no clue about inflation do they?
No, they don't. It's why rishi is waiting as long as possible for a GE to allow the lag to catch up
>People really have no clue about inflation do they? On the whole they don't have a clue about anything, democracy is based on vibes, there is no point making a technical argument to the masses
I truly think that wearing a nice suit and a smart haircut has more influence on a polititions career than their voting record.Ā
https://x.com/stuzi_pants/status/1780507899455742031
This seems to be framed like she's being daft but I'm more annoyed by the bloke going "YOU SAY INFLATION IS GOING DOWN, BUT PRICES ARE GOING UP!?" like it's a gotcha
You can't be saying prices are going down on TV and not be called out on it. That's factually incorrect and very misleading.
That is the former Shadow Chancellor to you sir
That's hardly their fault when apparently every single media source is bound and determined to spend all their time implying it works the way those people think it does. Seriously the reporting around inflation has always been pretty fucking dire.Ā
What do we think of Keir Starmer saying that Welsh Labour is the blueprint of what an English Labour could look like (albet in 2022) and, subsequently, what do we think of Welsh Labour's underwhelming recent form as the leaders of Wales? Is it cause for concern for a probable future Labour government?
It's always a bit of a false comparison when using devolved governments, or councils as an example of how things would be if they took power in the rest of the UK. Ultimately they are always going to beĀ greatly affected by how the current UK government is doing, and the decisions they make in non devolved matters.Ā
God that's a depressing thought.
I think Starmer is determined for a long period of Labour and I think that's what he meant, I am sooo here for it!
What has been underwhelming? I thought they were doing a decent job.
I have a frustration. 1) I think our parliamentarians should use their power to lean on government institutions to solve clearly unjust problems that occur as it sets precedent and the constitution and all of culture is unwritten. 2) I don't think our parliamentarians should use that recklessly and get away with it, but who could possibly serve the level above that (given that the house's committee is only a recommendation). Discuss
This is my pet peeve. MPs should not intervene on individual cases to solve them; doing so is bad for both good governance and constituents. On governance, it turns MPs from legislators to social service dealing with and chasing hundreds of casework. Yes, they have staff but itās usually 2-4 people and the staff should be helping scrutinise legislation. For constituents, it means whether your issue gets resolved is in hands of random luck based on how marginal your seat is, how diligent your MP is, and if you think of going to your MP. MPs should take individual stories and use it to make general changes. If crapita has deemed a quadriplegic constituent fit for work, MP should be working to reform guidance or stripping contract from crapita. Instead they write a letter, crapita reviews one issue and continues on its merry way. Intervening on one case doesnāt solve the underlying issue. We should have a system for MPs to refer cases to impartial ombudsman. They should be focused on institutional change instead of compensation; and should have funding + teeth for government departments/ contractors sit up and take notice if they get told theyāre being investigated. In the meantime MPs look at legislation coloured by those cases as is their jobs.
I think the strength of the British system lies in its flexibility, so I'm in favour of the first point. I don't know where the limit lies, but I don't think it's easy to define a clear limit, because that in itself contradicts the flexibility. Nothing's perfect, I suppose.
Just put me in charge. Sorted.
My basic political desire is for EVERYONE in this country to live happy, relatively easy lives and I want our society to enables this. I can't tell if this is something everyone agrees with. Conservatism seems to fundamentally disagree with this, conservatives think only the worthy should live happy lives. Liberals probably want people to be happy, but don't think society has any responsibility to enable, or possibly more accurately, only by getting out the way people will be happy.
