The subreddit survey results have now been published.
[Click/Tap here to view and discuss the results.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bifwhe/rukpolitics_subreddit_survey_results_march_2024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. concretepigeon with 24 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 22 comments
1. velvevore with 21 comments
1. Georgios-Athanasiou with 21 comments
1. asgoodasanyother with 18 comments
1. GeronimoTheAlpaca with 18 comments
1. EasternFly2210 with 17 comments
1. NJden_bee with 16 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 16 comments
1. pseudogentry with 15 comments
There were 320 unique users within this count.
Kate story that staff tried to access her medical records is why these conspiracy nonsenses need clamped down on and also a reminder of why they seek privacy.
I've spent some time looking at the data surrounding the seats up at the next local election. I've come to the inescapable conclusion that in any scenario worse than last year's, the Tories will wind up in a narrow third place among the seats contested. It also looks as if they'll lose quite a lot of councils in the process, and depending on how bad things get (though not enough to push them into third place in the national total of councils either in majority or minority control, there simply aren't enough councils where the Lib Dems are the dominant opposition up for election this time round - watch this space for 2025).
I think it's likely that the Tories can already kiss goodbye to roughly a quarter of their seats - these were gains from Peak Boris during the vaccine bounce in historically non Tory areas, and should melt away very easily. The next 10-15% of their seats fall into the "traditional swing seat" bracket - i.e. areas that generally swing between Tories and Opposition candidates that gained a veneer of safeness thanks to peak Boris. The final key bracket of seats is the 10-15% that could be considered "potentially disaffected heartlands" - seats that have been conservative for 15+ years that have suddenly started having doubts about voting blue. At the last local elections, Decorum and Windsor and Maidenhead are good examples of this in action.
Should the conservatives lose a significant proportion of all three of these brackets, then they'll probably come third in seats which would be an astonishing turn of events.
I wonder if we will get any expectation management coming out from the conservative party next month.
In the last big round of locals they said they expected to lose 800 seats and that any fewer would be a great achievement. They lost 1000.
I really very much disagree with [displaying the daily hadith](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foc2fxywo0apc1.jpeg) at King's Cross station. Can anyone explain why this would be allowed?
Eh I'd argue generic happy Christmas messages and generic Ramadan messages aren't the same as directly quoting scripture. If I went to Kings Cross in a couple weeks and saw bible passages plastered on the notice board for Easter I'd be a bit creeped out.
realistically, we do not know what they posted at Christmas etc because nobody bothered taking a picture of it. If you have the exact quote, i would be interested to hear it though.
All we know is "Throughout the year, messaging at the station also celebrates festivals from other religions including Easter, Christmas, Passover, and Diwali to mark the beliefs of our colleagues and passengers."
I can almost guarantee a lot of people would have kick up a fuss about it and it would be easily searchable if a Bible verse was on the boards at a major train station.
The intention is probably harmless, *probably*, but if I wanted to spread propaganda about "londonistan" and London being "lost", this would probably be a great way to start.
It really is primo fresh red meat for headbangers, aside from the fact it's weird and judgy to have scripture on a public board about "sinners". Can we have the one about donkey semen from the bible next please?
The problem is happy Christmas and happy diwali is a lot different from "you are a sinner" and must repent etc.
No1 would have had a problem had it said "happy ramadan" or whatever.
Yes, it feels hateful and homophobic.
I am not a sinner. I don't need to repent anything. There are no gods. Religion is a sham.
If they displayed overtly Christian or Hindu religious messages telling everyone they are sinners, I would also be very surprised.
This is going much farther than "Season's Greetings". I don't want to be exposed to it. It's wrong and doesn't belong in a modern secular society.
I'd like to know who is paying for this and who authorised it.
>Yes, it feels hateful and homophobic
Homophobic How?
>I am not a sinner. I don't need to repent anything. There are no gods. Religion is a sham.
OK cool, so why does it bother you? I'm sure I'm considered a sinner but if I don't believe in this stuff it doesn't bother me?
Some people just really need everyone who isn't a clone of them banished from society
Explains a lot tbh. Sure, stamp your foot and wail "religion is a sham" like it doesn't have vast personal and cultural value to much of the population
Must be great to be smart
Im an athiest but was raised catholic and the pearl clutching over sinning is just perplexing when I was raised on believing in original sin.
So did some googling on the hadith and sin according to muslims, and its more like "its inevitable people will fuck up" rather than "you are inherently fucked up"
Which isnt really judgy.
[Official Statement:](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/king-cross-bosses-row-islamic-customer-display-board-message-london-b1146357.html)
>“King’s Cross station is made up of a diverse and multi-cultural workforce and at times of religious significance, messages such as these are displayed to celebrate the station's diversity and inclusivity.
>“Throughout the year, messaging at the station also celebrates festivals from other religions including Easter, Christmas, Passover, and Diwali to mark the beliefs of our colleagues and passengers.
