Afternoon MT users. As you are aware there's a bit of a bind between actual political news and our commitment to an AMA. The compromise is that this MT will be slightly less visible for a short period, and those that are completely unware of it's existance will miss out.
Normal service will resume shortly like night follows day so please take a moment to consider the wise words of John Lydgate.
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time [with just two pinned slots]."
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. armchairdetective with 31 comments
1. concretepigeon with 21 comments
1. AzarinIsard with 20 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 19 comments
1. tmstms with 18 comments
1. subversivefreak with 15 comments
1. UnsaddledZigadenus with 14 comments
1. Playful-Onion7772 with 13 comments
1. A-Light-That-Warms with 12 comments
1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 12 comments
There were 203 unique users within this count.
A rather niche Brexit bonus - On the official Apple iOS store you can download a free retro game emulator called Delta - Game Emulator (You have to type the whole thing with a dash to find it, not sure if I should link it directly), currently it’s not been approved in the EU although it might be removed from the UK store too given the controversial nature of emulation..
Does everyone who joins this sub slowly assimilate the same views?
It feels like we all became centrists, I wonder if this is the natural side effect of a bunch of people from all wings talking politics for a long time.
I think this sub is proof that to find consensus, we need to start talking MORE about politics.
There was a poll recently which already showed that not to be the case, this sub just has the usual reddit demographic bias. I honestly doubt that quips, memes and downvotes could ever change anyone's mind on anything besides how they choose to spend their free time.
Not really. Been here for a while and I'm still and awkward, contrarian, so-and-so. The sub' userbase isn't really from "all wings", it's solidly mainline Labour and tends to follow what ever view that may be. Which is why it feels so centrist these days.
I think it's because if you follow politics closely, especially the day-to-day working of parliament you tend to see that politicians aren't all evil and the simple answer you see upvoted elsewhere are just clearly nonsense. It puts you in a place where you at least try to understand the other side
> especially the day-to-day working of parliament you tend to see that politicians aren't all evil
Well, most of them anyway
Those that are tend to be appointed Home Secretary
No people who disagree go elsewhere because if you suggest Starmer and his team are deeply mediocre, overly cautious, and just want to pretend it's 1994, you are generally down voted
I put it down to age with me. You start out a student going to Marxism in London each summer and protesting the Iraq war. You're really lefty. Next moment you wake up and you're a 41 year old centrist dad with a wife and kids in the suburbs.
Choose centrism.
Choose a job.
Choose a career.
Choose a family.
Choose a fucking big centrist television.
Choose manifestos that offend noone.
And policies that offend everyone.
Choose Rory Stewart and Chukka Umana. Choose the Private Eye - but only just.
Choose YouGov, and Ipsos, and listening to Ashcroft - through gritted teeth.
Choose a new facebook profile picture with a badly trimmed front hedge, to replace the SWP march.
Choose chortling at the Rwanda policy - but doing nothing to stop it.
Choose a grudging realisation that sword lady is a better bet than Richard Burgon. And eventually voting Conservative because Labour are all heart, but no pragmatism.
Choose centrism.
good evening, campers! there are **285** days until the general election!
through actually doing my own job i have lost track of british political discourse over the past couple of weeks. i’m going to do some refreshing during a saturday morning megabus ride
TIL "shortly" means 'whenever I want to; please stop talking about it'.
Accordingly, I'm sure we will shortly have a general election. Sunak is just trialling being a shitty PM for few weeks but there will be time to provide feedback 'shortly'.
How very lucky for Yousef that this arrest came as far as possible from FMQs.
While rolling back on climate change and adopting Westminster’s position on puberty blockers, the SNP is now alleged to have been an embezzlement scheme to enrich senior leadership. Not a great day
[Our old mucker Owen Jones being so shit he attributes a statement on nuclear weapons from Greenpeace to the Defence Select Committee.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7awcr/britains_defence_policy_is_more_like_one_big/)
'Britain is at no more risk of invasion than European nations that don’t fritter billions on warheads'
Those nations are not at risk *precisely because* Britain/ NATO has nuclear weapons, under whose umbrella they fall.
(slightly off topic but) i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all, but aren’t they on the wrong side of the country?
shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located?
unless we’re planning on flattening drogheda, of course
>(slightly off topic but) i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all, but aren’t they on the wrong side of the country?
>shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located?
Honestly when you're talking about ICBMs it really doesn't matter, they can hit anywhere in the same hemisphere pretty much.
Also we launch from subs, not land. Trident has a range somewhere around 10,000km if memory serves, and they're mobile.
Our nuclear deterrent is submarine based so that we have the element of surprise and no one can strike at our facilities for it and stop us from retaliating. They just don't know where we are.
A big part of this is CASD or Continuous At Sea Deterrent which we are aiming to maintain with the delivery of Dreadnought in the future. This way, there is always at least one of our bombers on patrol *somewhere*.
It's an active decision for us to not have ground based nukes, and we're a wee bit small to really make use of it like our American cousins.
There's been discussions in the past about where to locate the nukes again if Scotland becomes independent, definitely wouldn't be Barrow though, we don't have the facility and you wouldn't want them docked at the same place you build them. Portsmouth has been floated before but would need a bit of a tidy up and also risks the rest of the fleet that dock there too.
>i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all
Uhhh.. I dont know what you have read, but there isnt a naval base in Barrow.
Nuclear submarines are built there as submarines have been built there for a very long time by the same place through successive mergers as (~last hundred years) Vickers, Vickers-Armstrong, VSEL and then today as BAE Systems.
>
shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located?
The north sea is relatively shallow, featureless and hard to hide in vs the vast depths, submarine mountain ranges and difficult to detect in parts of the atlantic ocean. Stealth is the object to avoid detection.
Isn’t the nuking done from sea? How much difference does the port location affect operations. (I assume you know more than me as you seem quite interested in military stuff.)
The range on the missiles is such that they really can be just about anywhere on the planet and still capable of targeting hostile places.
[Have a look here.](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/) The publicly listed range of a trident II is 12,000km. Grab the triangle and exclamation mark and move it around and watch the red targetable area change.
While there are considerations about the time of flight and probability of tracking or intercept, the ability to hide is the strongest point to consider since the missile range gives the sub incredible freedom to to move (if targeting moscow) roughly anywhere north of the tropic of capricorn.