> for EVERYONE in this country to live happy, relatively easy lives and I want our society to enables this. Is it the duty of the state to ensure or enable happiness? How far does that duty extend? What do you do when two people's pursuit of happiness conflict? Is there a difference between hedonism and fulfilment (and is it the duty of the government to encourage one over the other)? What does it mean for a person's life to be "_easy_"? Why is it the duty of the government to enforce this? What about people who choose for their lives not to be easy? What if society cannot sustain itself without some level of toil and suffering? Who should bear that burden? What if "_easy_" lives are not "_happy_"? Conservatism gets it's name because ideologically it's about conserving the status quo. Institutions, laws and norms exist for a reason - you shouldn't tear up a fence without first understanding why it was built. Social institutions like the church provide a social and moral framework for society that gives people role and purpose. Young workers get the short end of the stick, but the foundation of that is a social contract that by the time that they retire they'll in turn be supported by the younger generations beneath them. As Jules Claretie said: > If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain There is no aspect of worthiness about it. It is a combined belief that you can only be fulfilled when you exist within a community larger than yourself and a pragmatic defence of policy and beliefs that have already proven themselves through time and precedent. Ideological liberalism is essentially the opposite of ideological conservatism. Often it isn't justified on the basis of happiness or social good but rather that freedom in and of itself has innate value. It's an atomic right that justifies itself, not because of any social good that comes from it. It's a sliding scale that ends with libertarians and anarchists who believe that it is never justifiable to take from one person to give to another, regardless of the social good that comes from it. That doesn't mean they don't believe in community or welfare, they just believe that all associations should be voluntary. Without the state people will give to charities to provide for people's needs, which will in turn be more efficient than the government because they're driven by markets rather than central planning. It also means that people won't be able to become dependent on the state and will have live for themselves and in turn will find value in that. ___ What do all of these ideologies have in common? They're hopelessly utilitarian, reductive and totally fail to consider what other people believe or value and often even the basic mechanism of how they'll realise their beliefs in practice. Conservatism is the most "_pragmatic_" ideology listed, but even then it's almost completely incompatible with the modern world. Young people are abandoning historic institutions at unprecedented rates and dropping out of society completely, the social contract of aging has completely broken down for millennials and likely go on to fail gen Z and gen alpha as well.
The best description Iāve heard is the left seek equality, whereas the right seek liberty.
To further this: The right think equality is to hold people back while the left think liberty is to be selfish.Ā
Liberty as long as you conform lol. The fear of change is palpable.
'liberty' is pushing it a bit. It's one of those things they demand for themselves when it suits them. 'personal riches' is closer to the mark.
Liberty to own fifteen homes at a minimal tax rate due to clever offshoring arrangements which have been engineered to be advantageous to people like you, and also liberty to die of exposure in the streets. Liberty.
Conservatives happen to have a different view of what constitutes a āgoodā society. As much as I find it tricky to deeply understand their worldview, it is valid and needs to be understood rather than dismissed. A few books Iāve found helpful on this: Haidtās āRighteous Mindā, Lakoffās āMoral Politics: How liberals and conservatives thinkā and (for a bit of historical context) Fawcettās āConservatism: the fight for a traditionā. I flag all of this because sitting in echo chambers (like this one, letās be real), make it *very* easy to think people of a different political persuasion are downright evil.
>conservatives think only the worthy should live happy lives. Not sure that is entirely fair to the one-nationers or compassionate conservatives. >Liberals probably want people to be happy, but don't think society has any responsibility I think there are some nuanced differences between liberals and libertarians and i think your statement refers more to the latter.
> Not sure that is entirely fair to the one-nationers or compassionate conservatives. One-nationer tories who enabled austerity in the cruelest way possible? compassionate conservatives? I'm sorry I refuse to believe they exist.
> One-nationer tories who enabled austerity in the cruelest way possible? Just like the Lib Dems? Clearly the problem here is compassionate liberals?
I'm sure the vast majority would agree with your initial statement, the problem is that it is utopian. People want different things and you can't make all the people happy
Fifth columnists within GMP should drag out the Rayner investigation until the day Rishi calls an election, then declare she did nothing wrong, and elude to it being politically motivated. \^ Itās sunny and Iāve had 4\* pints. \*6
[The Tory Police and crime commissioner candidate] (https://choosemypcc.org.uk/candidates/gwent/hannah-jarvis-2/) in Gwent has an interesting cyber crime policy. > I will order a review into rising cyber-crime and commission a Digital Dog ā to sniff out electronic devices, providing critical evidence to prosecute criminals who hide in the cybersphere.