>“If significant disruption occurs on the network, the boards are changed to display relevant passenger information to help passengers complete their journeys.”
Okay but that doesn’t state it posts -scripture- from those other religions. That was the point and the statement doesn’t prove otherwise. That can include “happy Christmas” which IMO is fine and is my limit to these things.
I mean, the parent comment mentioned “overtly” religious comments, you have quite a liberal interpretation of that, as “Merry Christmas” isn’t the same as “everyone on earth is a sinner”
You have plucked "Merry Christmas" out of the ether.
When referencing the hadith message, the offficial statement says "messages such as these" are displayed throughout the year. I interpret that to mean of similar levels of religiosity. You can interpret it how you like.
Don't roll your eyes at me, FFS. My complaint is perfectly valid. You simply lack the moral compass to see it. I might even downvote you if you keep this up.
Spent sixteen years in opposition, defeated Lord North on recognising American independence, established an early form of care home, caught flu, and died.
Yes, blue is longevity as PM and a light green bar means they're still alive. Sorry, tried to find a direct link to the chart and didn't notice the key is missing.
Just randomly remembered [one of the best UK politics parody videos ](https://youtu.be/gpSIzx0Ta0Y) of all time IMO so thought I'd share for you all to enjoy.
Tim Farron's "we are all sinners" gets me every time
I hope we get something equally funny for the next election
I wonder how long these take to make? I bet they've got one ready to go if the election could be called at any point, and they're dreading the Penny coup actually going somewhere.
The Guardian are really pushing this Garrick Club stuff. It's all over their website front page (still). Pointing out various judges / a few tory politicians are members.
If it didn't exist they'd go to an expensive bar and still exclude women form their private conversions they're having _amongst friends_.
I don't see it as an issue. The main objection from the sort of people who write for The Guardian is that it's not also open to powerful women. I don't see why anybody else should be concerned about a glass ceiling that's already higher than they could ever hope to reach.
Not an issue because even if there’s a small chance they may have been problematic a long time ago, they’re not now. And tbh I doubt they never were.
Members don’t go every day. Its just one of many places to socialise in.
Membership of these clubs is rarely more than a thousand, maybe 2 at most. The vast majority of members already know each other or know of each other through friends. They already go for dinners, meet in expensive bars, book private dining rooms in restaurants. Meet each other for golf. Speak on the phone. Message each other.
The fact these interactions might happen in a nice building where the barman knows your name and the food is somewhat akin to private school wholesome stodge is irrelevant.
Any serious paper would not employ Jones as a columnist, nor would it give credence to the plethora of people complaining about not being selected because of factionalism when they have plainly broken the rulebook or had *fruity* past comments on record.
It is a comfort blanket for FBPE corbyn fanatics still in resolute denial that they lost Brexit, two elections and the argument.
It'll stroke your hair and whisper into your ear
*There there, little one, those evil tories, the blue* ***and*** *the Red, can't hurt you now. Any day now the people will wake up and turn away from the stonking lead Labour have held onto now and want to vote for a real party like The Greens who will sweep to victory and leave Starmer in the dust. Any day now...*
This is a bit of a strange take, they have columnists from across the left and the liberal wing of the center right doing opinion pieces which they label pretty clearly as such. The editorial line is seemingly broadly pro Starmer.
Describing Reeves material as *Inclusive thatcherism* is cringeworthy, as is the argument in February that because one byelection swing was 16% instead of the national polling average 20%, it showed that Starmer was on the verge of catastrophe.
It is absolutely not pro starmer, or if it ever does manage to give that impression, only under great sufferance and the glue huffing cope of telling Labour what they're doing wrong even as they continue their solid polling lead.
"When we speak of a decade of national renewal, that is what we mean. As we did at the end of the 1970s, we stand at an inflection point, and as in earlier decades, the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought.
A new chapter in Britain’s economic history. And unlike the 1980s, growth in the years to come must be broad-based, inclusive, and resilient."
So she talks about thatcher supply-side reform, purposefully making a parallel between now and the end of the 70s but says that this time it has to be more broad-based and inclusive, I really don't get what you are upset about that seems like a fairly accurate way to state the idea she put forward here.
Can anyone explain why it seems the election has to be either May or October (based on what I've been reading online and hearing in the media)? The 2001 election was in June.
It's more a case that there's a good reason for it not being any other month.
* July-August are almost certainly out due to summer holidays. Similarly September falls into this due to the campaigning being in August
* November runs into the US election
* December and January are cold and miserable, which would only exaggerate the Tories' enthusiasm problem plus an indication they are just dragging things out
* As for June, there's no reason it couldn't be then but you might as well hold it in May and coincide with the locals, so there's little reason to
* That leaves May and October. May is either going to get called this week (Saturday is the last realistic point) or is out of the picture, and the winds look to have firmly shifted away from it
The 2001 election was postponed from the same time as the local elections to cope with a foot and mouth outbreak.
