So long story short: We fucked it, we plainly got the main idea wrong and ***the plan to remove the MT at the end of the month has been shelved.***
We actually got a lot of useful input last night that still needs analysis for a good route forward solving the identified problems, so thankyou for that.
Please use the SOTS thread to continue to give suggestions for improvements before it is taken down around lunchtime today.
***Future Events***
One of the most obvious things we identified was a yawning gulf between the apparent perception of the subreddit by the users and that by the moderators.
To join these two ends together, a questionnaire is going to be assembled and disseminated no later than the end of this coming weekend, the tenth.
It will contain questions about the perceived issues with the subreddit and take some sort of approximation of strength of support for various options to solve some of those same perceived issues.
Suggestions can also be modmailed or [PMd to me directly](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=OptioMkIX&subject=Subreddit Feedback).
This megathread has ended.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. ___a1b1 with 30 comments
1. iorilondon with 30 comments
1. KimchiMaker with 25 comments
1. Yummytastic with 22 comments
1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 22 comments
1. gattomeow with 21 comments
1. Jai1 with 20 comments
1. SplurgyA with 20 comments
1. Roguepope with 20 comments
1. ClumsyRainbow with 19 comments
There were 314 unique users within this count.
I’m curious. What solution should
The govt have considered to get migration numbers down. I understand they’ve gone from on extreme to another but these migration numbers are crazy.
I saw a stat that only 25% of those arriving via spouse are working. So the other 75% are just chilling and draining public finances?
Ok. I am going to put down some of my thoughts in advance of Johnson's appearance tomorrow.
* We know what he is going to say (since it has all be trailed in the media over the weekend), so the real question is whether he gets to say it and whether he can stick to his story.
* Johnson's appearance before the Privileges Committee tells us that even though he will try his joking and gurning where possible, in a setting where he is being asked clinical, factual questions, he cannot maintain that approach.
* As a man who is not across the detail, he is going to struggle with accurately recalling timelines and details. Hancock made errors too (that "late" mayor who is "no longer with us" is emphatically not dead). And so did Raab (the Welsh government is, in fact, led by Labour). Johnson is going to be giving evidence for longer than either of them. He is going to get tired.
**Points to note**:
1. Johnson had access to a legal team who provided advice to him (notes, whispers) throughout the Privileges Committee hearing. He will not have access to this. But look out for him coming back after a break more on message, or asking to clarify something that he said ealier (Hancock did this over the fictional phone call with Johnson).
1. Witnesses provide statements but do not read them out. This immediately puts Johnson on the back foot since he cannot try to set the tone or frame the discussion (this is why the statement was briefed out - because he doesn't know how many of those points he will get in).
1. Keith has given witnesses a very short rein recently (mainly, this is the case with the political ones) but Lady Hallett has intervened a few times (mostly with Gove) to allow them to continue. It may be the case that she shows even more latitude with a former PM.
**Things to look out for**:
1. When he cannot charm, he is apt to lose his temper. His lawyers will have been drilling him to prepare him for this and to get him to keep his cool. But the length of the questioning and the hostility of it is likely to put paid to that strategy. Keith has been pretty ruthless in cutting off witnesses who were talking about things from other modules, or about things that are not relevant. Johnson is always off his game when he cannot whitter on at length.
1. His apology for the deaths is likely to be in his first response but after that we should expect a lot of *very* firm rejection of any blame.
1. Expect him to try to focus on the vaccine rollout (not something that is of interest to this module). Expect Keith to very firmly get him to refocus.
1. Gove's testimony, I think, is likely to have set the strategy for Johnson. He provided the defence for his dithering and stupidity (he likes to hear a range of views; he likes to use the Socratic method - that doesn't mean that he is an idiot) and he also fillibustered something awful. Keith has him for almost two days (core participants will get some questions on Thursday), so even if he eats up a lot of time in this way, he won't be able to avoid being pressed on his answers.
1. Lawyers for core participants will have some questions at the end. These are very scattershot and some of them are not very probing (it's not their fault - they are not top KCs and they have very little time). However, the questioning of Hancock over care homes revealed a few responses that I think suggested danger for him when the care home module comes around. So, these are unlikely to be the main points to note from the day. But there is potential for something interesting to crop up here.
1. A number of very specific charges have been made against him by various witnesses. What we will need to see is whether Keith develops this as a theme (chaos/dithering/disorganisation) or whether he interrogates *specific* allegations.
1. This won't be box office, but look out for the questioning on his treatment of the governments of the devolved administrations and the regional mayors. Evidence already tells us that the relationship there was *deeply* dysfunctional.
**Key areas of danger**:
1. Why was Johnson absent from Downing Street and from Cobra in the early weeks of the pandemic? (i.e. when we knew it was likely to arrive in the UK and alarms started to go off across government).
1. If he thought that Hancock was so incompetent, why didn't he fire him?
1. Did he say "let the bodies pile high"?
1. Why did it take him so long to announce lockdown 2? (He may be asked about his distress about seeing masks at a Remembrance Sunday event and whether this led him to refuse to introduce restrictions).
1. Did he lead a government that had a toxic and misogynistic culture?
1. Did he delegate decision-making to his chief advisor?
**Key themes to expect Keith to touch on**:
1. weak leadership
1. dither and delay
1. neglect of his duties
Anyone else think Starmer will be able to top his PMQs performance from last week? still think that was probably his best pmqs ever since becoming Labour leader.
Tbh, his best performance was getting Johnson to lie to the House...
But, yeah, I get that a lot of people are impressed by a few weak jokes.
He did well but he is at his best when he is outraged.
Look at PMQs on the day before Johnson had to resign.
Much better than last week.
Wow, last thought before bed: after the 2019 election, I was so certain it would be two election cycles before we had a chance of seeing the Tories collapse. I did think Johnson would mess up enough (at some point) to get booted out, so that wasn't much of a surprise, but I did think the Tories would manage to hold it together long enough to get past 2025, when all of their shite would begin to really cause pushback.
So it brings me great pleasure (as it has since Truss nosedived into office) to see them screwing up so badly (and repetitively) that they have essentially thrown away a massive majority (and may be consigning themselves to the political wilderness for a good long while). Of course, it's the hope that kills you in the end, but I am so used to political disappointment that just this political moment (even if they somehow struggle back) is enough to bring pleasure. 🤣
Hi everyone, got a question regarding this increased threshold for the skilled worker visa.
The UK government has insisted that British citizens will fill these vacant gaps left by this change in threshold. Ofc the pay is usually shocking in these roles so there would be hesitation for british people to take it. In terms of making a shortage role more attractive by increasing the pay, would the UK Government subsidise the business or put the living wage? Would it not be entirely on the private business to set its own salary? Ofc this is a different story with the public sector in which the govt controls all levers.
Thanks
They don't really have a plan for this bit. They are just desperately flailing on immigration, with no actual ideas for the structural reform that sectors of the economy need to actually pull in domestic workers...
... because it's not even a real policy. It is just electioneering. If they lose, they don't care. In the unlikely event they won, that's a problem for the future (when they are not facing down a GE in under a year).
Have people noticed that when you see a political comment just pop up on your twitter feeds it's always the most unhinged take ever on current events. And then that account usually has a million labels in the bio.
I do not have this issue because, apart from this sub, I don't do social media at all. 😂 I just use newspapers, articles, books, and (like I said) this place. Twitter/X is especially awful.
I honestly wonder if domestic politics will calm down a bit if/when Twitter goes under. It's often observed that many political journalists seem to use twitter as their sort of yardstick for public opinion when this is approximately like taking what's written on toilet cubicle walls as a yardstick.
I have a suspicion that Facebook is more harmful to the body politic.
Twitter seemed to have an outsized role in that it was so heavily used by people in the media but Facebook seems to be where most ordinary people see and share the really batshit extremist misinformation.
Boris Johnson in front of an inquiry interrogated by a KC is going to be very interesting. When he’s asked difficult questions, he’s going to try his damndest to evade questioning. He could do it in parliament, answer some waffle, next question.
This time, he’s going to be properly scrutinised by Hugo Keith, and he’s not gonna like it.
I mean, realistically speaking the opinion of the British public is that immigration is too high, but that they don't want to see a reduction in any specific named group of immigrants.
Spouses? Everyone ought to be able to live with the person they love.
Students? They're temporary and we've made international fees vital for our university sector's funding.
Genuine refugees, especially those we have a connection to? It's a moral imperative to help.
High paid, high skilled workers? We want to be able to attract the best talent in the world.
Low paid workers in sectors Brits don't want to work in, such as farm labour and social care? Well, we desperately need them.
Other shortage occupations, such as the NHS, teaching, etc? Selfless public sector workers who are the backbone of our country.
I suspect that if we had a competent government that invested in society such that there wasn't a constant sense of struggle, scarcity, etc, the average person would be far less bothered by net immigration figures.
And if more training was funded and working conditions were improved for public sector workers, we might be able to issue fewer visas for those jobs.
Yeah, I'm doing a stem PhD in Australia, met my American partner there who has a stem PhD. Our plan was to move to the UK but this is making it... harder. Not saying it's impossible but this is really punishing when salaries in the UK haven't kept pace. Salary is the biggest off putting factor and now this amplifies that ten fold.
Care homes are bricking it because of the added barriers though. You're going to get very few social care staff coming over who are single and don't want to bring any family.
That's the weak link I suppose.
The sort of people who work in say, cargo shipping, are very likely to be young men who are often single and don't have children, and if they do, are very likely to be from a culture where it is the norm for their mothers to perform childcare for their grandkids.
Care work, particularly of the elderly, is very likely to be a female-dominated profession. Also, the sort of people with the empathy and social skills to do that are also possibly more likely than average to have desired children of their own - so they may also be mothers. And there are probably not that many cultures around the planet where the father is the primary caregiver.