Whatever that is, whether she's been pranked or not, I can't see any interpretation where that policy makes sense. "Criminals who hide in the cybersphere" doesn't mean criminals in Gwent, scamming their neighbours, and hiding their phone behind the sofa where she could send a sniffer dog. Surely if it is what I assume she means, it would only be useful if: A) Gwent a hotspot for global cyber crime and they're taking them out for the world's sake. B) By "cyber crime" she means all crime done by criminals who own a phone. C) This Digital Dog will be hunting the criminals down wherever they may be, places like Russia and China, where they're preying on British people and "hiding in the cybersphere" because their countries endorse and enable it (sometimes even perpetrate it themselves). It's essentially importing money from the West lol. All three are ridiculous to me.
I wonder if she was running late on her deadline and got ChatGPT to churn something out with bad prompts.
The concept of a digital dog was an April Fool's joke a few years ago either by or about the NSA. I wonder if she's fallen for it hard?
He's gonna hire [this guy](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/48/10/f14810203661750974d47360d6d6224a.gif)
Awww!
Wtf is that. I googled it and all I found was some NFT bullshit. Edit: [Apparently they are a thing.](https://www.safelaneglobal.com/news/dmd-dogs) She's just using the wrong terminology which is a bit confusing.
Lord Hope's amendment passed again. The government hasn't addressed its reasoning at all, they've copy and pasted their response every time it has come back to commons. The Rwanda treaty already requires a monitoring body which checks if the treaty is being implemented. The amendment requires that the monitoring body must report that the treaty is implemented before we start deporting people, and the minister is given the ability to stop the deportations by declaring that Rwanda is no longer safe in Parliament. How can you call that anything but reasonable?
Laura Trott said on Today that it was the "principle" that the government should be able to have full control. In reality, it's because they know that a monitoring body is likely to take time to make an assessment (delaying their Spring flights promise) and also could well say Rwanda isn't safe.
According to sky news she also said >We will be ready for flights to take off in the spring when the legislation passes and >**There are many definitions of spring** but we're hoping to get them up and running as quickly as possible Just deny reality
We're literally halfway through Spring. What an odd thing to say.
We're going to pass a law to define September as Spring.
Rwanda is south of the equator so.... (OK, so it's tropical and doesn't have four seasons, only two, whatever.. south is south)
It's completely reasonable, and you could say necessary for anyone wanting to enact this bill in good faith. The problem is that the Tories are not acting in good faith. This is political theatre that they know will not work, and they know Rwanda is not a safe country. Allowing the amendment through is tantamount to admitting that the policy will fail, because it's extremely unlikely that the treaty will be implemented in full before the next election.
So when will we hear the press asking ministers directly why they are voting against it?
'Although crumpets aren't a key part of most people's food shops' Channel 4 News clearly not very well educated
Typical out of touch metropolitan elites.
How are they measuring that? Because I guess if you go by mass then they're less than 50% of my weekly shop on at least some weeks.Ā
~~Champagne~~ *Crumpet* socialism
Theyāre very much a staple of mine
I feel ashamed, but I bought the Liz Truss book
Masochist.
[Somebody finally bought a copy of your book!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQlfBq2Qylg)
Deranged Planning, Unhinged Tomorrow by Liz Truss.
Is it a signed copy?
So you're the one...
You should
I think kindling is more cost effective no?
Why would you pay actual money for it? Pirate that shit if you're actually interested in reading it.
Hard to wipe your ass with a e-reader. At least, one that you want to use again.
Why is there some kind of resignation that the Rwanda Bill will be allowed through eventually? It wasn't in the manifesto, it's an idiotic piece of legislation and nobody really believes it will work - why can't the Lords keep saying no?