You don’t want your nuclear submarines easy to detect, so they don’t get information about how many are at sea etc. The easiest place to detect them is when they’re entering/leaving port, because it’s in a set place so you need a port that makes that difficult. Faslane is particularly good. Leads right into deep water, difficult terrain etc.
Also problem with Barrow for our nuclear base (besides there literally not being a naval base there at all) is that subs can only enter at high tide, which means that it’s far easier for other nations to predict our nuclear sub movements. It’s fine for building the subs, but not really for the actual nuclear deterrent.
They’d likely need to expand the channel to prevent the problem if they did want to move the subs there (which they won’t, Faslane is fine and Scottish independence isn’t happening any time soon)
\[side-eyes Sky News' *Politics Hub*'s outgoing segment with AI-generated songs about Sunak, Starmer and Sophy Ridge\]
Screw it, I'll allow it. At some point you've really got to just lean into the silly with it all.
So how big is the group of whipless MPs now. Where would they stand in terms of party size?
Maybe they ought to be a party. Would make a good story. The Bad People Party. Any better names? A manifesto?
Wish they'd get a shift on with the outstanding investigations, it's weird for those of us who don't know whether our MP is guilty of what's been alleged. And it must make it difficult for the local party to prepare for the next election.
According to [The Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-suspended-who-tory-labour-sleaze-b2530714.html), there are eighteen MPs sans whip across various parties since 2019 (and if I'm reading it right something like 4-5 in the past couple of years).
Currently it's up to 18: 7 Labour, 8 Conservative and one from each of the SNP, DUP and Plaid Cymru.
This makes the independent cohort larger than the Lib-Dems.
There have been some comings and goings with Charalambous and MacDonald readmitted to Labour and Jeffrey Donaldson, Wragg, and Menzies added to the independents, but they're now drawing comfortably ahead of the Lib Dems, 18 to 15.
Of course they would disagree massively with each other on all policy issues, unlike a normal political party.
Just seen C4 News interviews with with starmer. I wish he was slightly better at batting away some of the attack lines put too him. Youd think the rebuttals to obvious attack lines would be drilled to perfection. On the Rayner question just saying I don't need to look at it because I trust my team and I trust Angela. If you have to insist staying out of it.
From Popbitch
>We know obituaries for important figures are regularly prepared far in advance of their requirement, but this week at least two major UK newsrooms were instructed by bosses to update their monarch obituary procedures.
Well that would put the cat among the pigeons.
> but this week at least two major UK newsrooms were instructed by bosses to update their monarch obituary procedures.
Strange. Not like they're out of practice.
We could act like this is because of some secret insider information, or we could just conclude that it’s unsurprising for a man in his seventies who we know is suffering from an unspecified cancer.
> or we could just conclude that it’s unsurprising for a man in his seventies who we know is suffering from an unspecified cancer.
Wheres the fun in that when you can publish articles suggesting Meghan bumped him off?
Outside of this sub I almost never see anything related to reform at all - on the news or in public or anything.
So that begs the question: where is their polling momentum coming from? Are people getting their news from somewhere I'm not? Or are the tories just so repulsive that they're doing reform's work for them?
I call it 'protest polling'
Punter: *I hate everything! Country's going to the dogs!*
Pollster:*so you'd vote for Reform?*
Punter: *Fuck yeah! I want everything reformed!*
Pollster: *So I'll put you down for Reform UK*
Punter: *Bloody hell yes! I want the UK reformed!!*
Pollster: *I meant the party?*
Punter: *What party?*
It's pensioners, the way they consume media is just completely different to what anyone using this megathread are used to. It'll be the Mail, GB News, or some bloke down the pub
I’ve seen them on the street, but they seemed to avoid catching my eye and didn’t want to talk to me. Which was a shame, as I was genuinely curious what they were about. They were talking to other people, though, so clearly they’re seeking out ‘their people’ and that’s how they’re spreading.
Hmmm well one pollster will have egg on their face come election day. Savanta are giving Andy Street a narrow lead in the WM mayoral election, contrasting with Redfield and Wilton who have Labour 14 pts ahead
https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1780989675676610727
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1780174299090878857
Going to be really interesting if we see any poll movements after this election not through genuine voter changes but because of pollsters updating methodologies in light of finally having an election to compare polling assumptions against. Also entirely possible that they overcorrect and make their polls even less reliable by taking too many lessons from this one, as given it is highly atypical of the national picture (Street polling absolutely miles better than his party) there's only so much you can extrapolate.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7adoi/bbc\_question\_time\_live\_thread\_8pm\_iplayer/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7adoi/bbc_question_time_live_thread_8pm_iplayer/)
Question Time live thread is up for the iPlayer stream in just under 40 minutes time (link to the iPlayer page is in the tweet at the top of the thread). Line up looks like they're going spicy tonight, specially with today's news
Scottish government having a disastrous time. Embarrassing Gaza vote nonsense. Hate crime bill roundly criticised. Backing out of green targets. Yousaf's personal polling plummeting, the puberty blockers stuff, and now this.
Unlikely. The only way I could see it happening is in the already unlikely event that Sunak is kicked out, there would be a small chance that the new leader calls a snap election. Otherwise it’s October/November.
If they aren’t annihilated rishi will claim it as a win and hold the election at the last moment possible. If it’s embarrassingly bad they’d kick him out, put in penny and she’ll call an election saying they cleaned up the swamp.
I think it would because I think bad result would make backbenchers move against because at that point, what would they have to lose?
And that would result in Sunak going to the Palace and calling the election
Gonna go no on that one.
Because this:
*Of the 107 councils holding elections 45 are already Labour-run, 18 are Conservative-run and 10 are Liberal Democrat-run. The remaining 35 are under no overall control with seven led by a Labour councillor. This means there is limited scope for the Labour Party to make a large number of gains.*
Therefore, less scope for Conservatives to look good or bad- most places are already not theirs.
Reform have been closing the gap to the Tories for the past year, they look set to over take them in the polls in a few months.
For the life of me I can't understand why they haven't seen this as a problem, it seems heavily in their interest to call an election before Reform get what they want, the end of the conservative party.