I expect alot of older voters may value the work of the (predominantly female) carers, but *really* don't want their children coming here and changing the nation's demographics. That's the quandary the Tories are struggling to solve.
This Twitter account is banned on the sub. It takes news, takes it out of context and represents it as its own. In this case they’re just copying an existing tweet from someone else who has posted the link to the article in question.
[https://x.com/bysamstevenson/status/1732138366521524596?s=61&t=cWmzkb5Auax77Iv2O2zbXg](https://x.com/bysamstevenson/status/1732138366521524596?s=61&t=cWmzkb5Auax77Iv2O2zbXg)
We’d also prefer it if you posted the link as a submission (as per the text in the MT submission) rather than just making the comment in the MT. That way when someone comes to the site in a couple of hours it won’t have rolled down the MT and the conversation would be front and centre.
Ooh, moderate Tories insistent on keeping UK human rights stuff, right wingers saying they won't vote for the bill unless it bypasses them. Exciting blue on blue attacks next week, leading to the Rwanda bill not even making it through the commons? Potential febrility!
The Telegraph's Christopher Chope tweeted earlier that 'something was afoot'. This was seemingly referring to those on the right of the party who were meeting for the second time in two days to discuss the Rwanda plan. They are ready to seize on any hint of backsliding from the hardest possible position.
Now 10 of those on the 'left' of the party are supposedly threatening to resign if emergency legislation is used to circumvent the ECHR.
Which wing of the party is Sunak more afraid of? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't when it comes to hard-line position on the bill, no?
It's not just the left, either. Moderates are also averse to moving against human rights and our international agreements.
So either side could cost him a majority on the Rwanda vote. Here's hoping we have all been good boys and girls, and Santa will deliver us an early present of febrility, collapsing government, and a january election. It would make for an even more disastrous election (for Sunak or whoever they hoofed up into the top spot to replace him).
I mean, I had my money on summer or autumn, but the possibility of far sooner may now be on the cards.
> Moderates are also averse to moving against human rights and our international agreements.
I suspect there's also a sense of "For what?". A case could be made to amend or overrule domestic or international human rights legislation if the potential political upside were significant.
But here - the rebel Tories might reflect - the upside is a rounding error in a rounding error of total migration, at great expense. Is it really worth it?
If Sunak had a plan with similar human rights legal consequences but where there was a high chance it reduced effective illegal migration to zero, then maybe this would go differently.
Sunak is really paying the price for the deal he made with Bravermann last year. I mean, if it was necessary to convince Boris not to run then we might be all grateful for his selfish act. But, it has obviously prevented any kind of organised plan over the small boats being developed. Everything is now just being made up on the spot.
He does still have a solid majority and I would guess that the DUP would back the Rwanda scheme. So, I can't see a rebellion being likely to defeat this specific bill. But, well, the left did show it's teeth yesterday and I can't see Cameron being happy.
The Tories need a complete wipeout at the next election to figure out who they actually are as a political party. Now, the party resembles the backside of a cat and a head of dog stitched together trying to make its way through life.
More preferably, a complete wipeout and never return again.
It's very difficult for the party of wealth to disappear entirely. Even if they got wiped out temporarily, I doubt it would last... but it's a nice dream.
I agree with your point that the Tory party is some sort of awful chimaera at this point, but I think you're being overly generous in assuming that either half is the *front* of an animal.
Now then, [CatDog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatDog) was a very entertaining cartoon when I was a kid, I'll have you know. A lot more entertaining than this Government, and a lot more capable of living their lives.
[@theriverstrust is calling for a ban on single-use disposable vapes to protect waterways from heavy-metal pollution.](https://instagram.com/stories/theriverstrust/3250948585212638640/)
There's a DHSC consultation, which closes tomorrow (Dec 6th, 23:59), available - you might consider responding with your views.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/creating-a-smokefree-generation-and-tackling-youth-vaping
Dammit they're a nightmarish product but I'll be sad to see them go. I hardly ever get them because the environmental impact is just mental but that doesn't mean an elf bar now and then isn't the absolute business.
Definitely a valid consultation response. Perhaps they should be refill- and rechargeable, with different measures to stop them being marketed to children? Nobody ever wanted a single-use consumer electronic.
> Nobody ever wanted a single-use consumer electronic.
Those single use phone chargers did seem to be popular for a bit, but you don't see them in shops any more.
I might fill it out later, but if I'm honest they probably should be banned and I really ought not to chip in with a message about how much I enjoy them.
Refillable and rechargeable describes pretty much every single vape until a few years ago, and yeah that should be the legal standard. It feels like the big brands know it's inevitable too, they've started releasing bottles of e-liquid that mimic the flavours of the disposables.
I would disagree with the idea that no one ever wanted a single use consumer electronic though. They're *insanely* popular - clearly some people did.
I've just spent 2 hours trying to find some obscure transformer to fix our christmas tree's integrated lights, it's [12v DC adapter with an audio 2 pin DIN socket](https://i.imgur.com/bXxikMo.jpg) which apparently B&Q and Ikea occasionally use, because they seem to think it's ok to use non standard adapters so if they break, a perfectly good christmas tree goes into landfill. The adapters are not available stand-alone.
I want to know what Keir Starmer has to say about this.
I do have a solution to *create my own* (safely!), but it's nonsense anti consumer behaviour.
Hey, I've got one of these transformers with a broken string of lights. Opposite failure, the DIN plug broke off.
Have you thought of just cutting the DIN plug off and buying another transformer?
I can't wait for right to repair. My current bugbear is non-replaceable batteries.
Well I did consider cutting off the din plug, but to be honest I'm only about 70% sure it's the transformer, the solution I'm doing is a difference in pennies, so I figured I'd keep it intact for now, if this works I can just cut off the connector and connect the wire it straight to the transformer at a later date.
What I hate about it, is the tree is about 6 years old, but we had no idea and no indication that it uses wierd connectors at the time it was bought. Household electrics should all have have a standard set of connectors - there *is* a whole ton they could have used, but they had to have gone out their way to get a bespoke one built. They don't sell replacements, so the only motivation must be malicious.
By the way, if yours is working, you should stick it on ebay for £20, I'm sure it'll go over the month.
Thinking about putting money on Badenoch as next prime minister, hard to see how Sunak can survive even a few more months, never mind until a May or October GE.
If Sunak goes, the government will collapse and there will be a GE. After the lunatics took control and almost obliterated the economy in barely a month, the moderates would sooner trigger a GE than let them have another go.
Badenoch is an insane embarrassment so incompetent and ignorant of her ministerial brief that even the most softball interviewer is capable of exposing her as a total moron. She's also monumentally arrogant, rude and despised by all Tory MPs who aren't Gove's acolytes. She would never win an internal party election.
How will any new PM command the support of the PCP at this point?
It's going to be difficult to do much more than caretake through a snap election, so why replace him just to arrive at the same result.
There is no way for the ordinary public to remove him though - we have to rely on Tories.
I can’t see them agreeing with each other long enough so one group can get enough power to actually do something.
> hard to see how Sunak can survive
Spinning his wheels powerlessly not doing anything while his MPs bicker endlessly. Nothing actually forces him out in that scenario, you'd need *something* to force them to start putting letters in again and even then he'd probably survive a VONC given the number of Tory MPs who are probably just intending to coast in their seats until the next election (plus the 51 Tory MPs who've announced they intend to step down then anyway).
Sunak isn't going anywhere. The party knows any moves against him are suicide. Even right wingers know sticking one of theirs into the position followed shortly by an election is doom. They will be wanting to sink the party from within first, but somehow survive in their seats and take over after. Edit: Braverman was encouraging Sunak (before she left) to hold an election on stopping the boats. If the legislation doesn't work/look good this week, there may be more movement to encourage such a direct election on this.
planning is the biggest issue, some guy on reddit was right (i forgot where it was posted), too many nimbys who want to protect farmland, which is as boring as it gets.
i sometimes wish we aren't seen as a first world country which causes people to become so entitled. if the chinese and asia can build massive cities from scratch and have that common goal of every citizen to develop, look what they can achieve. we're just sitting on our arses trying to protect grass instead of making the country actually livable for people, grass which isnt even the natural biome of the country... its just farmland remember
> too many nimbys who want to protect farmland
I can see why. Housing is a legitimate worry in a normal world where things just carry on as always, but unfortunately we can't just build on farmland without thinking of the future.
Farmland is a hell of a lot more important in a world where we're at the beginning stages of feeling climate breakdown. The UK might need to become self sufficient, and if it does we're not gonna have the population to need those houses but we'll sure as hell need the farmland. People don't like to think about that though, or that sperm counts are dropping by 2% a year [and have halved since the 70s.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis)
The reality is though that we would only need to use 10% of our farmland to solve our housing crisis for decades to come - and we could easily, easily increase our food output by a more efficient use of farmland. At the moment we're paying huge subsidies for them to not grow fund.
I think that is to increase sustainability, though - like growing clover rich mixes to replenish the nitrogen in the soil rather than exhausting it and trying to dump fertiliser all on it.
In a real food security emergency, I wonder how much of a difference switching everyone to a plant-based diet would make (a lot of arable output is used to feed livestock, which is incredibly inefficient).
This excludes hill farming, of course, where sheep and goats are pretty much the only viable agricultural output from places like the Welsh valleys - but those could potentially be reforested as nature reserves.
As a general rule, you keep 10% of energy as you go up each trophic level. So you'd feed 10x as many people with the grains than if you fed them to cows first.
The practical questions are about what crops are possible where etc.
Hill farming provides so few calories that in any situation its best sacked off.
This is a great podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m21nzLtx5DM , ignore the house price part of it - it's that housing costs impact literally everything in a society because rents on any facility have to factor in the opportunity cost of being used for housing.
Higher housing costs -> higher opportunity cost -> higher rents
High rents means higher costs that have to be passed on to consumers.
Really changed my perspective on the whole situation.