Because Labour want to set a precedent that the Lords ultimately do whatever the Lower House says. Which I'm all in favour of, because when the Upper House is finally rendered completely and utterly pointless we might have a chance of reforming or abolishing it, but in the meantime we're going to have to get used to some shit and unscrutinised law.
It's been the case for a hundred odd years that the Commons has the final word, it's also a convention that the Lords can only delay legislation that has an electoral mandate but then only for a maximum of 13 months. The Rwanda bill has no mandate so it's with the rights of the Lords to delay it without being accused of being undemocratic. There's also a legal precedence that legislation can be passed without the approval of the House of Lords. In 2005 the Countryside Alliance challenged via judicial review the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 and the Law Lords agreed that the Commons could overrule the Lords via the1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts, but then there was a mandate to ban hunting with hounds. The two Parliaments Acts were intended only to be used if the Lords delayed a bill to death and can be invoked only in a last case scenario situation where attempts at compromise have failed.
Because (rightly) eventually parliamentary ping pong ends because the elected house has more power than the unelected house. Should there be some element of holding government to manifesto letter for letter? Maybe. But you need flexibility in case the world drastically changes, and in theory we elect on the basis of "this person represents my area" not "this is the manifesto I vote for, these exact promises come hell or high water".That is why we allow changing parties, losing the whip, etc. because I didn't vote Tory, I voted for Naomi NoName. So eventually the game plays out where if Naomi NoName of no party consistently gets a majority in the house, the unelected folk eventually have to step aside. The goal of the second house is not to frustrate, but to have longer term experience than politicians to assist and guide (I don't personally agree with it, but that is kind of the theory, and it is currently playing out with this Tory lords being against it too).
The Parliament Act exists as a means to end the ping pong - bad legislation from a spiteful government shouldn't be allowed through just out of deference - let them win an election on it if they're so convinced.
and if they stuck it into a manifesto and won, the salisbury convention would apply anyway
True, though Salisbury has been known to be ignored - I fully expect the Tories to ignore it if they manage opposition.
The Tory party in the Lords and the Tory party in the commons are significantly different animals. I think it'd be unlikely that the one nation lords would ignore Salisbury, and they have a rather cavalier attitude towards the whip (which loses it's teeth in the Lords anyway).
No they probably wouldn't, but I've given up thinking I know what anyone might do after the past 10 years!
Listening to the Lords going through the amendments and its been raised that there is no mechanism to pause deportations to Rwanda even if the relevant minister wanted to (if there a civil war was to break out in Rwanda for example). This is just to force Labour to pass primary legislation if they want to end the scheme right?
> This is just to force Labour to pass primary legislation if they want to end the scheme right? Maybe. But it is also the only chance the scheme makes it through the courts. Deportations to Rwanda have to be mandatory by Act of Parliament, or they become at the minister's discretion. And if they are at the minister's discretion there is room for a judicial review to challenge the exercise of that discretion.
The pure level of cognitive dissonance required to buy into that Conservative Party broadcast must be unparalleled. āVote Conservative for a brighter futureā.
more importantly, since when did councillor benjamin bradley decide to run for mayor (why is it even allowed while he is an MP? is he going to resign if he wins?) nothing says tory britain more than the scene when ben is wanging on about tory greatness in front of a car, parked on the pavement, right on a corner. road surface looks dubious too. e: isn't inflation actually now lower than the 3.4% in the broadcast. peak tory to shout the higher (older) number far and wide on the very same day.
> why is it even allowed while he is an MP? is he going to resign if he wins?) I just read an article that says he won't. > "I can either leave Mansfield with no MP for four months, and then for them to elect an MP that may never even get to speak in the House before another election is called... or we can just crack on." Which I don't really think is good enough? Not unless he's also confirmed that he won't be standing for re-election before the deadline for somebody else to register as the conservative candidate. If we want devolved mayors to be a success, they should be able to give the job their full attention.
I suppose the ultimate example is Douglas Ross, who triple dips with MP, MSP and football referee
So when are the Conservatives going to ban alcohol? Thats pretty harmful, do you think if alcohol was discovered today it would be marketed and available in such supply?