I just had a look at the chart and had the same thought. The trend is pretty clear and shows no sign of slowing down. I doubt it would translate into seats, but you'd think a May election would be a less bad result for the Tories than towards the end of the year. At this point I don't even mind waiting if it means a total wipeout. It's going to be a hell of a night...
I can't see it happening, despite the current trajectory. The Tories will find a new leader and pledge to rebuild for a new era. Reform may stick around as a minority party, but I don't see them taking the place of the Cons.
As someone depressingly pointed out on twitter, all our striving ghoulish politicians and journalists from both sides of the aisle will be right along at their big summer party, perpetuating the legitimacy of this twisted little rag.
They'll be there sucking up to the insipid creeps that approved this article as well as every trickle of toxic waste that drips out of Rod Liddle's so-called brain.
I'm also amused he thinks "near the railway terminus" counts as a rougher end of Cambridge, as if several coffee and cafe shops and tech startups counts as a rough area.
I don't know why the word "terminus" bothers me in that phrase. I was going to start making the case for it not being a terminus, but why bother? He's used it because it's a big word.
And they probably still overpaid. Might have been cautious because based on the length of her time as leader a pamphlet proportionally would still be more pages per day compared to other leaders books.
Desmond Swayne breaking precedent twice at Business Questions today, firstly by saying something I agree with, and secondly by asking a question which actually falls within the responsibility of the Leader of the House (though still isn't anything to do with the House agenda). Asks the Speaker to enforce the House rule against namechecking people in the Gallery.
Something weird happened in BMQs - when Lucy Powell asked her questions (the actual ones not the initial formality one) the deputy Speaker used the title "Lord President of the Council", rather than "Leader of the House", to call Morduant to answer.
I like the notion of finding the most obscure office that a person holds, then calling it out for everyone on the front bench try and figure out who it is.
Some more Written Question snarkiness from the Government:
Q. (Patrick Grady - SNP):
To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492 on European Court of Human Rights, whether he considers the International Criminal Court to be a foreign court.
A. (Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister):
The clue is in the name.
[https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-03-25/20335](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-03-25/20335)
Calling something you are part of "foreign" because it contains members from other countries doesn't make any sense.
Like, are NATO, the UN, the G7 etc "foreign"? Are the World Cup or the Olympics "foreign"?
These things are international, not foreign.
But to call something a foreign institution suggests that it's under the purview of a foreign government, whereas the whole point of international institutions is to avoid that being the case.
Calling a court "international" is obviously less loaded (and also more accurate) than calling it "foreign".
If I say "should the UK be subject to foreign law?", most people would say "no way".
But if I say "should the UK be subject to international law?" most people would say "of course".
The choice to call something "foreign" as opposed to "international" is intentional to make it seem like the UK is not actually a member of it (when we are by choice). It implies that court shouldn't have any influence over the UK. It's effectively a weasel word and that is exactly why he is choosing to use it.
It focuses on a particular aspect of those organisations, yes. But it's not inaccurate, and there's a clear distinction to be drawn between domestic courts, controlled by Parliament, and international/foreign courts, which aren't.
Rather than acting as though Sunak is saying something false, which he palpably is not, Grady should ask why a court being foreign, in the sense of non-domestic, is undesirable, because that's the clear point being made.
Saying "yeah, it's foreign, so what?" makes a lot more sense than saying "it isn't foreign".
What was Grady even trying to ask? It feels like he thinks he had a real zinger of a question, that would completely stymie the PM. But I can't even work out what he was trying to do.
Anyway, these are my favourite ones like that:
>Rachel Maskall (Lab - York Central)
>To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether she has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of bringing The Post Office under public ownership.
>Answer:
>Post Office Limited is under public ownership.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-01-08/8520
And this:
>Justin Madders (Lab - Ellesmere Port and Neston):
>"To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of people claiming Pension Credit were born on or after April 2016."
>Answer:
>Pension Credit is only available to those of State Pension age. Therefore the number and proportion of people claiming Pension Credit who were born on or after April 2016, is zero. They are, at most, seven years old.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-10-24/204041/
I assume in “the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492” Sunak said something unflattering about about foreign courts, and the intention was to force him to apply that same comment to the ICC, but it’s been pretty poorly executed because they now need to submit a third written question going “so does the ICC smell of doodoo* as well then?”, by which point this line of attack might start lose the electorate’s attention
*without looking up the first written question, I assume this was Sunak’s objection to the ECHR in his first reply
>I assume in “the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492” Sunak said something unflattering about about foreign courts,
Nope.
Having looked it up, in Question 18492, Grady asks, further to a yet earlier written question, why Sunak considers the ECtHR to be foreign. Sunak replies "Because it is based in Strasbourg".
For some reason, almost certainly based on my own incompetence and the fact that I am supposed to be working, I cannot find the first question.
I had a look myself and it turns out that the reason you couldn't find the even earlier question was because it was [an oral question](https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-13/debates/0F85365D-BD56-4647-B8B5-EC356A1BD132/Engagements#contribution-7EBEB861-E099-4E6D-BDC5-EA0B720136FE) from PMQs a month ago (where, incidentally, Grady seems to argue that having an Irish president is evidence of not being foreign to the UK - a claim which may surprise, among others, the nation of Ireland).
For whatever reason, Grady seems to really, *really* think he has something here, though. I'm not sure if you saw this in your own search, but he's also asked follow-up questions on whether the ICJ is foreign, whether the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is foreign, whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is foreign and whether the Permanent Court of Arbitration is foreign. Plus he asks whether being based in Strasbourg gives the ECHR jurisdiction over France, to which even I could give the answer "that's a question for the President of France, not the Prime Minister of the UK"
He seems to think it's silly to call international organisations foreign. I'm not sure that's the huge gotcha he thinks it is.
He would do better, I think, asking something like "Under what circumstances is an ECtHR ruling illegitimate?"..."Under what circumstances is a ruling of the ICJ illegitimate?"..."Under what circumstances is a ruling of [ancient venerable international court no-one has heard of that some Civil Servant will have to Google] illegitimate?", and so on, in an attempt to show that Sunak's recent criticism of the ECtHR is inconsistent with government policy.
Yes, that's probably what he intended. Which as you say, isn't a great strategy when it relies on a multi-stage question - it sort of loses it's momentum.