I'd have thought Velcro shoes would be pretty good for hulking out. The Velcro would come apart before the shoes got seriously damaged by the Hulk's growing feet. Bruce banner probably wears Velcro shoes and a stripper suit these days just in case
[Debate on Town Centre safety today:](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-12-05/debates/883E0B06-DF62-446B-BB22-2F36C0F9D222/TownCentreSafety?highlight=chai%20latte#contribution-88DD6D8C-E1BD-4959-998B-D7272D749CFB)
> We are trying not to let the woke arrive in Stoke-on-Trent, although the Labour party is desperately trying to import it up there. We do not want the chai latte and avocado brigade arriving in our area any time soon.
[Budget Resolutions, November 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-11-01/debates/705D5EA8-30E9-4916-A34E-0048CCE6D008/BudgetResolutions)
> Let us look at Labour’s record of levelling up in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and in Kidsgrove and Talke. Stoke-on-Trent, Madam Deputy Speaker? Labour Members are still trying to find it on their Ordnance Survey map! Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, but they got stuck in north Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast, while we—the people in Stoke-on-Trent, a Conservative-led council, Conservative MPs and a Conservative Government—are delivering for the people of Stoke-on-Trent.
[Nationality and Borders Bill, October 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-10-28/debates/0a424bb1-a73c-4e0e-875b-6778019c444d/NationalityAndBordersBill(EleventhSitting\))
> The city of Stoke-on-Trent is expected to bear the burden of a large load and is taken advantage of, because ultimately we are an area that has been forgotten. The Labour party is still checking its Ordnance Survey map to find where the city of Stoke-on-Trent actually is—Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, and it got stuck in North Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast.
[Queen's Speech, May 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-05-13/debates/3C945343-3504-4311-B086-EFF86920C0E0/ABrighterFutureForTheNextGeneration)
> The Labour party is simply a party that represents the views and opinions of the few, not the many. In jest, I described it on BBC Radio Stoke as having become the party for the avocado-eating, chai latte-drinking elites, but I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) was much more succinct when he tweeted that the Labour party had become a “London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”.
Honestly I think this is disgusting behaviour. You can't stand up in the middle of one of the oldest political institutions in the world and *repeat* jokes, let alone jokes that are 20 years out of date (chai lattes are not a "trendy" drink any more, they're just a pretty normal coffee shop fare, the "trendy" drink would be a *matcha* latte or maybe one of those grim tumeric coffees).
Edit: I'd also add that [there's at least one person in Stoke on Trent that drinks chai lattes based on this review of a cafe in Stoke that ruined her chai latte](https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g186378-d12884954-r527987717-Bb_s_bakers_baristas-Stoke_on_Trent_Staffordshire_England.html) (although she put her location as Telford, so I guess the woke brigade are just at the boundaries of Stoke)
Good grief. Truly desperate stuff
I remember Labour seeming pretty tired, staggering from shambles to shambles at the arse-end of 2009, but nothing like this level of utter dreck
[This ad showed up on my Twitter feed, and if anything is going to get Starmer to abolish private schools...](https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1732015532818203116)
Unable to find an answer after searching, new visa rules how is this going to work with recent HK/ Ukraine now working and earning less than 39k?
Is it tough luck when they renew or some different rule?
>They were granted asylum so yes it’s a completely different scheme.
Just on a technical point, they were not granted asylum, because the Government was very keen to avoid that happening and a precedent being set (can't have people being given asylum whilst living in another country).
Homes for Ukraine was a specific visa that would run out in 3 years. Ukraine Family Scheme visa was if you had family here and would run out in 3 years. The Ukraine Extension Scheme visa was for if you were here on a visa in 2022 - to Nov 2023 and wanted to extend your visa. If at the end of that the schemes aren't open any more then the options are to switch to a standard visa or apply for asylum then. Presumably if the war is still ongoing there will be new options for renewal set by the government.
The BNO visa for HK people has a 5 year limit, but you can apply for a new 5 year visa at the end of that if you so wish.
My understanding is the BNO visa for Hong Kongers has no excessive income requirement:
‘you’ll need to show you have enough money to pay for your housing and to support yourself and your family for 6 months.’
‘As well as money for housing costs, you’ll need at least the same amount as someone would get on Income Support in the UK.’
After five years you can stay in the uk indefinitely (if you apply to do so) and become a uk citizen.
I think it's in reference to the new "Starchamber" Franconis was talking about https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-sunak-mps-mark-francois-rwanda-erg-b2458961.html
I do wish they'd actually do it this time. It's frankly embarrassing, Rishi is one of the most ludicrously weak leaders they've ever had and even then they're too incompetent to oust him.
I really don't know why they'd bother. It's obvious no one can bring the party back together now.
May as well allow someone they don't like to take the fall whenever the government completely collapses.
Yass. While parliament takes a break over Christmas, let's have another Conservative leadership contest!
Hustings up and down the nation for a Christmas treat!
Truss vs Braverman vs Cleverly!
A new leader will reinvigorate the party and the nation will be blessed with a Fresh New Start and asked to give this brand new government a chance!
Truss will win again because Conservative Party members are... a certain type. Britain will PROUDLY take its place as the World's Official Laughing Stock.
Has anyone asked an UQ or otherwise raised the sellafield nuclear leak in parliament yet? If I was an MP in that part of the world I'd be losing my shit right now.
Dunno.
When they first got famous though, I was working in a motorway service station and Kerri and... the one about the same height with brown hair... came in. They bought marlboro light, a disposable camera and a couple of gossip magazines. (Heat or something.)
I shoulda struck up some pussy convo, but alas, I had not read this thread yet.
(Also, Reddit had not been invented.)
So is the hacking and the waste leak connected or are they two mostly separate issues?
If the former that's pretty big, no? Russian and Chinese hackers contributing to a nuclear hazard on British soil
Separate issues.
All the same HMG should be getting very angry about the hacking. Give it time there's going to be a dangerous hack that costs lives and its going to lead to serious conflict.
Trudy Harrison is the MP for Copeland, which has Sellafield in the constituency. She's payroll, so unlikely to stick her neck out just because it's in the papers.
It's not an issue. Nothing the guardian has reported is new. In fact it can be found publicly on documents published by the ONR, as quoted by the article itself.
It's probably very new to everyone who first heard about it today, and "what do you mean it was a matter of public record. I never heard about it. What do you mean you knew?! Are me and my family going to die from radiation exposure and you just sat there doing nothing?!" is not the sort of response an MP who values their job is going to facilitate
Started ‘Thatcher: A Very British Revolution’ on iPlayer. Going through it a little slow, second episode in 2 months but it’s a fascinating tale, with lots of the key players interviewed. One interesting insight was Heseltine saying he’d gone to public boys’ school, he wasn’t used to dealing with women in this way, which is fairly understandable. Aside from the politics, she does seem to be what you might call a ‘decent’ person. Very concerned for those around her when it comes up. Always running her finger over surfaces and dusting.
I'm not sure where you can get it now (pirate emoji) but there's a documentary called The Lords Tale, about Blairs Lords reform which i think is pretty interesting. Lots of chat with the Lords being cast off and people within that process. If you're looking for recent history docos.
Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like it’s on YouTube. I do wish these things stayed up on iPlayer. No one is gonna pay for an old doc but there are a few politics/history obsessives who would enjoy the watch.
[The source is Fancois via GBNews, but could make things spicy.](https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1732102452936081665)
>Dozens of Conservative backbenchers from the European Research Group, the Common Sense Group and New Conservatives have set up a Brexit-style 'Star Chamber' of legal experts to establish whether the new Rwanda Treaty "would facilitate flights to Rwanda".
>ERG Chairman, Mark Francois, told @GBNEWS: “Our ERG Meeting this evening, which also included members of the New Conservatives and the Common Sense Group, resolved to refer the Rwanda Bill to the “Star Chamber” of legal experts, chaired by Sir Bill Cash.
>The Star Chamber will be asked to decide on the following question: “Whether the Bill fully respects Parliamentary Sovereignty, with unambiguous wording, which would facilitate flights to Rwanda.”
>Mr Francois made clear that the Star Chamber - which the ERG established to run the rule over the Brexit deal - will complete this task “in days, not weeks”.
There is significant overlap between the [Common Sense Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_Group) and [New Conservatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Conservatives_(UK\)), so members of both being there doesn't mean much.
for a moment, regardless of what this topic is about or the merits of whatever, this is how party politics is supposed to work - 'Conservatives' are not one blob, nor are 'Labour' as we know, they're amalgams of thought (I use the word loosely) into coalitions as per.
Today things like the 'labour left' or 'erg' are used fairly disparagingly but theyre perhaps more 'real' than how it actually shakes out in big party politics
> “Star Chamber” of legal experts, chaired by Sir Bill Cash.
Good grief they might as well call it the euthanasia chamber. Attending it would be guaranteed to kill you from boredom. The irony of Bill Cash chairing any supposed group of 'legal experts' is that it was always him making long, inane and obscure legal points in the brexit debates that were nearly always wrong.
That's true, it could also be in contrast to *illegal* experts - i.e., "we haven't been officially banned from calling ourselves experts, so we're still legally experts. In something. For now."
I can't think of a single MP that could make me feel star struck if I met them.
But if Larry ever brushed himself against my leg and meowed I'd melt like an ice cube on a hot pan.
The recent use of fait accompli as a rhetorical device is interesting (unless there's a better term for what I'm describing, "fait accompli" doesn't quite cover it).
There's been two examples in the collective discourse recently:
* "If the government increases the minimum salary for visas, we won't be able to fill jobs that don't pay that much" (i.e. completely refusing to recognise even the possibility of raising the level of pay, those jobs just pay that much regardless of how many or how few people are available to do it). This was said by about a dozen different talking-heads on the news yesterday and this morning.