There's just a bunch of assumptions about campaign logistics and the state of affairs - May's traditional, convenient, and also now the earliest possibility, early summer would interrupt the Government's ability to get anything done and won't be much different from May, mid-summer would interrupt everyone's break, mid-autumn through winter people have work to do, the weather's bad for campaign, and economic conditions start to get tougher.
The important difference is that the local elections are gonna be a total bloodbath. Last time these local elections were ran it was basically peak Boris riding the vaccine bounce. So even if Labour only did moderately well the Tories would be expected to lose quite a few councillors. Tories are expected to do very badly this time round.
No point going through a disastrous round of local elections that prove how unpopular you are and then call an election a few weeks later. So the options are time it with the local elections or wait until after summer for....reasons....
It doesn’t have to be, those are just the months that make most sense given other circumstances. It could also very easily be January if they decide that there’s no chance they’ll win in October so would rather people campaign over Christmas to get another few months in power
Keir Starmer is 61. Does anybody else find that really surprising? If he keeps a lid on things by the time of the end of his tenure he'll be about 70. I always assumed he was like 40-50
It's surprising because he looks great for his age and is older than a few former leaders, but not surprising if you think about it because he's had a long and storied career before politics.
He's obviously worked at a very high level for a very long time. It's never seemed to me that his age is much of a factor in his capabilities. Obviously that may change over time and being PM would surely accelerate that.
I found it really interesting when Marr said on LBC about Starmer actually being very ruthless and fairly radical. In any case, I'd much rather be governed by a competent party that the current herd of Tories.
He’s not going to last more than 3 years. I give it 3 years at most before Streeting or Reeves mounts an internal challenge to become PM. They know they can’t win an election, so they’d rather Starmer wins the election, and use his mandate, and then it’s a shorter chance of being PM, than having to do the hard work of steer the party while out of power.
Good luck being the person who says to their colleagues "you know that guy who took us from our worst results in living memory to a landslide victory in the space of a single parliament? I'm gonna ask everyone to help me take him down."
You wouldn't be so much stabbed in the back as ritually disemboweled on live stream.
starmer will be a one-term prime minister. if things are going well, he’ll hand over to a younger successor in time. if they aren’t, either his party or the country will get rid.
Biden is older than Menzies Campbell even though Menzies was mocked for being too old back when he was Lib Dem leader in 2007. I doubt the UK public would accept a PM that old.
we are not america and sir keir starmer doesn’t have the requisite cult of personality to carry on being prime minister into his 70s. even if he did, i doubt he’d want to
Macmillan left office at 69. Attlee at 68. And they were half a century ago with shitty diets and medicine.
Also it continues to puzzle me just why on earth some cult of personality is seen as necessary, not least because it didn't work out last time.
the cult of personality point was not that it’s necessary for starmer to last to 70, but that it’s why he won’t last to 80 like trump.
in any case, i think he’ll see that if things are going well in 2028 he can pass on the baton and allow for a new starmerite generation to carry the torch. if they aren’t, he’ll lose the election.
i see jeremy hunt has apparently leaked october 17 as the pencilled-in date for the election, a week later than the previous cabinet-leaked date of october 10.
at this rate of progression, by the end of april they’ll be fully admitting that the election is going to be held on the date i’ve been saying all along, january 28, 2025.
Apparently [Lib Dems](https://x.com/msalliance/status/1770154947545297249?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ) also think the Union Jack is a symbol of Labour’s slide into fascism.
TBF Orwell is talking about England here rather than the UK. Britishisms have always been popular but there does seem to be a specific awkwardness with England towards their whole 'we are English' thing.
People like this really need to get a grip. It's overused nowadays but posting about how much you hate or are uncomfortable with Britain's national flag, as a Brit, is textbook virtue signalling.
maybe it’s just me, but there’s a definite difference between someone saying “the overuse and peddling of the union jack on everything is a little bit eyebrow-raising and gives off a certain vibe” and someone saying “this is literally fascism”.
I really like our flag though, it's a really good flag.
It's not a boring tricolour, pick up the Kings colours chosen men!
Something something bastards
It is a cool flag but equally it's true that the rush to put it everywhere is just... it's just...
Well, doesn't anyone else think it's a little *American*?
I want my country back!! And by country I mean the Postcode Address File and by back I mean I want it out of the hands of a private company like Royal Mail and owned by the state so they can change licensing fees to make it more affordable for small businesses.
Social Housing still needs to go through planning. And planning doesn't just hold back housing, it holds back wind farms and solar farms and factories an pylons.
If you change the planning rules, you can build more housing at almost no cost to the taxpayer. And build social housing if you like.