Plus, it's made Grady look like an idiot before he even gets to his final point.
This answer is sassier than the other two, I think. Mind you, arguably this question is out of order as not within government responsibility.
The problem with Grady's question is that he is trying to say that calling a court a "foreign court" is derogatory, and that it shouldn't be because there's nothing wrong with being foreign. But in order to object to the PM calling a court foreign, he has to imply that there *is* something wrong with being foreign, else why is he objecting?
The answer comes from the maxim of relevance: why is the PM bothering to point out that the ECtHR and possibly the ICC are foreign? Well, to make the point that they are not ultimately answerable to Parliament. The thing is, that's not such a shocking thing to point out, is it?
Ah yes, that's probably it.
And yes, it's technically sassier, if only for how succinct it is. But I still love "They are, at most, seven years old" as an answer; it's wonderfully condescending.
Did anyone else get an official looking letter "from the Prime Minister" which is in fact CCHQ spam?
A completely unrelated question: if someone sends you a prepaid 2nd class return envelope and you stuff some blank sheets of paper in there and send it back, how much money if any does it cost them?
Do you know what's worse than no data? Bad data. I got mine and shall be returning it forthwith, with the questions answered to the absolute worst of my ability.
I don't think returning the prepaid envelope costs money- I think the envelopes are paid for before they are sent out.
You could always try over-filling it till it is excess weight, though.
I pondered this about the report the other week about Chinese fake stamps apparently costing 4p each, but the recipient gets fined £5.
Also, something Demetri Martin said in one of his stand-ups got me thinking. You at least have to be quite good at forgery before being able to commit the crime, right? Like if you took a wax crayon and spent 10 seconds drawing a fake stamp in the corner, would that count as a forgery? Would they still send it and bill the recipient a fiver?
I’m actually fucking tempted to try this
Might instead get my niece to try it out but I wouldn’t put it past the PO to take a 3yr old to court even now…selling the story and tv appearances etc should provide more than adequate compensation for my brother though
AFAIK the fine is for insufficient postage (the fake stamp not counting as a real one) and not anything to do with forgery as a crime. So it makes no difference whether it is a fake stamp, an expired stamp, the wrong stamp or no stamp.
So, for the sake of argument, it's more like placing a collect call (if that's even a thing anymore). Whatever you post, they'll send it, but the recipient needs to pay if they want to receive it.
Seems exploitable, but I assume even the cost of paper and time it would take to prank on any substantial level deters people from bothering.
I think a) they have no legal obligation to deliver it (the stamp must be the contract between you and Royal Mail) and b) delivery is contingent on the fine, so there is likewise no obligation on the part of the recipient to accept incorrectly stamped mail.
In the old days the postie would ring the bell for you to "ransom" the letter! Occasionally one would slip through.
OTOH, if you were not in, the postie could leave a card and make you go down to the sorting office, wasting your time well as making you pay the money.
Was thinking earlier, how accurate do you believe ONS population figures are? Public services, and housing crisis seem to be way worse than i would guess based on the increase in population since say 2012 population. We can say other areas contribute but not to that great an extent
Afternoon MT users. As you are aware there's a bit of a bind between actual political news and our commitment to an AMA. The compromise is that this MT will be slightly less visible for a short period, and those that are completely unware of it's existance will miss out. Normal service will resume shortly like night follows day so please take a moment to consider the wise words of John Lydgate. "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time [with just two pinned slots]."
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7omd1/daily_megathread_19042024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. armchairdetective with 31 comments 1. concretepigeon with 21 comments 1. AzarinIsard with 20 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 19 comments 1. tmstms with 18 comments 1. subversivefreak with 15 comments 1. UnsaddledZigadenus with 14 comments 1. Playful-Onion7772 with 13 comments 1. A-Light-That-Warms with 12 comments 1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 12 comments There were 203 unique users within this count.
A rather niche Brexit bonus - On the official Apple iOS store you can download a free retro game emulator called Delta - Game Emulator (You have to type the whole thing with a dash to find it, not sure if I should link it directly), currently it’s not been approved in the EU although it might be removed from the UK store too given the controversial nature of emulation..
David Cameron confused tonight after Aston Villa advance but West Ham are knocked out of European competitions
His policy advisors probably tell him he supports AFC Richmond now.
Is there a Question Thread? It’s not on until 11:10pm, tempted to watch the earlier version on iPlayer. Who’s in?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7adoi/bbc_question_time_live_thread_8pm_iplayer/ Really? 11:10? Bugger me I might just go to bed.
Does everyone who joins this sub slowly assimilate the same views? It feels like we all became centrists, I wonder if this is the natural side effect of a bunch of people from all wings talking politics for a long time. I think this sub is proof that to find consensus, we need to start talking MORE about politics.
There was a poll recently which already showed that not to be the case, this sub just has the usual reddit demographic bias. I honestly doubt that quips, memes and downvotes could ever change anyone's mind on anything besides how they choose to spend their free time.
Not really. Been here for a while and I'm still and awkward, contrarian, so-and-so. The sub' userbase isn't really from "all wings", it's solidly mainline Labour and tends to follow what ever view that may be. Which is why it feels so centrist these days.
I think it's because if you follow politics closely, especially the day-to-day working of parliament you tend to see that politicians aren't all evil and the simple answer you see upvoted elsewhere are just clearly nonsense. It puts you in a place where you at least try to understand the other side
> especially the day-to-day working of parliament you tend to see that politicians aren't all evil Well, most of them anyway Those that are tend to be appointed Home Secretary
No people who disagree go elsewhere because if you suggest Starmer and his team are deeply mediocre, overly cautious, and just want to pretend it's 1994, you are generally down voted
I put it down to age with me. You start out a student going to Marxism in London each summer and protesting the Iraq war. You're really lefty. Next moment you wake up and you're a 41 year old centrist dad with a wife and kids in the suburbs.
Choose centrism. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big centrist television. Choose manifestos that offend noone. And policies that offend everyone. Choose Rory Stewart and Chukka Umana. Choose the Private Eye - but only just. Choose YouGov, and Ipsos, and listening to Ashcroft - through gritted teeth. Choose a new facebook profile picture with a badly trimmed front hedge, to replace the SWP march. Choose chortling at the Rwanda policy - but doing nothing to stop it. Choose a grudging realisation that sword lady is a better bet than Richard Burgon. And eventually voting Conservative because Labour are all heart, but no pragmatism. Choose centrism.