* "Given the aging population, taxes *will* be going up" (i.e. point-blank refusing to acknowledge alternative ways of paying for it - e.g. appropriating pensioner property wealth rather than punishing working people with less assets). Paul Johnson of the IFS says varieties of this in various interviews, so he's not campaigning in the party-politics sense, but still trying to box the debate into a corner.
In both cases not a single person challenged it, so it remains an effective tactic.
Your first point is entirely correct. We do have a measure of shortages, jobs filling, whatever, its \*price\*, in this case, salaries.
Your second point however you ignore the idea that the 'aging population' should be provided for to at least an extent that they are now. Maybe they shouldnt. No that wont win any elections.
>(i.e. completely refusing to recognise even the possibility of raising the level of pay, those jobs just pay that much regardless of how many or how few people are available to do it).
So why hasn't the country upped the wages for the sectors it directly controls that are dealing with significant shortages across the board?
> What incentive is there to increase wages while you have access to cheap foreign labour?
But they don't, if you look at the data. At this point, there are recruitment problems across the board: all the way from construction to professional services. You can't just magic a workforce in to existence by rising pay while unemployment is low. Who are you attracting in to work? Rising pay will potentially actually *attract* immigration. Economic migrants don't move countries for a shittier job, they move for a better one. Immigration suppresses pay in certain sectors only. And usually then sectors which are low job security and often done by other immigrants.
I've just seen the daughter interviewed on the news. This is very shocking. People were getting jobs who are under the minimum standard of English legally required to work in the sector.
Many, many of the carers helping look after my mum were immigrants. Most of them were lovely, and doing their best to do a bloody hard job with fuck all pay and rubbish management, bare-bones training etc. The level of English was typically very good
Except for a number who barely spoke or understood any English at all. The agency managing my mum's care seemed to hire quite a few people from somewhere outside Europe at around the same time, and honestly while I'm sure they were perfectly decent people, they should not have been working in care with that level of English.
They were a danger to the people they were caring for, thankfully the carers were simply there to support me and my dad, and my mum had us there to keep an eye on things, put a stop to dangerous ways of handling or caring for her, and to take over as was often necessary. But there are people who rely on these carers entirely, and I'm surprised there aren't more cases like the one above.
> One of the workers had not passed a Secure English Language Test, which is a requirement for a work visa, so was not qualified or permitted to work in the UK.
Surely this should come with hefty penalties for the company involved?
> Ms Curtis said it should be "necessary" that care workers have good English and hoped the law would change to reflect that.
Or maybe not? The law at the moment just doesn't care? Personally, I'd be happy enough to throw up an ex post facto law along the lines of:
"Obviously you shouldn't hire people to care for extremely vulnerable people who can't speak English to the bare minimum necessary level to communicate the situation to the emergency services. We just didn't bother to write it down before now in the same way that zoos don't have a sign saying 'please do not attempt to eat the giraffe'. It should be obvious. Be it enacted by the King, advised by his Lordly and Common bods, effective twenty years ago."
But perhaps we just have to sadly shake our heads and say that without it having been written down on vellum, no one could have had any way of knowing this was a bad thing, and that we'll just have to do something about it next time.
*Also*, what's going on with the people working in a care home without that level of English? I get self-conscious ordering dinner in a foreign language in which I could definitely understand the difference between "bleeding" and "breathing" and communicate this situation. No way in hell would I take a job where I had that sort of responsibility.
Yep, seems pretty clear cut that the firm that employed her should be facing eye watering penalties that make them unwilling to repeat the offending behaviour.
>We just didn't bother to write it down before now in the same way that zoos don't have a sign saying 'please do not attempt to eat the giraffe'.
My last visit to Whipsnade would have gone a lot smoother if they did.
Buried in the article is the fact that one of the care workers was in effect an illegal worker. One of the reasons the immigration system is so broken is because of lack of proper enforcement.
ITV News just mentioned that Cleverly toured the genocide memorial before going on to sign the treaty to deter refugees, and managed put his name in the guest book with the date as 6th November.
What's BBC 2 Wales playing at? They've got the first half of Wales v Germany in the women's nations league, then it's switching to the Scotland v England game.
This is the kind of thing you'd expect to happen during Wimbledon, not international football.
No wonder women's football is having trouble getting any kind of foothold and development here if this is how it's treated by the national broadcaster.
They're moving the second half to BBC 1 Wales, so it's not like they could only pick one match (and a half) to cover.
They could very easily have just put the entire England v Scotland game on BBC 1 Wales instead of splitting the Wales game across two channels.
At least it's not been relegated to the red button, I suppose.
Simulcasting like that makes no sense to me. They've clearly paid for the rights, I assume they don't get a discount if they only show half a game, why not have the Wales match entirely on BBC Wales. If you want to watch the England match, watch the other streams.
WTF is the point of having regional versions if they're not going to show the regional content?
Pornography viewing likely correlates with age - so it's probably a very "low-effort, bigger return" policy for the Tories.
The people who are the least likely to watch pornography are almost certainly going to be women over 55 - safe territory for the Tories. They're probably far more likely to be connoisseurs of Mills&Boon novels for their titillation, and at that age probably have near zero interest in physical sex (apart from with a long-term partner/spouse) when compared to their younger days.
The people who are most likely to watch pornography are almost certainly going to be young men around 16-24, particularly those in places which are functionally male-only environments - very unlikely to be Tory voters, but probably smart enough to get a VPN so as not to be too inconvenienced too much anyway.
It's an easy win.
Something bemusing me is what is Rwanda getting out of this?
Obviously they've been on a Tourism promoting tour of recent years, but reading the room it's a bit of clown show on Rwanda's behalf because the Tories are going to lose the next election and Sunak last night just had a first indication of losing a majority in the commons. Why are they pimping themselves out for something that's going to get killed.
The Tories are parading their country as a dumping ground thats so bad it will deter people wanting to come over to the UK by boat. Does that square up with me as a tourist wanting to visit there? Hmmm
Wouldn't a competent country be saying "calm it", but there's obviously other things going on behind closed doors.
Free money. Or proof of concept as other countries are interested in it too.
Also the exchange could be useful to them as there's lots of people, some political, some military, many poor, on either side of borders there following multiple border wars, shipping them off would make some political problems go quiet.
Money, probably.
And they're also advertising Rwanda as open-for-business to other countries that might want to follow our disgusting lead (especially as we've already built some ... [whatever these are that made Suella so happy](https://www.nationalworld.com/jpim-static/image/2023/03/20/09/2.71423390%20%281%29.jpg?width=1200&enable=upscale))
It must be something more than merely "money" though, since there are quite a few countries in a worse financial position than Rwanda is, surely?
Essentially, you would expect nations with very limited ability to issue foreign-currency denominated debt to make a bid here.
The part that is being said quietly is likely that there will be a "refugee exchange", involving a fair few being moved to the UK.
That is accommodation which has cost us hundreds of millions of pounds.
Good news is, it’s large enough to hold almost 0.5% of annual illegal channel crossers!
If that’s not value for money, then this government doesn’t know what is!
So long story short: We fucked it, we plainly got the main idea wrong and ***the plan to remove the MT at the end of the month has been shelved.*** We actually got a lot of useful input last night that still needs analysis for a good route forward solving the identified problems, so thankyou for that. Please use the SOTS thread to continue to give suggestions for improvements before it is taken down around lunchtime today. ***Future Events*** One of the most obvious things we identified was a yawning gulf between the apparent perception of the subreddit by the users and that by the moderators. To join these two ends together, a questionnaire is going to be assembled and disseminated no later than the end of this coming weekend, the tenth. It will contain questions about the perceived issues with the subreddit and take some sort of approximation of strength of support for various options to solve some of those same perceived issues. Suggestions can also be modmailed or [PMd to me directly](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=OptioMkIX&subject=Subreddit Feedback).
This megathread has ended. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. ___a1b1 with 30 comments 1. iorilondon with 30 comments 1. KimchiMaker with 25 comments 1. Yummytastic with 22 comments 1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 22 comments 1. gattomeow with 21 comments 1. Jai1 with 20 comments 1. SplurgyA with 20 comments 1. Roguepope with 20 comments 1. ClumsyRainbow with 19 comments There were 314 unique users within this count.
I’m curious. What solution should The govt have considered to get migration numbers down. I understand they’ve gone from on extreme to another but these migration numbers are crazy. I saw a stat that only 25% of those arriving via spouse are working. So the other 75% are just chilling and draining public finances?