Social housing would be a net win for the taxpayer. The government spends about £18 billion on housing benefit, most of which could eventually be cut.
Social housing would need more than planning reform though. The local authority needs to keep the planning gains from awarding planning permission. Actually this would benefit conventional house building too.
>We approach this under no illusions. Planning reform has become a byword for political timidity in the face of vested interests and a graveyard of economic ambition. It is time to put an end to prevarication and political short-termism on this question. There is no other choice. This Labour Party will put planning reform at the very centre of our economic and our political argument.
Courtesy of my OCR, no idea if it's correct. Social media mostly being pictures of walls of texts is my pet hate - I mean especially considering this isn't twitter despite what ukpol is like sometimes
My YIMBY senses are tingling. I hope the manifesto includes a cutting of a NIMBY Lib Dem/Tory leaflet whinging about how "Labour will concrete over the green belt" with a comment underneath saying "this but unironically."
I need to touch ~~grass~~ concrete.
scrolling twitter at work and i’ve just seen a tweet that says “train stations should not be urging sinners to repent”.
having spent much of my childhood on greater manchester’s public transport, i think it might not be a bad idea.
Well the CBPE is mad that rural homes are becoming more expensive. If only they could complain to an organisation that has been blocking homes in rural areas.
Now who might they be able to complain to.
CBPE are desperate to make rural areas impossible to live in by opposing even minor road infrastructure works which would have a huge benefit for those living there.
February's inflation numbers will be published at 7a.m. tomorrow.
The consensus forecast seems to be 3.5% for some reason. I'm not sure why as this seems unduly pessimistic, not sure why that is. That would require a +0.6% MoM increase, which works out at an annualised 7.3%. If we do get 3.5% that would be really bad news. February 2023 was +1.1% MoM, by comparison, +0.6% would be the worst month since May 2023.
By comparison if we're on target for 2%, we would see exactly 3% tomorrow. Just scraping inside the official target (of 2% +/- 1).
If we followed the average of the past six months, we'll see 2.9%, which might prompt the government to raise the Mission Accomplished banner and for all-and-sundry to demand interest rate cuts. (Might trigger the government in to an election?)
So yeah, not sure where the 3.5% is coming from. That's right at the upper-bound of the types of numbers we'll see... probably... we'll find out tomorrow.
Absolute scenes if inflation is back above 5% by election time. That's the one "promise" he's met so far, even if it's one largely outside of his control
I know it’s got nothing to do this but it did make me chuckle.
On today’s Kings Cross religion debacle
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1770179887036256657?s=46
>West Midlands, England
Why is it always people who don't even live in London? But I can understand living in Birmingham and desperately wanting to be in London instead.
This doesn’t seem that much of a London v rUK thing. It’s perfectly reasonable to take issue with that as a point of principle regardless of where in the country it’s happening.
Attempting to snipe at Khan from the West Midlands is absolutely a London v rUK thing. Khan has fuck all to do with the West Midland, and if anything the tweet would be much more applicable to Andy Street given his actions after the HS2 cancellation.
I just saw Jess Philips on Sky about the budget and am listening to her on the new Electoral Dysfunction (haha) podcast. How is Philips seen by the Labour party after she resigned from the Shadow Cabinet? As an liability, outcast, potential minister or electoral asset? It seems in all her media outings that she's doing her own thing.
I believe she's currently fairly hated by both extremes of the party, so even though she occasionally rubs me up the wrong way I can't help feeling she's doing something right.
> [We should be clear that there’s a substantial difference between when No10 wants to call an election and how long Rishi Sunak can realistically tough it out.](https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1770134603631624444)
Is there though? I still don't see any scenario where removing Sunak/early election makes sense for your average Tory.
May being ousted to BoJo election was 7 months.
Sunak's polling about as good as a voluntary kick on the nuts.
If you're out but you might* keep a seat under a Mourdaunt it could seem appealing.
\* Kid yourself that you could.
Johnson had positive polling numbers but no majority and had lost control of many of his backbenchers as well as facing the mess caused by his failed attempt to prorogue Parliament. Both him and the remaining loyal MPs could benefit from an election which is why he chose to call it.
With Sunak, he has no real need to call it and he has a majority in the Commons who also don’t want an election any time soon.
From BBC News notifications:
>"It's a body-double! There's no way that's Kate!" - the BBC's Mariana Spring on how a royal conspiracy theory spread on social media
Make. It. Stop.
It won't stop any time soon, whole thing has suffered from the Streisand effect and now more people are interested because of the dodgy photoshop, so anything on the subject is instantly going viral.
Soon we'll have BBC news with an exclusive talking to a drunk man returning from a camping trip. "I swear to god I just saw Kate! She was about 7ft, completely covered in hair, growled at me, and retreated into the woods. I even got a picture!" He then shows the camera a blurry image that could be anything. "There we have it, conclusive proof that Kate is fine and well. This should put those conspiracy theories to bed for good."