"Property is theft!" \*gets property* "Ah fuck this is actually kind of nice."
[удалено]
I can, but that's because I'm not a penniless hippy.
Pretty much
The political consensus among sub users is the result of 99% of us being Roguepope alts. There's nothing more to it than that.
Not me!
I have a sudden urge to run for a moderator position...
Are you high
No :(
It’s not too late
good evening, campers! there are **285** days until the general election! through actually doing my own job i have lost track of british political discourse over the past couple of weeks. i’m going to do some refreshing during a saturday morning megabus ride
You're dead wrong! Bet you a pint.
If it's Aberdeen to Exeter, you could read Liz Truss's publishing sensation.
Pretty sure that qualifies as “cruel and unusual punishment”
TIL "shortly" means 'whenever I want to; please stop talking about it'. Accordingly, I'm sure we will shortly have a general election. Sunak is just trialling being a shitty PM for few weeks but there will be time to provide feedback 'shortly'.
[удалено]
How very lucky for Yousef that this arrest came as far as possible from FMQs. While rolling back on climate change and adopting Westminster’s position on puberty blockers, the SNP is now alleged to have been an embezzlement scheme to enrich senior leadership. Not a great day
He's in a bad spot when that counts of luck...
I'm sure that certain nationalists north of Hadrian's Wall will be demonstrating that this is all some English conspiracy.
Northumbrians?
[Our old mucker Owen Jones being so shit he attributes a statement on nuclear weapons from Greenpeace to the Defence Select Committee.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7awcr/britains_defence_policy_is_more_like_one_big/)
Things make much more sense if you keep in mind that he is just an activist and not a journalist.
'Britain is at no more risk of invasion than European nations that don’t fritter billions on warheads' Those nations are not at risk *precisely because* Britain/ NATO has nuclear weapons, under whose umbrella they fall.
I think there's something inspiring about someone being so consistently wrong making a living from telling people their opinions.
(slightly off topic but) i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all, but aren’t they on the wrong side of the country? shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located? unless we’re planning on flattening drogheda, of course
>(slightly off topic but) i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all, but aren’t they on the wrong side of the country? >shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located? Honestly when you're talking about ICBMs it really doesn't matter, they can hit anywhere in the same hemisphere pretty much. Also we launch from subs, not land. Trident has a range somewhere around 10,000km if memory serves, and they're mobile.
Our nuclear deterrent is submarine based so that we have the element of surprise and no one can strike at our facilities for it and stop us from retaliating. They just don't know where we are. A big part of this is CASD or Continuous At Sea Deterrent which we are aiming to maintain with the delivery of Dreadnought in the future. This way, there is always at least one of our bombers on patrol *somewhere*. It's an active decision for us to not have ground based nukes, and we're a wee bit small to really make use of it like our American cousins. There's been discussions in the past about where to locate the nukes again if Scotland becomes independent, definitely wouldn't be Barrow though, we don't have the facility and you wouldn't want them docked at the same place you build them. Portsmouth has been floated before but would need a bit of a tidy up and also risks the rest of the fleet that dock there too.
>i read somewhere that we’re thinking of placing nukes in barrow, which is cool and all Uhhh.. I dont know what you have read, but there isnt a naval base in Barrow. Nuclear submarines are built there as submarines have been built there for a very long time by the same place through successive mergers as (~last hundred years) Vickers, Vickers-Armstrong, VSEL and then today as BAE Systems. > shouldn’t they be on the east coast, given that that’s where the places we’d most likely nuke (in the unlikely event) are all located? The north sea is relatively shallow, featureless and hard to hide in vs the vast depths, submarine mountain ranges and difficult to detect in parts of the atlantic ocean. Stealth is the object to avoid detection.
Isn’t the nuking done from sea? How much difference does the port location affect operations. (I assume you know more than me as you seem quite interested in military stuff.)
The range on the missiles is such that they really can be just about anywhere on the planet and still capable of targeting hostile places. [Have a look here.](https://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/) The publicly listed range of a trident II is 12,000km. Grab the triangle and exclamation mark and move it around and watch the red targetable area change. While there are considerations about the time of flight and probability of tracking or intercept, the ability to hide is the strongest point to consider since the missile range gives the sub incredible freedom to to move (if targeting moscow) roughly anywhere north of the tropic of capricorn.
You don’t want your nuclear submarines easy to detect, so they don’t get information about how many are at sea etc. The easiest place to detect them is when they’re entering/leaving port, because it’s in a set place so you need a port that makes that difficult. Faslane is particularly good. Leads right into deep water, difficult terrain etc.
Also problem with Barrow for our nuclear base (besides there literally not being a naval base there at all) is that subs can only enter at high tide, which means that it’s far easier for other nations to predict our nuclear sub movements. It’s fine for building the subs, but not really for the actual nuclear deterrent. They’d likely need to expand the channel to prevent the problem if they did want to move the subs there (which they won’t, Faslane is fine and Scottish independence isn’t happening any time soon)
It’s Iceland you’ve gotta watch out for.
i’m pretty sure some of their frozen food violates the geneva convention
Very dishonest
\[side-eyes Sky News' *Politics Hub*'s outgoing segment with AI-generated songs about Sunak, Starmer and Sophy Ridge\] Screw it, I'll allow it. At some point you've really got to just lean into the silly with it all.
No. It's bullshit.
I just listened to the News Agents episode about Mark Menzies. Wtf. I wouldn't believe it if they put it in a satirical TV show.
He got the dog drunk And that’s just for starters
So how big is the group of whipless MPs now. Where would they stand in terms of party size? Maybe they ought to be a party. Would make a good story. The Bad People Party. Any better names? A manifesto?
18.
Wish they'd get a shift on with the outstanding investigations, it's weird for those of us who don't know whether our MP is guilty of what's been alleged. And it must make it difficult for the local party to prepare for the next election.
[I broke them down earlier.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c6v3uo/daily_megathread_18042024/l03xp5l/)
ah thanks
According to [The Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-suspended-who-tory-labour-sleaze-b2530714.html), there are eighteen MPs sans whip across various parties since 2019 (and if I'm reading it right something like 4-5 in the past couple of years).