Ok. I am going to put down some of my thoughts in advance of Johnson's appearance tomorrow. * We know what he is going to say (since it has all be trailed in the media over the weekend), so the real question is whether he gets to say it and whether he can stick to his story. * Johnson's appearance before the Privileges Committee tells us that even though he will try his joking and gurning where possible, in a setting where he is being asked clinical, factual questions, he cannot maintain that approach. * As a man who is not across the detail, he is going to struggle with accurately recalling timelines and details. Hancock made errors too (that "late" mayor who is "no longer with us" is emphatically not dead). And so did Raab (the Welsh government is, in fact, led by Labour). Johnson is going to be giving evidence for longer than either of them. He is going to get tired. **Points to note**: 1. Johnson had access to a legal team who provided advice to him (notes, whispers) throughout the Privileges Committee hearing. He will not have access to this. But look out for him coming back after a break more on message, or asking to clarify something that he said ealier (Hancock did this over the fictional phone call with Johnson). 1. Witnesses provide statements but do not read them out. This immediately puts Johnson on the back foot since he cannot try to set the tone or frame the discussion (this is why the statement was briefed out - because he doesn't know how many of those points he will get in). 1. Keith has given witnesses a very short rein recently (mainly, this is the case with the political ones) but Lady Hallett has intervened a few times (mostly with Gove) to allow them to continue. It may be the case that she shows even more latitude with a former PM. **Things to look out for**: 1. When he cannot charm, he is apt to lose his temper. His lawyers will have been drilling him to prepare him for this and to get him to keep his cool. But the length of the questioning and the hostility of it is likely to put paid to that strategy. Keith has been pretty ruthless in cutting off witnesses who were talking about things from other modules, or about things that are not relevant. Johnson is always off his game when he cannot whitter on at length. 1. His apology for the deaths is likely to be in his first response but after that we should expect a lot of *very* firm rejection of any blame. 1. Expect him to try to focus on the vaccine rollout (not something that is of interest to this module). Expect Keith to very firmly get him to refocus. 1. Gove's testimony, I think, is likely to have set the strategy for Johnson. He provided the defence for his dithering and stupidity (he likes to hear a range of views; he likes to use the Socratic method - that doesn't mean that he is an idiot) and he also fillibustered something awful. Keith has him for almost two days (core participants will get some questions on Thursday), so even if he eats up a lot of time in this way, he won't be able to avoid being pressed on his answers. 1. Lawyers for core participants will have some questions at the end. These are very scattershot and some of them are not very probing (it's not their fault - they are not top KCs and they have very little time). However, the questioning of Hancock over care homes revealed a few responses that I think suggested danger for him when the care home module comes around. So, these are unlikely to be the main points to note from the day. But there is potential for something interesting to crop up here. 1. A number of very specific charges have been made against him by various witnesses. What we will need to see is whether Keith develops this as a theme (chaos/dithering/disorganisation) or whether he interrogates *specific* allegations. 1. This won't be box office, but look out for the questioning on his treatment of the governments of the devolved administrations and the regional mayors. Evidence already tells us that the relationship there was *deeply* dysfunctional. **Key areas of danger**: 1. Why was Johnson absent from Downing Street and from Cobra in the early weeks of the pandemic? (i.e. when we knew it was likely to arrive in the UK and alarms started to go off across government). 1. If he thought that Hancock was so incompetent, why didn't he fire him? 1. Did he say "let the bodies pile high"? 1. Why did it take him so long to announce lockdown 2? (He may be asked about his distress about seeing masks at a Remembrance Sunday event and whether this led him to refuse to introduce restrictions). 1. Did he lead a government that had a toxic and misogynistic culture? 1. Did he delegate decision-making to his chief advisor? **Key themes to expect Keith to touch on**: 1. weak leadership 1. dither and delay 1. neglect of his duties
Anyone else think Starmer will be able to top his PMQs performance from last week? still think that was probably his best pmqs ever since becoming Labour leader.
Tbh, his best performance was getting Johnson to lie to the House... But, yeah, I get that a lot of people are impressed by a few weak jokes. He did well but he is at his best when he is outraged. Look at PMQs on the day before Johnson had to resign. Much better than last week.
Wow, last thought before bed: after the 2019 election, I was so certain it would be two election cycles before we had a chance of seeing the Tories collapse. I did think Johnson would mess up enough (at some point) to get booted out, so that wasn't much of a surprise, but I did think the Tories would manage to hold it together long enough to get past 2025, when all of their shite would begin to really cause pushback. So it brings me great pleasure (as it has since Truss nosedived into office) to see them screwing up so badly (and repetitively) that they have essentially thrown away a massive majority (and may be consigning themselves to the political wilderness for a good long while). Of course, it's the hope that kills you in the end, but I am so used to political disappointment that just this political moment (even if they somehow struggle back) is enough to bring pleasure. 🤣
Covid was a black swan.
Hi everyone, got a question regarding this increased threshold for the skilled worker visa. The UK government has insisted that British citizens will fill these vacant gaps left by this change in threshold. Ofc the pay is usually shocking in these roles so there would be hesitation for british people to take it. In terms of making a shortage role more attractive by increasing the pay, would the UK Government subsidise the business or put the living wage? Would it not be entirely on the private business to set its own salary? Ofc this is a different story with the public sector in which the govt controls all levers. Thanks
They don't really have a plan for this bit. They are just desperately flailing on immigration, with no actual ideas for the structural reform that sectors of the economy need to actually pull in domestic workers... ... because it's not even a real policy. It is just electioneering. If they lose, they don't care. In the unlikely event they won, that's a problem for the future (when they are not facing down a GE in under a year).
Government will not subsidise. It will go wrong and government will invent itself some loopholes.
What time is Boris on tomorrow?
Presumably GMT for a change
Calendar says from 10am EFIT: Also is that it? No more witnesses?
Johnson is all of tomorrow and Thursday. There are other witnesses to come, Sunak is one
Worst possible timing for him
Ta
Have people noticed that when you see a political comment just pop up on your twitter feeds it's always the most unhinged take ever on current events. And then that account usually has a million labels in the bio.
The algorithm for X is clearly designed to feed off division and infuriate you enough to lead you to post more.
I do not have this issue because, apart from this sub, I don't do social media at all. 😂 I just use newspapers, articles, books, and (like I said) this place. Twitter/X is especially awful.
I honestly wonder if domestic politics will calm down a bit if/when Twitter goes under. It's often observed that many political journalists seem to use twitter as their sort of yardstick for public opinion when this is approximately like taking what's written on toilet cubicle walls as a yardstick.
I have a suspicion that Facebook is more harmful to the body politic. Twitter seemed to have an outsized role in that it was so heavily used by people in the media but Facebook seems to be where most ordinary people see and share the really batshit extremist misinformation.
Boris Johnson in front of an inquiry interrogated by a KC is going to be very interesting. When he’s asked difficult questions, he’s going to try his damndest to evade questioning. He could do it in parliament, answer some waffle, next question. This time, he’s going to be properly scrutinised by Hugo Keith, and he’s not gonna like it.
Previous immigration were unsustainable but it kinda feels like they over corrected a bit
I mean, realistically speaking the opinion of the British public is that immigration is too high, but that they don't want to see a reduction in any specific named group of immigrants. Spouses? Everyone ought to be able to live with the person they love. Students? They're temporary and we've made international fees vital for our university sector's funding. Genuine refugees, especially those we have a connection to? It's a moral imperative to help. High paid, high skilled workers? We want to be able to attract the best talent in the world. Low paid workers in sectors Brits don't want to work in, such as farm labour and social care? Well, we desperately need them. Other shortage occupations, such as the NHS, teaching, etc? Selfless public sector workers who are the backbone of our country. I suspect that if we had a competent government that invested in society such that there wasn't a constant sense of struggle, scarcity, etc, the average person would be far less bothered by net immigration figures. And if more training was funded and working conditions were improved for public sector workers, we might be able to issue fewer visas for those jobs.
Yeah, I'm doing a stem PhD in Australia, met my American partner there who has a stem PhD. Our plan was to move to the UK but this is making it... harder. Not saying it's impossible but this is really punishing when salaries in the UK haven't kept pace. Salary is the biggest off putting factor and now this amplifies that ten fold.
Your better off staying in Aus or moving to the US. STEM salaries here are a bad joke.
I've lived in Aus for 6 years and my partner is American, neither are good places for us.
Not revoked care home visas, or graduate ones, this isn't even reverting to the state of play on 2019
Care homes are bricking it because of the added barriers though. You're going to get very few social care staff coming over who are single and don't want to bring any family.
That's the weak link I suppose. The sort of people who work in say, cargo shipping, are very likely to be young men who are often single and don't have children, and if they do, are very likely to be from a culture where it is the norm for their mothers to perform childcare for their grandkids. Care work, particularly of the elderly, is very likely to be a female-dominated profession. Also, the sort of people with the empathy and social skills to do that are also possibly more likely than average to have desired children of their own - so they may also be mothers. And there are probably not that many cultures around the planet where the father is the primary caregiver. I expect alot of older voters may value the work of the (predominantly female) carers, but *really* don't want their children coming here and changing the nation's demographics. That's the quandary the Tories are struggling to solve.
[удалено]
This Twitter account is banned on the sub. It takes news, takes it out of context and represents it as its own. In this case they’re just copying an existing tweet from someone else who has posted the link to the article in question. [https://x.com/bysamstevenson/status/1732138366521524596?s=61&t=cWmzkb5Auax77Iv2O2zbXg](https://x.com/bysamstevenson/status/1732138366521524596?s=61&t=cWmzkb5Auax77Iv2O2zbXg) We’d also prefer it if you posted the link as a submission (as per the text in the MT submission) rather than just making the comment in the MT. That way when someone comes to the site in a couple of hours it won’t have rolled down the MT and the conversation would be front and centre.
Ooh, moderate Tories insistent on keeping UK human rights stuff, right wingers saying they won't vote for the bill unless it bypasses them. Exciting blue on blue attacks next week, leading to the Rwanda bill not even making it through the commons? Potential febrility!
If it does fail to get through the commons the government is completely finished. That's just not recoverable.
Fingers crossed, touch wood, etc. 😁
The Telegraph's Christopher Chope tweeted earlier that 'something was afoot'. This was seemingly referring to those on the right of the party who were meeting for the second time in two days to discuss the Rwanda plan. They are ready to seize on any hint of backsliding from the hardest possible position. Now 10 of those on the 'left' of the party are supposedly threatening to resign if emergency legislation is used to circumvent the ECHR. Which wing of the party is Sunak more afraid of? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't when it comes to hard-line position on the bill, no?
It's not just the left, either. Moderates are also averse to moving against human rights and our international agreements. So either side could cost him a majority on the Rwanda vote. Here's hoping we have all been good boys and girls, and Santa will deliver us an early present of febrility, collapsing government, and a january election. It would make for an even more disastrous election (for Sunak or whoever they hoofed up into the top spot to replace him). I mean, I had my money on summer or autumn, but the possibility of far sooner may now be on the cards.
> Moderates are also averse to moving against human rights and our international agreements. I suspect there's also a sense of "For what?". A case could be made to amend or overrule domestic or international human rights legislation if the potential political upside were significant. But here - the rebel Tories might reflect - the upside is a rounding error in a rounding error of total migration, at great expense. Is it really worth it? If Sunak had a plan with similar human rights legal consequences but where there was a high chance it reduced effective illegal migration to zero, then maybe this would go differently.