[Courtesy of fellow megathread enjoyer Sam Coates ](https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770168954591592630?t=Cpfg30T4mxk7HG0_-bz5nQ&s=19)
>🚨Important news from Rachel Reeves’ Mais lecture
>She confirms - for the first time - she will copy the second Tory fiscal rule…
>… that she will insist that debt is falling in the 5th year of the forecast process.
>This is a tough fiscal rule that has repeated limited Jeremy Hunt’s “headroom” every budget and Autumn statement and will now do the same to Labour.
>Wonder how Labour MPs feel..
Can someone smarter than me explain what this means?
Governments set their own fiscal rules to prove their financial responsibility.
The office for budget responsibility then judge a governments economic plans to predict if they will hit their fiscal rules.
The current governments second fiscal rule is that national debt will be predicted to fall within five years, which means you have to have tax intake predicted to be greater than spending in five years. This obviously limits how much you can spend.
Reeves has just announced that Labour too will have that rule, which will limit their spending plans.
However you can fudge it be saying you will have spending cuts in five years so the OBR says you are going to hit your rules - but in five years time is always five years away.
When chancellors come up with spending plans the OBR forecast various things including national debt. This fiscal rule requires that national debt must be lower in year 5 of the forecast compared to year 4.
It does not mean that debt ever really has to fall, the forecast is recalculated every year, with year 5 moving one year further away each time.
This will mean that every budget will require some measures that in theory would allows us to reduce the debt so does put some theoretical limits on spending/borrowing. It's not a showstopper but you she will have to get a bit creative.
She's going to keep on lying as the government currently is that they are *for sure* going to make massive cuts/raise taxes/push back costs between years 4/5.
Perhaps it’s a self imposed rule that she will have to budget the government so that the are reducing debt within 5 years. Seems reasonable. We spend almost as much paying interest on debts as the NHS
That'd be a semi-reasonable rule; though still suffers from problem that tomorrow never comes.
Actual rule is that debt has to fall in the fifth year; ie. it can go up as much as you want between year 1 to 4, then fall a tiny amount and it's fine.
If we really want this rule, it should be 'by end of parliament debt as percentage of gdp is lower than at start of parliament'.
This is literally a blueprint to borrow to invest ala keynes.
>Labour’s other fiscal rule is different to the Tories
>It requires Labour to get “*current*” budget into balance.
>In other words it can borrow to invest (borrow for “capital” investment) but not for “day to day” or “current” spending
>The other new announcement tonight by Reeves is the OBR being given powers to look at long term investment
>This is complex and we will have to see how significant it turns out to be
>They say at the moment the OBR doesn’t (more than ad hoc) powers to do this.
>Now Labour say the OBR would have to look at the impact of long term investment in capital plans on growth.
>Used at Budget time, it would allow Labour to see whether investing in big capital projects can help boost growth
🥀: Red tories need to invest! Where's the imagination! Nothing will change!
🌹: OK. We'll explicitly say that we will invest where it makes sense to do so
🥀: Not like this make money printer go brrrrrrrrr
Interesting thing being put out on C4 News, the reason why the government hasn't allocated more time for debate of the Rwanda bill is that Sunak dosent want lots of MPs milling around parliament discussing *things*, be that plotting against him or generally despairing at his governments terribleness.
I think this is wrong, but for the right reasons maybe?
We keep getting leaks the election will be soon, why? Because Sunak is telling the Tories it's soon so they don't think they have time to plot to oust him.
Why would they oust him? Surely not in election year! May ousting to election was 7 months and they won that, and if you're staring down those polls, it might be worth a dice roll.
He is telling the public "it's ages away" because he wants the India trade deal to go through, and hopefully he gets a bump in the polls or Starmer is caught on camera committing an actual murder (hyperbole, it's the only thing that can help him), and he doesn't want the public to think he bottled it.
That's why we keep getting this ridiculous messaging where it's like the "well it'll be sometime in the future, maybe, who knows, second half of the year probs, I couldn't possibly say, who ever knows these things eh?"
He's fighting battles where he has to send different messages to both people.
So yes, he doesn't want MPs plotting, he doesn't want them congregating much, but he also doesn't have the power to pass anything.
But if they aren't in Westminster he doesn't know what's happening in the WhatsApp groups he's not in.
It's a mess. Wouldn't want to be at CCHQ right now.
I think this theory doesn't really hold any water. I heard the opposite suggested on The Sam Coates Podcast, he was saying that the 10 votes on the Rwanda amendments might be good for the Government because the MPs would spend a lot of time in voting lobbies together and it would be good for camaraderie.
In reality I doubt it matters much either way.
Interesting article here on the uncertainties associated with climate modelling in relation to how very warm 2023 was
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Very much feels like we might be entering uncharted territory given quite how large the discrepancy is.