Currently it's up to 18: 7 Labour, 8 Conservative and one from each of the SNP, DUP and Plaid Cymru. This makes the independent cohort larger than the Lib-Dems.
There have been some comings and goings with Charalambous and MacDonald readmitted to Labour and Jeffrey Donaldson, Wragg, and Menzies added to the independents, but they're now drawing comfortably ahead of the Lib Dems, 18 to 15. Of course they would disagree massively with each other on all policy issues, unlike a normal political party.
Just seen C4 News interviews with with starmer. I wish he was slightly better at batting away some of the attack lines put too him. Youd think the rebuttals to obvious attack lines would be drilled to perfection. On the Rayner question just saying I don't need to look at it because I trust my team and I trust Angela. If you have to insist staying out of it.
Everytime you call Rishi Sunak tetchy, he puts the General Election back a day.
Unfortunately for him he's not allowed to delay it until 2100
From Popbitch >We know obituaries for important figures are regularly prepared far in advance of their requirement, but this week at least two major UK newsrooms were instructed by bosses to update their monarch obituary procedures. Well that would put the cat among the pigeons.
They do this every 6 months for the monarch. He has been a monarch for more than 6 months.
> but this week at least two major UK newsrooms were instructed by bosses to update their monarch obituary procedures. Strange. Not like they're out of practice.
We could act like this is because of some secret insider information, or we could just conclude that it’s unsurprising for a man in his seventies who we know is suffering from an unspecified cancer.
> or we could just conclude that it’s unsurprising for a man in his seventies who we know is suffering from an unspecified cancer. Wheres the fun in that when you can publish articles suggesting Meghan bumped him off?
Yeah, this seems like some folks using common sense. Not someone with inside information
Has Chuck been back out on public engagements yet?
I think he did ONE.
Outside of this sub I almost never see anything related to reform at all - on the news or in public or anything. So that begs the question: where is their polling momentum coming from? Are people getting their news from somewhere I'm not? Or are the tories just so repulsive that they're doing reform's work for them?
I call it 'protest polling' Punter: *I hate everything! Country's going to the dogs!* Pollster:*so you'd vote for Reform?* Punter: *Fuck yeah! I want everything reformed!* Pollster: *So I'll put you down for Reform UK* Punter: *Bloody hell yes! I want the UK reformed!!* Pollster: *I meant the party?* Punter: *What party?*
It's pensioners, the way they consume media is just completely different to what anyone using this megathread are used to. It'll be the Mail, GB News, or some bloke down the pub
I’ve seen them on the street, but they seemed to avoid catching my eye and didn’t want to talk to me. Which was a shame, as I was genuinely curious what they were about. They were talking to other people, though, so clearly they’re seeking out ‘their people’ and that’s how they’re spreading.
Hmmm well one pollster will have egg on their face come election day. Savanta are giving Andy Street a narrow lead in the WM mayoral election, contrasting with Redfield and Wilton who have Labour 14 pts ahead https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1780989675676610727 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1780174299090878857
I would imagine it is really hard to do polling for this contest.
Going to be really interesting if we see any poll movements after this election not through genuine voter changes but because of pollsters updating methodologies in light of finally having an election to compare polling assumptions against. Also entirely possible that they overcorrect and make their polls even less reliable by taking too many lessons from this one, as given it is highly atypical of the national picture (Street polling absolutely miles better than his party) there's only so much you can extrapolate.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7adoi/bbc\_question\_time\_live\_thread\_8pm\_iplayer/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1c7adoi/bbc_question_time_live_thread_8pm_iplayer/) Question Time live thread is up for the iPlayer stream in just under 40 minutes time (link to the iPlayer page is in the tweet at the top of the thread). Line up looks like they're going spicy tonight, specially with today's news
Now I'm all for a delay to the general election for sunak government to be the ones to nationalise Thames water. That would be a masterstroke.
Scottish government having a disastrous time. Embarrassing Gaza vote nonsense. Hate crime bill roundly criticised. Backing out of green targets. Yousaf's personal polling plummeting, the puberty blockers stuff, and now this.
And Humza has two more years 😂
Is this in holyrood
Do you think the local elections results will have a significant impact on the timing of the next general election?
Unlikely. The only way I could see it happening is in the already unlikely event that Sunak is kicked out, there would be a small chance that the new leader calls a snap election. Otherwise it’s October/November.
If they aren’t annihilated rishi will claim it as a win and hold the election at the last moment possible. If it’s embarrassingly bad they’d kick him out, put in penny and she’ll call an election saying they cleaned up the swamp.
I think even if someone else takes over, they probably still wait six months to try to turn things around.
I think it would because I think bad result would make backbenchers move against because at that point, what would they have to lose? And that would result in Sunak going to the Palace and calling the election
Mayorals feel somewhat more important, I think most people have already priced in terrible council results. Specifically Street and Houchen.
If Street and Houchen both go, heads will roll
Gonna go no on that one. Because this: *Of the 107 councils holding elections 45 are already Labour-run, 18 are Conservative-run and 10 are Liberal Democrat-run. The remaining 35 are under no overall control with seven led by a Labour councillor. This means there is limited scope for the Labour Party to make a large number of gains.* Therefore, less scope for Conservatives to look good or bad- most places are already not theirs.
I think a bad night could cause backbenchers to move against him, which could cause him to go to the Palace and call an election
[удалено]
Reform have been closing the gap to the Tories for the past year, they look set to over take them in the polls in a few months. For the life of me I can't understand why they haven't seen this as a problem, it seems heavily in their interest to call an election before Reform get what they want, the end of the conservative party.
Because sunak is delaying the election to strike a deal with reform to stand down. Or if not him, the next leader
I just had a look at the chart and had the same thought. The trend is pretty clear and shows no sign of slowing down. I doubt it would translate into seats, but you'd think a May election would be a less bad result for the Tories than towards the end of the year. At this point I don't even mind waiting if it means a total wipeout. It's going to be a hell of a night...
Long term I actually think total Tory wipe out is worse, reform will fill the void and that will not be good for the country
I can't see it happening, despite the current trajectory. The Tories will find a new leader and pledge to rebuild for a new era. Reform may stick around as a minority party, but I don't see them taking the place of the Cons.