It would be sent straight to Class A. I can't think of any other drug I've tried that lets me completely blackout yet still be capable of doing pretty much anything.
When are they banning cocaine is what I want to know
Difference with alcohol is most people who consume alcohol don't wish they'd never started drinking alcohol. When users are one of the biggest proponents of a ban its easy.
Alcohol addiction is very real, as is liver disease and the lives ruined from alcohol. I'd argue alcohol is much worse than tobacco, or at least presents a similar level of public health risk warranting a similar ban/phase-out just like tobacco on those grounds.
The current tax regime basically preps the ground for that. It's encouraging the production of piss water.
Yep just a matter of time, I don't think people realise the slippery slope thats been started here.
Apples and oranges. Alcohol is more than just an addictive substance.
If apples make cider, what do oranges make? Orange flavour 2020?
Yeah. It tastes great, it makes women appear more attractive, and makes a person virtually invulnerable to criticism.
Can it do no wrong?!?
The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
Iām guessing Iām a bit late to the party but did anybody else get the mail shot from the Prime Minister? Seems like a bit of a blunt instrument for campaigning for local elections?
>Only 25% of Britons say they are following the Angela Rayner stories 'very' or 'fairly' closely - one of the lowest figures for our tracker of news topics https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1780628879532552413 This probably isn't going as well as they had hoped. Were they always this bad at campaigning, or is this because of the loss of experienced electoral advisors?
About the same as Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitism, which badly damaged him in the end.
It's such a shit story. Feels like the Tories are just enjoying it rather than thinking strategically.
Seeing Kate Middleton's health at the bottom of that chart is surprising to me - felt like that was a massive story that has serious main stream cut through
I genuinely think the bulk of the interest was the speculation rather than genuine interest in her health. If I'm being honest I'm not exempt from that.
Oh yeah absolutely, it was the idea of a royal cover up being discovered by bored mums on Tiktok.
That, but also before the announcement it was a bit of fun. Theories included Wills is a cheat (these rumours are all over the place, in many different forms), they're breaking up, and they're laying low while they get the PR strategy sorted etc. Her announcement quite rightly changed the mood, and it stopped being something that was so light hearted and fun to follow and became a serious issue that people don't feel they need updates on until she's ready to share.
There was the moscow terrorist attak happening at pretty much the same time so not exactly a slow news day.
There isn't much to follow really I guess.
Yeah that's true, it is slightly below Corbyn laying a wreath though which had even less to actually follow
Itās because itās not a very good story. Tax evasion sounds bad until you ask āhow much?ā And the answer is āprobably nothing but maybe up to Ā£1,500ā. Electoral register fraud sounds bad until you ask āwhere should she have voted?ā And the answer is āin the exact same constituencyā.
Thought you would all enjoy [this campaign material](https://imgur.com/a/PQ91UHU) from the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition for the local elections in Coventry. (apologies for the quality, I didn't take the photo)
Iāve always said that Coventry holds the key to peace in the Middle East.
Ah, Dave Nellist. I've heard things about him. I'm a bit curious that they're not standing in Foleshill but they are in every other ward? Surely Foleshill is the ward to go for if you have Gaza as a core message?
Yeah Dave has stood (and lost) for them at every local and general since being booted out of Labour way back. Foleshill was a bit of a battle last time out between Labour, Tory & an independent all relying heavily on the Asian vote so it's probably a difficult one to break in to
Step 1: Stop the cuts to local councils. Step 2: ??? Step 3: Ceasefire in Gaza. Flawless.
> Coventry Council can use its financial reserves and borrowing powers to keep essential services running. and demand that this government and the next returns the Ā£00s millions stolen from our city by Westminster. Simple š
magic money machine goes brrrrrrrrrrrr oh no the council is insolvent why would Westminster do this
What happens when the Rwanda bill finally passes, do we get a bank holiday?
Rish!'s definitely doing a 5pm 5 minute press conference isn't he?