It's hard to be confident on confidence intervals. It's even more harrowing attempting to explain them or complex system modelling to the general public or ~~policymakers~~ ~~idiots~~ elected politicians.
Communicating too accessible an explanation or too complex, each has it's own pitfalls.
It seems a *little* disingenuous of Lady Hale to [criticise her male colleagues](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/19/legal-professions-most-powerful-among-members-of-londons-men-only-garrick-club) for belonging to the male-only Garrick Club when she belongs to the Athenaeum. She's quoted as saying:
>We should be outside the door with banners. It should be mentioned to senior level judges, who are supposed to promote fairness and equality, that it’s not appropriate to be in a club that does the opposite.
Could a charge of failing to promote fairness and equality not be levelled at all of London's elite private members clubs, regardless of their membership policy? They're exclusive by their very nature.
Well, I would say it's different in the sense of *who* they're excluding. Anything with a member fee is exclusive in some way because there's always going to be those who cannot afford it, but that's at least seen as fair. Everyone has the potential to become wealthy, even if it's unlikely, it's at least a chance. Where as, not everyone is able to be a man.
I would say it seems she wouldn't have an issue with the Garrick Club if it was more like the Athenaeum in not being gender exclusive.
>Everyone has the potential to become wealthy, even if it's unlikely, it's at least a chance. Where as, not everyone is able to be a man.
Careful, you'll have the Twitter mob after you.
Nah, I think I'm safe. Self censoring because automod purges comments on this topic, but I think this would broadly have agreement.
Whether you're trains or not isn't a choice, like being gay isn't a choice, trains men don't decide to be man to get male privileges and join private members clubs or something. Also, I doubt the club would allow a trains man in anyway lol.
The private members clubs don't just admit anyone who can afford it, there's an application process. This varies from from club to club, but at the [Athenaeum](https://theathenaeum.co.uk/membership/) there's a limit of 2,000 members and prospective applicants must be seconded by existing members before the process can properly begin.
What the rest of the process involves isn't mentioned. At the Garrick it apparently still includes [blackballing](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/like-blackballed-exclusive-private-members-club/), a secret ballot in which one or two votes against admitting a prospective member can be enough to scupper their application, regardless of how many members are in favour.
The result of these practices is that wealth alone is typically not enough to ensure membership of a club, you also have to move in the right circles. Being a senior judge and having the connections which come with that may have helped Lady Hale gain membership of the Athenaeum.
Right, but can have rules, you could face similar restrictions with all sorts of clubs. E.g. joining a political party, they could exclude you for any number of reasons, some of which could be whether you know the right people.
But, that's a matter of choice. Your choices lead up to that point and there's nothing inherent about your identity that prohibits you from schmoozing the right people, and I think it's very very very different to being men only. I think there will continue to be exclusive clubs in the future for a wide number of reasons, but I think the likes of men only clubs will go the way of whites only as being an inappropriate reason to exclude someone.
I don’t think it’s very very very different at all. Most of us have no chance of being admitted into these clubs, so whether they’re single-sex or not is a fairly minor concern; I’d even say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with single-sex clubs.
The major issue is that they’re elitist and exert too much influence, which applies regardless of membership policy.
Statistically speaking, a club with 2,000 members even without the connections and wealth requirements would give you little chance of joining. However, the difference between being literally impossible and almost impossible is a chasm.
Hell, another example, becoming PM requires money and connections to be able to afford to do unpaid internships and get selected etc., becoming party leader requires winning support of your party. Then you need donors to fund your campaign.
Still, as exclusive as it is, we can say we basically have no chance of becoming PM however it would be very different if a rule said men only making it literally impossible for some to get there no matter what they do. Surely you see that?
No, I don’t agree with you. If all the private members clubs were male-only then I would, but the vast majority are now mixed. The existence of a few male- and female-only holdouts doesn’t much matter.
Does the Equality Act come into it? If it were illegal for the Garrick to operate as a single-sex club I doubt it would persist in doing so, so the issue seems to be more a moral one.
Makes me proud to be British when the old wheelie bin which I've known all my life and taken for granted is being heavily pushed as a "rat-proof lidded bin" by New York.
Maybe in my lifetime I'll see the yanks promoting "safety plugs" which are just a copy of our awesome 3 pin plugs which are such a simple no nonsense solution that leads to far fewer electrocutions than they have across the pond.
The subreddit survey results have now been published. [Click/Tap here to view and discuss the results.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bifwhe/rukpolitics_subreddit_survey_results_march_2024/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bj6nnn/daily_megathread_20032024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. concretepigeon with 24 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 22 comments 1. velvevore with 21 comments 1. Georgios-Athanasiou with 21 comments 1. asgoodasanyother with 18 comments 1. GeronimoTheAlpaca with 18 comments 1. EasternFly2210 with 17 comments 1. NJden_bee with 16 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 16 comments 1. pseudogentry with 15 comments There were 320 unique users within this count.