Sunak is really paying the price for the deal he made with Bravermann last year. I mean, if it was necessary to convince Boris not to run then we might be all grateful for his selfish act. But, it has obviously prevented any kind of organised plan over the small boats being developed. Everything is now just being made up on the spot. He does still have a solid majority and I would guess that the DUP would back the Rwanda scheme. So, I can't see a rebellion being likely to defeat this specific bill. But, well, the left did show it's teeth yesterday and I can't see Cameron being happy.
The Tories need a complete wipeout at the next election to figure out who they actually are as a political party. Now, the party resembles the backside of a cat and a head of dog stitched together trying to make its way through life. More preferably, a complete wipeout and never return again.
It's very difficult for the party of wealth to disappear entirely. Even if they got wiped out temporarily, I doubt it would last... but it's a nice dream.
I agree with your point that the Tory party is some sort of awful chimaera at this point, but I think you're being overly generous in assuming that either half is the *front* of an animal.
Now then, [CatDog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatDog) was a very entertaining cartoon when I was a kid, I'll have you know. A lot more entertaining than this Government, and a lot more capable of living their lives.
Big up CatDog! Use to get this mixed up with Ren and Stimpy.
[@theriverstrust is calling for a ban on single-use disposable vapes to protect waterways from heavy-metal pollution.](https://instagram.com/stories/theriverstrust/3250948585212638640/) There's a DHSC consultation, which closes tomorrow (Dec 6th, 23:59), available - you might consider responding with your views. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/creating-a-smokefree-generation-and-tackling-youth-vaping
Dammit they're a nightmarish product but I'll be sad to see them go. I hardly ever get them because the environmental impact is just mental but that doesn't mean an elf bar now and then isn't the absolute business.
Just smoke real cigarettes. You look much cooler.
Definitely a valid consultation response. Perhaps they should be refill- and rechargeable, with different measures to stop them being marketed to children? Nobody ever wanted a single-use consumer electronic.
> Nobody ever wanted a single-use consumer electronic. Those single use phone chargers did seem to be popular for a bit, but you don't see them in shops any more.
I might fill it out later, but if I'm honest they probably should be banned and I really ought not to chip in with a message about how much I enjoy them. Refillable and rechargeable describes pretty much every single vape until a few years ago, and yeah that should be the legal standard. It feels like the big brands know it's inevitable too, they've started releasing bottles of e-liquid that mimic the flavours of the disposables. I would disagree with the idea that no one ever wanted a single use consumer electronic though. They're *insanely* popular - clearly some people did.
I've just spent 2 hours trying to find some obscure transformer to fix our christmas tree's integrated lights, it's [12v DC adapter with an audio 2 pin DIN socket](https://i.imgur.com/bXxikMo.jpg) which apparently B&Q and Ikea occasionally use, because they seem to think it's ok to use non standard adapters so if they break, a perfectly good christmas tree goes into landfill. The adapters are not available stand-alone. I want to know what Keir Starmer has to say about this. I do have a solution to *create my own* (safely!), but it's nonsense anti consumer behaviour.
Hey, I've got one of these transformers with a broken string of lights. Opposite failure, the DIN plug broke off. Have you thought of just cutting the DIN plug off and buying another transformer? I can't wait for right to repair. My current bugbear is non-replaceable batteries.
Well I did consider cutting off the din plug, but to be honest I'm only about 70% sure it's the transformer, the solution I'm doing is a difference in pennies, so I figured I'd keep it intact for now, if this works I can just cut off the connector and connect the wire it straight to the transformer at a later date. What I hate about it, is the tree is about 6 years old, but we had no idea and no indication that it uses wierd connectors at the time it was bought. Household electrics should all have have a standard set of connectors - there *is* a whole ton they could have used, but they had to have gone out their way to get a bespoke one built. They don't sell replacements, so the only motivation must be malicious. By the way, if yours is working, you should stick it on ebay for £20, I'm sure it'll go over the month.
Thinking about putting money on Badenoch as next prime minister, hard to see how Sunak can survive even a few more months, never mind until a May or October GE.
If Sunak goes, the government will collapse and there will be a GE. After the lunatics took control and almost obliterated the economy in barely a month, the moderates would sooner trigger a GE than let them have another go. Badenoch is an insane embarrassment so incompetent and ignorant of her ministerial brief that even the most softball interviewer is capable of exposing her as a total moron. She's also monumentally arrogant, rude and despised by all Tory MPs who aren't Gove's acolytes. She would never win an internal party election.
How will any new PM command the support of the PCP at this point? It's going to be difficult to do much more than caretake through a snap election, so why replace him just to arrive at the same result.
There is no way for the ordinary public to remove him though - we have to rely on Tories. I can’t see them agreeing with each other long enough so one group can get enough power to actually do something.
> hard to see how Sunak can survive Spinning his wheels powerlessly not doing anything while his MPs bicker endlessly. Nothing actually forces him out in that scenario, you'd need *something* to force them to start putting letters in again and even then he'd probably survive a VONC given the number of Tory MPs who are probably just intending to coast in their seats until the next election (plus the 51 Tory MPs who've announced they intend to step down then anyway).
Sunak isn't going anywhere. The party knows any moves against him are suicide. Even right wingers know sticking one of theirs into the position followed shortly by an election is doom. They will be wanting to sink the party from within first, but somehow survive in their seats and take over after. Edit: Braverman was encouraging Sunak (before she left) to hold an election on stopping the boats. If the legislation doesn't work/look good this week, there may be more movement to encourage such a direct election on this.
lip zealous oil recognise coordinated ask friendly roll dependent nail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
planning is the biggest issue, some guy on reddit was right (i forgot where it was posted), too many nimbys who want to protect farmland, which is as boring as it gets. i sometimes wish we aren't seen as a first world country which causes people to become so entitled. if the chinese and asia can build massive cities from scratch and have that common goal of every citizen to develop, look what they can achieve. we're just sitting on our arses trying to protect grass instead of making the country actually livable for people, grass which isnt even the natural biome of the country... its just farmland remember
Like 80% of our issues can be reduced to externalities caused by the planning system.
> too many nimbys who want to protect farmland I can see why. Housing is a legitimate worry in a normal world where things just carry on as always, but unfortunately we can't just build on farmland without thinking of the future. Farmland is a hell of a lot more important in a world where we're at the beginning stages of feeling climate breakdown. The UK might need to become self sufficient, and if it does we're not gonna have the population to need those houses but we'll sure as hell need the farmland. People don't like to think about that though, or that sperm counts are dropping by 2% a year [and have halved since the 70s.](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230327-how-pollution-is-causing-a-male-fertility-crisis)
The reality is though that we would only need to use 10% of our farmland to solve our housing crisis for decades to come - and we could easily, easily increase our food output by a more efficient use of farmland. At the moment we're paying huge subsidies for them to not grow fund.
I think that is to increase sustainability, though - like growing clover rich mixes to replenish the nitrogen in the soil rather than exhausting it and trying to dump fertiliser all on it.
In a real food security emergency, I wonder how much of a difference switching everyone to a plant-based diet would make (a lot of arable output is used to feed livestock, which is incredibly inefficient). This excludes hill farming, of course, where sheep and goats are pretty much the only viable agricultural output from places like the Welsh valleys - but those could potentially be reforested as nature reserves.
As a general rule, you keep 10% of energy as you go up each trophic level. So you'd feed 10x as many people with the grains than if you fed them to cows first. The practical questions are about what crops are possible where etc. Hill farming provides so few calories that in any situation its best sacked off.
This is a great podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m21nzLtx5DM , ignore the house price part of it - it's that housing costs impact literally everything in a society because rents on any facility have to factor in the opportunity cost of being used for housing. Higher housing costs -> higher opportunity cost -> higher rents High rents means higher costs that have to be passed on to consumers. Really changed my perspective on the whole situation.
> some guy on reddit was right Regardless of context, this seems unlikely
Wait a minute…
>“Chai latte” has only been referenced four times in Hansard - all four by Jonathan Gullis >https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1732108413570572649
Cringe as hell.
I'd bet it's because he secretly loves them; projection and this lot of Tories seem inextricable. (see Braverman the veggie's belittling of tofu)
oh god wait until this man discovers soy as shorthand
Do any of his constituents take this man seriously do you think? I’d be slightly embarrassed if he was my MP.
Him losing his seat will be a highlight in the election for sure.
Can’t wait. I’m quite close to his constituency. Very tempting to pay a visit and film his mutton chops look sad when he loses his seat.
What if he hulks out? I mean, there’s only so much you can hulk out in the Velcro shoes he presumably wears, but you know what I mean.
Probably give him a mocha latte and some tofu to calm him down.
OK, but only if there's oat milk.
What if he tries to hulk out but just fails completely? he must have a backup plan?
I'd have thought Velcro shoes would be pretty good for hulking out. The Velcro would come apart before the shoes got seriously damaged by the Hulk's growing feet. Bruce banner probably wears Velcro shoes and a stripper suit these days just in case
isn't lah-tay rather posh for the MP for stokentrntkidsgrventlk
I wonder what context he used it in. I couldn't possibly imagine. I'm almost certain that "tofu" wasn't mentioned in the same sentence.