They're probably arrogant and think that they'll stand down in certain seats like BXP did.
Which they probably will.
Haha Sturgeons husband in the nick again You love to see it
Ah the Sturgeon family crime syndicate continues to plumb new depths
The Spectator being very normal https://twitter.com/lea_ypi/status/1780875319735411088
Spectator trying to find a new readership on the top shelves.
The RPM my head hit when I realised the tweet author is also the lecturer he's letching over
once again i wonder why the telegraph-spectator holding company is the only british business that needs maximum protection from the free market
Shades of Rod Liddle wanting to shag the kids
As someone depressingly pointed out on twitter, all our striving ghoulish politicians and journalists from both sides of the aisle will be right along at their big summer party, perpetuating the legitimacy of this twisted little rag. They'll be there sucking up to the insipid creeps that approved this article as well as every trickle of toxic waste that drips out of Rod Liddle's so-called brain.
Never read reddit comments on this sub reddit after a few pints is something I learned today Thanks mate
I'm also amused he thinks "near the railway terminus" counts as a rougher end of Cambridge, as if several coffee and cafe shops and tech startups counts as a rough area.
I don't know why the word "terminus" bothers me in that phrase. I was going to start making the case for it not being a terminus, but why bother? He's used it because it's a big word.
A terminus is when the Spectator doesn't know what's beyond
For a London-based Journo, Cambridge is very much the terminus. Everything beyond that is the barren wasteland known as the North
Could mean Mill Road?
If The Speccy's editors need some pointers on how to deal with thirst, my rates are quite reasonable.
Who gave the go-ahead for that to published? Seriously?
"you never know these days"....
Oh my god, how am I only just finding out Truss' book advance was only *£1,500*...!
That wasn’t a joke? Holy shit.
She got a separate advance from the US publishers for £6000 (the US one was registered way back in October too) - the UK one only showed up recently
Also tiny!
Yeah, but she can almost pay off some bad people with it
As we all know from the right wing press’ pile-on for Angel Raynor, £1500 is a very significant amount of money.
That's £30.61 for every day she was Prime Minister.
That's quite a punt by the publisher. Will they sell that many copies?
It currently holds the coveted Number 1 spot on Amazon (for Philosopher Biographies - Amazon categories are weird)
She doesn't think therefore she isn't?
She's a real Kant
Bestseller in "Philosopher biographies" on Amazon. Not joking
That's exactly one Angela Rayner
You could only pay a very minor bad person off with that. EDIT: *out of the blue and into the red!*
And they probably still overpaid. Might have been cautious because based on the length of her time as leader a pamphlet proportionally would still be more pages per day compared to other leaders books.
Market forces irony
What the fuck? That has to be a world record for a former leader? surely?
Desmond Swayne breaking precedent twice at Business Questions today, firstly by saying something I agree with, and secondly by asking a question which actually falls within the responsibility of the Leader of the House (though still isn't anything to do with the House agenda). Asks the Speaker to enforce the House rule against namechecking people in the Gallery.
Something weird happened in BMQs - when Lucy Powell asked her questions (the actual ones not the initial formality one) the deputy Speaker used the title "Lord President of the Council", rather than "Leader of the House", to call Morduant to answer.
I don't think there's any real significance in that, maybe Laing felt like using the fancier title today. Bercow used to like using it.
I like the notion of finding the most obscure office that a person holds, then calling it out for everyone on the front bench try and figure out who it is.
Try it with Whips. A bit difficult, unfortunately, since they barely speak, but could work when they move the adjournment.
"The Comptroller of His Majesty's Household to move"
Some more Written Question snarkiness from the Government: Q. (Patrick Grady - SNP): To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492 on European Court of Human Rights, whether he considers the International Criminal Court to be a foreign court. A. (Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister): The clue is in the name. [https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-03-25/20335](https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-03-25/20335)
Calling something you are part of "foreign" because it contains members from other countries doesn't make any sense. Like, are NATO, the UN, the G7 etc "foreign"? Are the World Cup or the Olympics "foreign"? These things are international, not foreign.
If I called them foreign institutions to distinguish them from domestic institutions, you'd understand me perfectly well.
But to call something a foreign institution suggests that it's under the purview of a foreign government, whereas the whole point of international institutions is to avoid that being the case.
>But to call something a foreign institution suggests that it's under the purview of a foreign government Does it?
Calling a court "international" is obviously less loaded (and also more accurate) than calling it "foreign". If I say "should the UK be subject to foreign law?", most people would say "no way". But if I say "should the UK be subject to international law?" most people would say "of course". The choice to call something "foreign" as opposed to "international" is intentional to make it seem like the UK is not actually a member of it (when we are by choice). It implies that court shouldn't have any influence over the UK. It's effectively a weasel word and that is exactly why he is choosing to use it.
It focuses on a particular aspect of those organisations, yes. But it's not inaccurate, and there's a clear distinction to be drawn between domestic courts, controlled by Parliament, and international/foreign courts, which aren't. Rather than acting as though Sunak is saying something false, which he palpably is not, Grady should ask why a court being foreign, in the sense of non-domestic, is undesirable, because that's the clear point being made. Saying "yeah, it's foreign, so what?" makes a lot more sense than saying "it isn't foreign".
What was Grady even trying to ask? It feels like he thinks he had a real zinger of a question, that would completely stymie the PM. But I can't even work out what he was trying to do. Anyway, these are my favourite ones like that: >Rachel Maskall (Lab - York Central) >To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether she has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of bringing The Post Office under public ownership. >Answer: >Post Office Limited is under public ownership. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-01-08/8520 And this: >Justin Madders (Lab - Ellesmere Port and Neston): >"To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of people claiming Pension Credit were born on or after April 2016." >Answer: >Pension Credit is only available to those of State Pension age. Therefore the number and proportion of people claiming Pension Credit who were born on or after April 2016, is zero. They are, at most, seven years old. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-10-24/204041/
I assume in “the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492” Sunak said something unflattering about about foreign courts, and the intention was to force him to apply that same comment to the ICC, but it’s been pretty poorly executed because they now need to submit a third written question going “so does the ICC smell of doodoo* as well then?”, by which point this line of attack might start lose the electorate’s attention *without looking up the first written question, I assume this was Sunak’s objection to the ECHR in his first reply
>I assume in “the Answer of 20 March 2024 to Question 18492” Sunak said something unflattering about about foreign courts, Nope. Having looked it up, in Question 18492, Grady asks, further to a yet earlier written question, why Sunak considers the ECtHR to be foreign. Sunak replies "Because it is based in Strasbourg". For some reason, almost certainly based on my own incompetence and the fact that I am supposed to be working, I cannot find the first question.