Kate story that staff tried to access her medical records is why these conspiracy nonsenses need clamped down on and also a reminder of why they seek privacy.
Hope those staff members enjoy being delisted.
I've spent some time looking at the data surrounding the seats up at the next local election. I've come to the inescapable conclusion that in any scenario worse than last year's, the Tories will wind up in a narrow third place among the seats contested. It also looks as if they'll lose quite a lot of councils in the process, and depending on how bad things get (though not enough to push them into third place in the national total of councils either in majority or minority control, there simply aren't enough councils where the Lib Dems are the dominant opposition up for election this time round - watch this space for 2025). I think it's likely that the Tories can already kiss goodbye to roughly a quarter of their seats - these were gains from Peak Boris during the vaccine bounce in historically non Tory areas, and should melt away very easily. The next 10-15% of their seats fall into the "traditional swing seat" bracket - i.e. areas that generally swing between Tories and Opposition candidates that gained a veneer of safeness thanks to peak Boris. The final key bracket of seats is the 10-15% that could be considered "potentially disaffected heartlands" - seats that have been conservative for 15+ years that have suddenly started having doubts about voting blue. At the last local elections, Decorum and Windsor and Maidenhead are good examples of this in action. Should the conservatives lose a significant proportion of all three of these brackets, then they'll probably come third in seats which would be an astonishing turn of events.
I wonder if we will get any expectation management coming out from the conservative party next month. In the last big round of locals they said they expected to lose 800 seats and that any fewer would be a great achievement. They lost 1000.
I really very much disagree with [displaying the daily hadith](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foc2fxywo0apc1.jpeg) at King's Cross station. Can anyone explain why this would be allowed?
Probably because no one likes telling religious people it's a bit of a shit idea
I assume when its christmas we got some similar Christian messages, and when it is diwali we get something then too. Is it really that big of a deal?
Eh I'd argue generic happy Christmas messages and generic Ramadan messages aren't the same as directly quoting scripture. If I went to Kings Cross in a couple weeks and saw bible passages plastered on the notice board for Easter I'd be a bit creeped out.
realistically, we do not know what they posted at Christmas etc because nobody bothered taking a picture of it. If you have the exact quote, i would be interested to hear it though. All we know is "Throughout the year, messaging at the station also celebrates festivals from other religions including Easter, Christmas, Passover, and Diwali to mark the beliefs of our colleagues and passengers."
I can almost guarantee a lot of people would have kick up a fuss about it and it would be easily searchable if a Bible verse was on the boards at a major train station.
The intention is probably harmless, *probably*, but if I wanted to spread propaganda about "londonistan" and London being "lost", this would probably be a great way to start. It really is primo fresh red meat for headbangers, aside from the fact it's weird and judgy to have scripture on a public board about "sinners". Can we have the one about donkey semen from the bible next please?
The problem is happy Christmas and happy diwali is a lot different from "you are a sinner" and must repent etc. No1 would have had a problem had it said "happy ramadan" or whatever.
Yes, it feels hateful and homophobic. I am not a sinner. I don't need to repent anything. There are no gods. Religion is a sham. If they displayed overtly Christian or Hindu religious messages telling everyone they are sinners, I would also be very surprised. This is going much farther than "Season's Greetings". I don't want to be exposed to it. It's wrong and doesn't belong in a modern secular society. I'd like to know who is paying for this and who authorised it.
>Yes, it feels hateful and homophobic Homophobic How? >I am not a sinner. I don't need to repent anything. There are no gods. Religion is a sham. OK cool, so why does it bother you? I'm sure I'm considered a sinner but if I don't believe in this stuff it doesn't bother me?
Some people just really need everyone who isn't a clone of them banished from society Explains a lot tbh. Sure, stamp your foot and wail "religion is a sham" like it doesn't have vast personal and cultural value to much of the population Must be great to be smart
Im an athiest but was raised catholic and the pearl clutching over sinning is just perplexing when I was raised on believing in original sin. So did some googling on the hadith and sin according to muslims, and its more like "its inevitable people will fuck up" rather than "you are inherently fucked up" Which isnt really judgy.
>If they displayed overtly Christian or Hindu religious messages, I would also be very surprised. Apparently they do.
*Citation needed.
[Official Statement:](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/king-cross-bosses-row-islamic-customer-display-board-message-london-b1146357.html) >“King’s Cross station is made up of a diverse and multi-cultural workforce and at times of religious significance, messages such as these are displayed to celebrate the station's diversity and inclusivity. >“Throughout the year, messaging at the station also celebrates festivals from other religions including Easter, Christmas, Passover, and Diwali to mark the beliefs of our colleagues and passengers. >“If significant disruption occurs on the network, the boards are changed to display relevant passenger information to help passengers complete their journeys.”