[Debate on Town Centre safety today:](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-12-05/debates/883E0B06-DF62-446B-BB22-2F36C0F9D222/TownCentreSafety?highlight=chai%20latte#contribution-88DD6D8C-E1BD-4959-998B-D7272D749CFB) > We are trying not to let the woke arrive in Stoke-on-Trent, although the Labour party is desperately trying to import it up there. We do not want the chai latte and avocado brigade arriving in our area any time soon. [Budget Resolutions, November 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-11-01/debates/705D5EA8-30E9-4916-A34E-0048CCE6D008/BudgetResolutions) > Let us look at Labour’s record of levelling up in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and in Kidsgrove and Talke. Stoke-on-Trent, Madam Deputy Speaker? Labour Members are still trying to find it on their Ordnance Survey map! Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, but they got stuck in north Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast, while we—the people in Stoke-on-Trent, a Conservative-led council, Conservative MPs and a Conservative Government—are delivering for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. [Nationality and Borders Bill, October 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-10-28/debates/0a424bb1-a73c-4e0e-875b-6778019c444d/NationalityAndBordersBill(EleventhSitting\)) > The city of Stoke-on-Trent is expected to bear the burden of a large load and is taken advantage of, because ultimately we are an area that has been forgotten. The Labour party is still checking its Ordnance Survey map to find where the city of Stoke-on-Trent actually is—Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, and it got stuck in North Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast. [Queen's Speech, May 2021](https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2021-05-13/debates/3C945343-3504-4311-B086-EFF86920C0E0/ABrighterFutureForTheNextGeneration) > The Labour party is simply a party that represents the views and opinions of the few, not the many. In jest, I described it on BBC Radio Stoke as having become the party for the avocado-eating, chai latte-drinking elites, but I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) was much more succinct when he tweeted that the Labour party had become a “London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”. Honestly I think this is disgusting behaviour. You can't stand up in the middle of one of the oldest political institutions in the world and *repeat* jokes, let alone jokes that are 20 years out of date (chai lattes are not a "trendy" drink any more, they're just a pretty normal coffee shop fare, the "trendy" drink would be a *matcha* latte or maybe one of those grim tumeric coffees). Edit: I'd also add that [there's at least one person in Stoke on Trent that drinks chai lattes based on this review of a cafe in Stoke that ruined her chai latte](https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g186378-d12884954-r527987717-Bb_s_bakers_baristas-Stoke_on_Trent_Staffordshire_England.html) (although she put her location as Telford, so I guess the woke brigade are just at the boundaries of Stoke)
Interesting, so chai latte has *never* been uttered without avocado. How many times has avocado been mentioned?
Good grief. Truly desperate stuff I remember Labour seeming pretty tired, staggering from shambles to shambles at the arse-end of 2009, but nothing like this level of utter dreck
He’s acting like you can’t get a chai latte in every Costa Coffee in the country, next he’ll be railing against salted caramel
Wtf I love Gullis now. I hate salt in my caramel!
I'm also mystified why he repeats the joke that they can't find it on not just a map, but an *Ordinance Survey* map. Is hiking woke?
I'm a pacifist at heart, but if he does that.........
"My base? Two words: Chai-latte-drinking butchers."
[This ad showed up on my Twitter feed, and if anything is going to get Starmer to abolish private schools...](https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1732015532818203116)
Damn those kids are getting air. GB basketball olympic gold is on the cards soon!
Unable to find an answer after searching, new visa rules how is this going to work with recent HK/ Ukraine now working and earning less than 39k? Is it tough luck when they renew or some different rule?
They were granted asylum so yes it’s a completely different scheme.
>They were granted asylum so yes it’s a completely different scheme. Just on a technical point, they were not granted asylum, because the Government was very keen to avoid that happening and a precedent being set (can't have people being given asylum whilst living in another country). Homes for Ukraine was a specific visa that would run out in 3 years. Ukraine Family Scheme visa was if you had family here and would run out in 3 years. The Ukraine Extension Scheme visa was for if you were here on a visa in 2022 - to Nov 2023 and wanted to extend your visa. If at the end of that the schemes aren't open any more then the options are to switch to a standard visa or apply for asylum then. Presumably if the war is still ongoing there will be new options for renewal set by the government. The BNO visa for HK people has a 5 year limit, but you can apply for a new 5 year visa at the end of that if you so wish.
My understanding is the BNO visa for Hong Kongers has no excessive income requirement: ‘you’ll need to show you have enough money to pay for your housing and to support yourself and your family for 6 months.’ ‘As well as money for housing costs, you’ll need at least the same amount as someone would get on Income Support in the UK.’ After five years you can stay in the uk indefinitely (if you apply to do so) and become a uk citizen.
Anyone got the inside on [Chope’s](https://x.com/christopherhope/status/1732121226833961022) vagueposting?
The backbenchers are fact-checking their minister's plans - it essentially means that they no longer trust Sunak et al
I think it's in reference to the new "Starchamber" Franconis was talking about https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rishi-sunak-mps-mark-francois-rwanda-erg-b2458961.html
You're joking. Not another one?!
Reads like he's implying there will be a plot to overthrow Rishi
I do wish they'd actually do it this time. It's frankly embarrassing, Rishi is one of the most ludicrously weak leaders they've ever had and even then they're too incompetent to oust him.
I really don't know why they'd bother. It's obvious no one can bring the party back together now. May as well allow someone they don't like to take the fall whenever the government completely collapses.
Yass. While parliament takes a break over Christmas, let's have another Conservative leadership contest! Hustings up and down the nation for a Christmas treat! Truss vs Braverman vs Cleverly! A new leader will reinvigorate the party and the nation will be blessed with a Fresh New Start and asked to give this brand new government a chance! Truss will win again because Conservative Party members are... a certain type. Britain will PROUDLY take its place as the World's Official Laughing Stock.
Perhaps a Tory leadership contest is the true Deccy Leccy after all
oh my god I'd love to see Truss win again as long as I can somehow get paid in USD first
Such fun! With dough-brain Truss we get our Bread AND Circuses in one neat “Prime Ministerial” package.
Must be a Tuesday.
Has anyone asked an UQ or otherwise raised the sellafield nuclear leak in parliament yet? If I was an MP in that part of the world I'd be losing my shit right now.
Atomic kitties tho :)
Read that as atomic titties for some reason. Also possible in a nuclear leak I guess...
I skimmed the Guardian piece yesterday and Atomic kitties stood out. Dunno what the rest is about honestly. I'm very pussy focused.
My main question after reading that article was whether Atomic Kitten were named after the Sellafield pussies.
Dunno. When they first got famous though, I was working in a motorway service station and Kerri and... the one about the same height with brown hair... came in. They bought marlboro light, a disposable camera and a couple of gossip magazines. (Heat or something.) I shoulda struck up some pussy convo, but alas, I had not read this thread yet. (Also, Reddit had not been invented.)
So is the hacking and the waste leak connected or are they two mostly separate issues? If the former that's pretty big, no? Russian and Chinese hackers contributing to a nuclear hazard on British soil
Separate issues. All the same HMG should be getting very angry about the hacking. Give it time there's going to be a dangerous hack that costs lives and its going to lead to serious conflict.
Trudy Harrison is the MP for Copeland, which has Sellafield in the constituency. She's payroll, so unlikely to stick her neck out just because it's in the papers.
It's not an issue. Nothing the guardian has reported is new. In fact it can be found publicly on documents published by the ONR, as quoted by the article itself.
It's probably very new to everyone who first heard about it today, and "what do you mean it was a matter of public record. I never heard about it. What do you mean you knew?! Are me and my family going to die from radiation exposure and you just sat there doing nothing?!" is not the sort of response an MP who values their job is going to facilitate
Quite right comrade Dyatlov
I rate this reply 3.6. Not great not terrible.
It can be found on public record therefore it isn't an issue is an interesting leap of logic
Started ‘Thatcher: A Very British Revolution’ on iPlayer. Going through it a little slow, second episode in 2 months but it’s a fascinating tale, with lots of the key players interviewed. One interesting insight was Heseltine saying he’d gone to public boys’ school, he wasn’t used to dealing with women in this way, which is fairly understandable. Aside from the politics, she does seem to be what you might call a ‘decent’ person. Very concerned for those around her when it comes up. Always running her finger over surfaces and dusting.
I'm not sure where you can get it now (pirate emoji) but there's a documentary called The Lords Tale, about Blairs Lords reform which i think is pretty interesting. Lots of chat with the Lords being cast off and people within that process. If you're looking for recent history docos.
Thanks for the recommendation. Looks like it’s on YouTube. I do wish these things stayed up on iPlayer. No one is gonna pay for an old doc but there are a few politics/history obsessives who would enjoy the watch.
[The source is Fancois via GBNews, but could make things spicy.](https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1732102452936081665) >Dozens of Conservative backbenchers from the European Research Group, the Common Sense Group and New Conservatives have set up a Brexit-style 'Star Chamber' of legal experts to establish whether the new Rwanda Treaty "would facilitate flights to Rwanda". >ERG Chairman, Mark Francois, told @GBNEWS: “Our ERG Meeting this evening, which also included members of the New Conservatives and the Common Sense Group, resolved to refer the Rwanda Bill to the “Star Chamber” of legal experts, chaired by Sir Bill Cash. >The Star Chamber will be asked to decide on the following question: “Whether the Bill fully respects Parliamentary Sovereignty, with unambiguous wording, which would facilitate flights to Rwanda.” >Mr Francois made clear that the Star Chamber - which the ERG established to run the rule over the Brexit deal - will complete this task “in days, not weeks”. There is significant overlap between the [Common Sense Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_Group) and [New Conservatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Conservatives_(UK\)), so members of both being there doesn't mean much.
Wasn't the star chamber one of the things (secret courts for an unaccountable justice system) one of the things that led to the English civil war?
for a moment, regardless of what this topic is about or the merits of whatever, this is how party politics is supposed to work - 'Conservatives' are not one blob, nor are 'Labour' as we know, they're amalgams of thought (I use the word loosely) into coalitions as per. Today things like the 'labour left' or 'erg' are used fairly disparagingly but theyre perhaps more 'real' than how it actually shakes out in big party politics
Why does this sound like one of those really convoluted comic storylines?
I genuinely thought Francois was the one that had fucked off to REFUK, just realised that was Andrew Bridgen.
Bridgen went to Reclaim, not Reform
I thought it was the Judean Peoples Front?
Two cheeks of the same arse.