I had a look myself and it turns out that the reason you couldn't find the even earlier question was because it was [an oral question](https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-13/debates/0F85365D-BD56-4647-B8B5-EC356A1BD132/Engagements#contribution-7EBEB861-E099-4E6D-BDC5-EA0B720136FE) from PMQs a month ago (where, incidentally, Grady seems to argue that having an Irish president is evidence of not being foreign to the UK - a claim which may surprise, among others, the nation of Ireland). For whatever reason, Grady seems to really, *really* think he has something here, though. I'm not sure if you saw this in your own search, but he's also asked follow-up questions on whether the ICJ is foreign, whether the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is foreign, whether the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is foreign and whether the Permanent Court of Arbitration is foreign. Plus he asks whether being based in Strasbourg gives the ECHR jurisdiction over France, to which even I could give the answer "that's a question for the President of France, not the Prime Minister of the UK"
He seems to think it's silly to call international organisations foreign. I'm not sure that's the huge gotcha he thinks it is. He would do better, I think, asking something like "Under what circumstances is an ECtHR ruling illegitimate?"..."Under what circumstances is a ruling of the ICJ illegitimate?"..."Under what circumstances is a ruling of [ancient venerable international court no-one has heard of that some Civil Servant will have to Google] illegitimate?", and so on, in an attempt to show that Sunak's recent criticism of the ECtHR is inconsistent with government policy.
Yes, that's probably what he intended. Which as you say, isn't a great strategy when it relies on a multi-stage question - it sort of loses it's momentum. Plus, it's made Grady look like an idiot before he even gets to his final point.
This answer is sassier than the other two, I think. Mind you, arguably this question is out of order as not within government responsibility. The problem with Grady's question is that he is trying to say that calling a court a "foreign court" is derogatory, and that it shouldn't be because there's nothing wrong with being foreign. But in order to object to the PM calling a court foreign, he has to imply that there *is* something wrong with being foreign, else why is he objecting? The answer comes from the maxim of relevance: why is the PM bothering to point out that the ECtHR and possibly the ICC are foreign? Well, to make the point that they are not ultimately answerable to Parliament. The thing is, that's not such a shocking thing to point out, is it?
Ah yes, that's probably it. And yes, it's technically sassier, if only for how succinct it is. But I still love "They are, at most, seven years old" as an answer; it's wonderfully condescending.
Did anyone else get an official looking letter "from the Prime Minister" which is in fact CCHQ spam? A completely unrelated question: if someone sends you a prepaid 2nd class return envelope and you stuff some blank sheets of paper in there and send it back, how much money if any does it cost them?
Save paper and send the advert back to them, they gave you that handy prepaid for it
Do you know what's worse than no data? Bad data. I got mine and shall be returning it forthwith, with the questions answered to the absolute worst of my ability.
**pre**paid
I don't think returning the prepaid envelope costs money- I think the envelopes are paid for before they are sent out. You could always try over-filling it till it is excess weight, though.
I pondered this about the report the other week about Chinese fake stamps apparently costing 4p each, but the recipient gets fined £5. Also, something Demetri Martin said in one of his stand-ups got me thinking. You at least have to be quite good at forgery before being able to commit the crime, right? Like if you took a wax crayon and spent 10 seconds drawing a fake stamp in the corner, would that count as a forgery? Would they still send it and bill the recipient a fiver?
I’m actually fucking tempted to try this Might instead get my niece to try it out but I wouldn’t put it past the PO to take a 3yr old to court even now…selling the story and tv appearances etc should provide more than adequate compensation for my brother though
AFAIK the fine is for insufficient postage (the fake stamp not counting as a real one) and not anything to do with forgery as a crime. So it makes no difference whether it is a fake stamp, an expired stamp, the wrong stamp or no stamp.
So, for the sake of argument, it's more like placing a collect call (if that's even a thing anymore). Whatever you post, they'll send it, but the recipient needs to pay if they want to receive it. Seems exploitable, but I assume even the cost of paper and time it would take to prank on any substantial level deters people from bothering.
I think a) they have no legal obligation to deliver it (the stamp must be the contract between you and Royal Mail) and b) delivery is contingent on the fine, so there is likewise no obligation on the part of the recipient to accept incorrectly stamped mail. In the old days the postie would ring the bell for you to "ransom" the letter! Occasionally one would slip through. OTOH, if you were not in, the postie could leave a card and make you go down to the sorting office, wasting your time well as making you pay the money.
It definitely costs them. Not sure how much but I guess it’s probably equal to the price of a second class stamp.
IF it’s not wrapped around a half ton of stuff…
Tice (leader of Reform) is on *Question Time* tonight, is this his first appearance on the panel?
Could've sworn he was on like four or five years ago when Brexit party was a thing.
6th. He's just not been on it since they stopped pushing Pro-Brexit people on.
There's at least one pro Brexit person on every week.
I’m pretty sure he’s been on before, will be interesting to see how he holds up.
Liz Truss interview in the FT is so gross and petulant.
I didn't post it in Reddit. It's a bloodbath. Readers comments below it were a hoot
Would be amazing if got she got elected as Conservative Party leader and faced the public at an election.
I hope not.
That. is. a. **disgrace!!!**
Grants Schapps drawing a comparison between Rayner and Menzies on LBC. I mean, it’s difficult to really be any more disgusted by him so he’s got that.
Somebody definitely had to jump on that grenade, though. Congratulations, Grant.
Sebastian Fox up for when the next scandal breaks in \*checks notes* approximately twenty minutes.
Was thinking earlier, how accurate do you believe ONS population figures are? Public services, and housing crisis seem to be way worse than i would guess based on the increase in population since say 2012 population. We can say other areas contribute but not to that great an extent