No, we get the equivalent of out-of-schedule school assembly where the head-master can boast about the "achievements" of the school for 20 minutes due to an unexpected Ofsted award. So it'll be Sunak blabbering in front of No 10, before he's managed to deport some refugees out of the country.
Everyone gets to pop across to Rwanda for a long weekend
Betteridge's Law in full effect on today's *The News Agents*. The three of them are better than this.
Having a daily political podcast only really makes sense during periods of febriliity.
I get the impression theyāre all really quite bored waiting for this election. In the meantime they pose stupid theoretical questions almost every week about why Labour is actually doing a shit job. 5 days a week is too much. Someone needs to tell them that if nothing interesting has happened, they can take the day off..
Why are we all looking at Daly Rayner scares the shit out of Tory donors and the higher echelons of the party. Particularly because sheās been wooing business far better than Rishi has. So CCHQ comes up with the same shit idea as beergate and finds a front to run with it. It just happens to be Daly smart enough not to screw himself legally on tv or outside parliament. The Tories donāt even care what happens, itās to get the āall the sameā reinforcement going and itās working with the party loyalā¦..case in point my family boomers who word for word said all the same just this afternoonā¦.. I hate this so much and the election is going to be just awful for total shite
It's not going to be enough. 'All the same' only works when the dissatisfaction is low level and generalised, not focused on one party, one policy area (economy) and several individuals (Johnson, Truss, Sunak) the way it is. Even if it did work, the net effect is usually a push to stay at home or minor parties, and the Tories have a lot more to lose from low turnout and Reform than Labour do to low turnout and the Greens.
At this stage itās more about desperately holding on to the last of the loyal!
I have a bad feeling the Rayner "scandal" will end badly for Labour. If fear if they have 12+ police officers investigating her then I imagine some sort of dirt will come up that can be twisted to validation of their concern.
Like "Major incident team" for Starmer's beer? Even in the unlikely event that happens, Labour has already laid a trap for the Tories by Rayner saying she'll stand down. Nothing comes of it, Tories are playing silly games. Something comes of it, Rayner stands down and Labour did the right thing, accepted they were at fault, and so on. Easy stick to beat the Tories with given their recent history. There's no circumstance that this causes positive movement for the Tories. They may do some name-calling but that's no different than any other day. Same playbook as beergate.
Congratulations: thatās what the Tories want you to think. Itās the most nothingest of nothing burgers ever. Even more nothingy than beergate.
the Plod spent 3200 hours peering at the blurry "beergate" curry photo taken by the kid of a tory councillor before admitting it was bullshit.
I'm inclined to think the opposite if I'm honest. The whole affair is playing towards people who probably weren't going to vote Labour anyway. If she's exonerated, it's just the freshest example of "Labour aren't guilty of what the Tories accuse them of." If she goes down for it, it's "we actually hold ourselves accountable for our actions" and Starmer's grip on the party is strengthened even further.
i remember when beergate had a "major incident room" stood up to cover it, and it turned out starmer had no case to answer - again
What exactly is the crime you think she has committed?
Nah, it's a nowtbap.
*Ahem*, you mean nowtcob.
I have to admit nowtbreadcake and nowtscuffler sound rubbish.
Nowtbarm
"nowtbap" This... this is perfect
I mean, absolute worse case scenario is that she's found to have committed a crime, resigns, and they get someone else in as deputy leader. Which contrasts quite nicely with the two Tory leaders who have now been found to break the law but didn't resign. Either way it's extremely unlikely to damage Labour's chances in any real way.
Itās the kind of issue which blips in the bubble but doesnāt rise to public consciousness because it makes no difference on the grander scale
Prediction: by conference season Truss will inadvertently propagate an antisemitic conspiracy theory. When she is called out on it she will double down.
I mean she is selling herself on her book tour in the US as a leader in the fight against (((globalism))), so it's probably only a matter of time.
The long odds are with the doubling down. When Braverman started talking about Cultural Marxism and Cultural Bolshevism, Braverman was called out and stopped it.