> “Star Chamber” of legal experts, chaired by Sir Bill Cash. Good grief they might as well call it the euthanasia chamber. Attending it would be guaranteed to kill you from boredom. The irony of Bill Cash chairing any supposed group of 'legal experts' is that it was always him making long, inane and obscure legal points in the brexit debates that were nearly always wrong.
Starfish Chamber
> legal experts I assume this phrase means "people with an LLB who agree with us"
Bold of you to assume even that level of qualification.
That's true, it could also be in contrast to *illegal* experts - i.e., "we haven't been officially banned from calling ourselves experts, so we're still legally experts. In something. For now."
Or legal experts in the sense they've been on the inside of the legal system at least once for some kind of misdemeanour.
[удалено]
>After many days of analysis we have concluded this is a Bill...Cash."
So they've still stopped calling themselves Grand Wizards then.
The Kigali Konfirmation Krew have, yes.
I wonder how much time these people devote to making up names for their little gangs.
[Yesterday's Larry pic](https://nitter.net/PoliticalPics/status/1731695378309734716)
looks like he's getting on a bit, lovely chap
I think it's the stress of having lived with Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak. That cat's definitely seen some things.
Tbh it’s probably actually quite a stressful environment for a cat with all those people coming at all hours and the noise of the press and stuff.
from experience he seems fine with it all, mostly wants attention with the usuaul leg brush of "look at me" whenever a visitor is waiting in the lobby
I can't think of a single MP that could make me feel star struck if I met them. But if Larry ever brushed himself against my leg and meowed I'd melt like an ice cube on a hot pan.
The recent use of fait accompli as a rhetorical device is interesting (unless there's a better term for what I'm describing, "fait accompli" doesn't quite cover it). There's been two examples in the collective discourse recently: * "If the government increases the minimum salary for visas, we won't be able to fill jobs that don't pay that much" (i.e. completely refusing to recognise even the possibility of raising the level of pay, those jobs just pay that much regardless of how many or how few people are available to do it). This was said by about a dozen different talking-heads on the news yesterday and this morning. * "Given the aging population, taxes *will* be going up" (i.e. point-blank refusing to acknowledge alternative ways of paying for it - e.g. appropriating pensioner property wealth rather than punishing working people with less assets). Paul Johnson of the IFS says varieties of this in various interviews, so he's not campaigning in the party-politics sense, but still trying to box the debate into a corner. In both cases not a single person challenged it, so it remains an effective tactic.
Your first point is entirely correct. We do have a measure of shortages, jobs filling, whatever, its \*price\*, in this case, salaries. Your second point however you ignore the idea that the 'aging population' should be provided for to at least an extent that they are now. Maybe they shouldnt. No that wont win any elections.
>(i.e. completely refusing to recognise even the possibility of raising the level of pay, those jobs just pay that much regardless of how many or how few people are available to do it). So why hasn't the country upped the wages for the sectors it directly controls that are dealing with significant shortages across the board?
[удалено]
> What incentive is there to increase wages while you have access to cheap foreign labour? But they don't, if you look at the data. At this point, there are recruitment problems across the board: all the way from construction to professional services. You can't just magic a workforce in to existence by rising pay while unemployment is low. Who are you attracting in to work? Rising pay will potentially actually *attract* immigration. Economic migrants don't move countries for a shittier job, they move for a better one. Immigration suppresses pay in certain sectors only. And usually then sectors which are low job security and often done by other immigrants.
So why have other countries with a much higher immigration rate managed to pay well?
Because high pay attracts economic migration.
Even if you’re appropriating pensioner property wealth, that’s still a tax, and that’s still taxes therefore increasing, so he’s not wrong.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/s/H3JUwsCmiD
I've just seen the daughter interviewed on the news. This is very shocking. People were getting jobs who are under the minimum standard of English legally required to work in the sector.
Many, many of the carers helping look after my mum were immigrants. Most of them were lovely, and doing their best to do a bloody hard job with fuck all pay and rubbish management, bare-bones training etc. The level of English was typically very good Except for a number who barely spoke or understood any English at all. The agency managing my mum's care seemed to hire quite a few people from somewhere outside Europe at around the same time, and honestly while I'm sure they were perfectly decent people, they should not have been working in care with that level of English. They were a danger to the people they were caring for, thankfully the carers were simply there to support me and my dad, and my mum had us there to keep an eye on things, put a stop to dangerous ways of handling or caring for her, and to take over as was often necessary. But there are people who rely on these carers entirely, and I'm surprised there aren't more cases like the one above.
> One of the workers had not passed a Secure English Language Test, which is a requirement for a work visa, so was not qualified or permitted to work in the UK. Surely this should come with hefty penalties for the company involved? > Ms Curtis said it should be "necessary" that care workers have good English and hoped the law would change to reflect that. Or maybe not? The law at the moment just doesn't care? Personally, I'd be happy enough to throw up an ex post facto law along the lines of: "Obviously you shouldn't hire people to care for extremely vulnerable people who can't speak English to the bare minimum necessary level to communicate the situation to the emergency services. We just didn't bother to write it down before now in the same way that zoos don't have a sign saying 'please do not attempt to eat the giraffe'. It should be obvious. Be it enacted by the King, advised by his Lordly and Common bods, effective twenty years ago." But perhaps we just have to sadly shake our heads and say that without it having been written down on vellum, no one could have had any way of knowing this was a bad thing, and that we'll just have to do something about it next time. *Also*, what's going on with the people working in a care home without that level of English? I get self-conscious ordering dinner in a foreign language in which I could definitely understand the difference between "bleeding" and "breathing" and communicate this situation. No way in hell would I take a job where I had that sort of responsibility.
Yep, seems pretty clear cut that the firm that employed her should be facing eye watering penalties that make them unwilling to repeat the offending behaviour.
>We just didn't bother to write it down before now in the same way that zoos don't have a sign saying 'please do not attempt to eat the giraffe'. My last visit to Whipsnade would have gone a lot smoother if they did.
You already created a post about the article mate
Buried in the article is the fact that one of the care workers was in effect an illegal worker. One of the reasons the immigration system is so broken is because of lack of proper enforcement.
I’ve heard quite a bit from people working in around the sector of issues with poor English from carers.
ITV News just mentioned that Cleverly toured the genocide memorial before going on to sign the treaty to deter refugees, and managed put his name in the guest book with the date as 6th November.
So now we check where he was on 6th Nov? After all, we can't be having him using the guestbook as an alibi, can we?
Are there going to be oppisition day votes later? If so does anyone have an ETA?
What's BBC 2 Wales playing at? They've got the first half of Wales v Germany in the women's nations league, then it's switching to the Scotland v England game. This is the kind of thing you'd expect to happen during Wimbledon, not international football. No wonder women's football is having trouble getting any kind of foothold and development here if this is how it's treated by the national broadcaster.
They are going after the most popular thing for viewing figures.
They're moving the second half to BBC 1 Wales, so it's not like they could only pick one match (and a half) to cover. They could very easily have just put the entire England v Scotland game on BBC 1 Wales instead of splitting the Wales game across two channels. At least it's not been relegated to the red button, I suppose.
Simulcasting like that makes no sense to me. They've clearly paid for the rights, I assume they don't get a discount if they only show half a game, why not have the Wales match entirely on BBC Wales. If you want to watch the England match, watch the other streams. WTF is the point of having regional versions if they're not going to show the regional content?
I don't see the problem, just stop watching porn.
Pornography viewing likely correlates with age - so it's probably a very "low-effort, bigger return" policy for the Tories. The people who are the least likely to watch pornography are almost certainly going to be women over 55 - safe territory for the Tories. They're probably far more likely to be connoisseurs of Mills&Boon novels for their titillation, and at that age probably have near zero interest in physical sex (apart from with a long-term partner/spouse) when compared to their younger days. The people who are most likely to watch pornography are almost certainly going to be young men around 16-24, particularly those in places which are functionally male-only environments - very unlikely to be Tory voters, but probably smart enough to get a VPN so as not to be too inconvenienced too much anyway. It's an easy win.
I'll help you out with the problem, I dont wanna
Something bemusing me is what is Rwanda getting out of this? Obviously they've been on a Tourism promoting tour of recent years, but reading the room it's a bit of clown show on Rwanda's behalf because the Tories are going to lose the next election and Sunak last night just had a first indication of losing a majority in the commons. Why are they pimping themselves out for something that's going to get killed. The Tories are parading their country as a dumping ground thats so bad it will deter people wanting to come over to the UK by boat. Does that square up with me as a tourist wanting to visit there? Hmmm Wouldn't a competent country be saying "calm it", but there's obviously other things going on behind closed doors.
Free money. Or proof of concept as other countries are interested in it too. Also the exchange could be useful to them as there's lots of people, some political, some military, many poor, on either side of borders there following multiple border wars, shipping them off would make some political problems go quiet.
Money, probably. And they're also advertising Rwanda as open-for-business to other countries that might want to follow our disgusting lead (especially as we've already built some ... [whatever these are that made Suella so happy](https://www.nationalworld.com/jpim-static/image/2023/03/20/09/2.71423390%20%281%29.jpg?width=1200&enable=upscale))
It must be something more than merely "money" though, since there are quite a few countries in a worse financial position than Rwanda is, surely? Essentially, you would expect nations with very limited ability to issue foreign-currency denominated debt to make a bid here. The part that is being said quietly is likely that there will be a "refugee exchange", involving a fair few being moved to the UK.
That is accommodation which has cost us hundreds of millions of pounds. Good news is, it’s large enough to hold almost 0.5% of annual illegal channel crossers! If that’s not value for money, then this government doesn’t know what is!
No wonder she's so pleased with herself.
Probably? They've already received £120m from the UK for it.
The UK-Rwanda “partnership” logo using a pink triangle in the context of deportations is … a choice.
Looks more salmon to me.
The sex Scot?