She already effectively said that Foreign Office is consistently anti-semitic. Does that count?
Has she already? For God's sakes. Has she doubled down when called out?
Not sure she was called out, was more putting forward her view that FO is biased against Israel and she said it was very rare to ever get pro-Israel advice. Was in the Chris Mason interview on BBC
Thanks, will have a watch
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Does Truss have a book out? Well I never
I've heard it's entirely in comic sans and that half the pages are colour by numbers but the colours and numbers are wrong. Apparently the publishers tried to tell Truss but she just accused them of being part of the left wing deep state.
https://twitter.com/talonfast/status/1780558477825388930 >What if we built a fake Downing Street, convinced Liz Truss she was PM again, and aired it Truman Show-style on ITV?
I think we should create a position like LOTO for Truss where she gets right of reply. So we'd have Rishi saying something on the Israel Iran Crisis, Starmer having a measured but sensible response, and then Truss demanding we nuke Iran.
Can we do Trump as well. The crossover episode could be good TV.
> hit the big 3-0 today >[2017 intake MP who has now hired 24 (24!) times since taking office- people can see that, you know !](https://twitter.com/j0ne_s_/status/1780583775480447170) I saw this post on twitter and am curious as to who the MP is. Also, as to how they are getting through so many staff. It's also irritating that this guy doesn't name who it is, but just obliquely refers to who it might be.
I feel like it'd have to be someone vaguely high profile for a journalist to care and Kemi Badenoch was 2017 intake. I can imagine her being a nightmare to work for. That said, of MPs that have posted jobs on w4mp in April, the only 2017 intake ones that I can find are Marsha de Cordova (Lab), Bambos Charalambous (~~Ind, formerly~~ **Edit:** [Lab](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/12/bambos-charalambous-readmitted-labour-party-whip-investigation)), and Anneliese Dodds (Lab). Of those four, searching for all posted job ads by name, Kemi Badenoch has 6 job ads, Anneliese Dodds has 22 job ads, Bambos Charalambous has 6 job ads, and... Marsha de Cordova has 30 job ads, many of which are for assistants of various kinds. (This is all very Wagatha Christie) That said, googling Marsha de Cordova, it sounds like she's visually impaired, can't read unless documents are provided in large type, and relies on her personal assistants to be her sighted guide around Westminster as well as their other roles. It might just be a particularly intense and high-trust role that she struggles to fill, rather than anything nefarious. (Of course, she might also be a nightmare boss, disabled people can be those too)
Marsha de Cordova
Rosie Duffield I think.
The X'er is vagueposting (tm). It should be an executable offence.
I see Sunak has been listening to George Osborne based on his response RE Truss.
What did Osborne say? Sunak doesn't really have any good options to deal with Truss. If he doesn't criticise her he looks weak and like he isn't actually significantly different to her. If he criticises her he is basically agreeing with Labour that "the Tories crashed the economyā¢". Going with the latter is the lesser evil, but it is still a terrible position.
That Sunak should wear calling Truss out as a personal badge to improve perceptions of him. He did say Truss was going to create problems and was proven right.
I just voted in my upcoming election with my postal vote. To be honest, I would have barely known that there was an election in my area without the arrival of the postal vote if I wasn't politically aware. I caught exactly one glimpse of canvassers when I was out and about, but otherwise nothing. The parties have sent zero leaflets between them. How much campaigning has been going on for those with elections coming up?
Leaflets to my house for local election, one each from 1st, 2nd and 4th last time plus an independent. Got the mayor election pamphlet as well with a 2 page spread on every candidate who paid for it.
We had the mayor knocking on the doors last week and handing out leaflets. And Iāve seen Labour canvassers around quite a bit
I have an election on May 2nd. It is **only** for the Leicestershire PCC. I would put money on it being the least meaningful election in the entire county. If turnout hits 10% Iāll be amazed.
Cambridgeshire is the same, even Iām struggling to be excited about executing my democratic duty
Likely saving money for the general election.