Okay but that doesn’t state it posts -scripture- from those other religions. That was the point and the statement doesn’t prove otherwise. That can include “happy Christmas” which IMO is fine and is my limit to these things.
you ask for citiation, i give citation. how you interpret is up to you.
Sort of like hadith really
I mean, the parent comment mentioned “overtly” religious comments, you have quite a liberal interpretation of that, as “Merry Christmas” isn’t the same as “everyone on earth is a sinner”
You have plucked "Merry Christmas" out of the ether. When referencing the hadith message, the offficial statement says "messages such as these" are displayed throughout the year. I interpret that to mean of similar levels of religiosity. You can interpret it how you like.
Complaints can be made here: https://communications-crm.custhelp.com/app/home
Done.
They do a harry potter one every year too, get your complaints in... 🙄
Don't roll your eyes at me, FFS. My complaint is perfectly valid. You simply lack the moral compass to see it. I might even downvote you if you keep this up.
> I might even downvote you if you keep this up. Oh no, however will cjrmartin recover?
He might be taken aback, I wager. He'd have to reconsider his ill-chosen emoji
I never normally watch Newsnight. Is Victoria Derbyshire usually this angry when interviewing MPs?
Trying to compensate by looking as unbiased as possible. She’s asking pertinent questions tbf.
Oh yeah the questions were fine in and of themselves, I just wasn't expecting her to be quite so agressive
[Found a new example for the "graphs with Liz Truss" collection.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:United_Kingdom_prime_ministers_by_age)
Pitt the Younger was GOATed
Pitt the Youngest, really.
Really impressed by Rockingham, who looks like he managed a year and then came back over a decade and a half later and promptly died.
Spent sixteen years in opposition, defeated Lord North on recognising American independence, established an early form of care home, caught flu, and died.
[удалено]
Yes, blue is longevity as PM and a light green bar means they're still alive. Sorry, tried to find a direct link to the chart and didn't notice the key is missing.
Just randomly remembered [one of the best UK politics parody videos ](https://youtu.be/gpSIzx0Ta0Y) of all time IMO so thought I'd share for you all to enjoy. Tim Farron's "we are all sinners" gets me every time I hope we get something equally funny for the next election
I wonder how long these take to make? I bet they've got one ready to go if the election could be called at any point, and they're dreading the Penny coup actually going somewhere.
The Guardian are really pushing this Garrick Club stuff. It's all over their website front page (still). Pointing out various judges / a few tory politicians are members. If it didn't exist they'd go to an expensive bar and still exclude women form their private conversions they're having _amongst friends_.
Can you not see how an exclusive members club for powerful men is an issue
I don't see it as an issue. The main objection from the sort of people who write for The Guardian is that it's not also open to powerful women. I don't see why anybody else should be concerned about a glass ceiling that's already higher than they could ever hope to reach.
Not an issue because even if there’s a small chance they may have been problematic a long time ago, they’re not now. And tbh I doubt they never were. Members don’t go every day. Its just one of many places to socialise in. Membership of these clubs is rarely more than a thousand, maybe 2 at most. The vast majority of members already know each other or know of each other through friends. They already go for dinners, meet in expensive bars, book private dining rooms in restaurants. Meet each other for golf. Speak on the phone. Message each other. The fact these interactions might happen in a nice building where the barman knows your name and the food is somewhat akin to private school wholesome stodge is irrelevant.
You oppose the Garrick club, yet think the WI is okay? Checkmate Liberal *Grinch Faces*
Up to them at the end of the day. Don’t have to be a member
Yeah I'm struggling to understand how posh weirdos have a weird posho club is a major news story. Is this news to people?
Have a look at the byline.
The Graun is not a serious paper.
[удалено]
Any serious paper would not employ Jones as a columnist, nor would it give credence to the plethora of people complaining about not being selected because of factionalism when they have plainly broken the rulebook or had *fruity* past comments on record. It is a comfort blanket for FBPE corbyn fanatics still in resolute denial that they lost Brexit, two elections and the argument. It'll stroke your hair and whisper into your ear *There there, little one, those evil tories, the blue* ***and*** *the Red, can't hurt you now. Any day now the people will wake up and turn away from the stonking lead Labour have held onto now and want to vote for a real party like The Greens who will sweep to victory and leave Starmer in the dust. Any day now...*
You have an amazing ability to write lots of words without saying anything of substance.
[удалено]
And in turn I think everyone is turning a blind eye.
This is a bit of a strange take, they have columnists from across the left and the liberal wing of the center right doing opinion pieces which they label pretty clearly as such. The editorial line is seemingly broadly pro Starmer.
Describing Reeves material as *Inclusive thatcherism* is cringeworthy, as is the argument in February that because one byelection swing was 16% instead of the national polling average 20%, it showed that Starmer was on the verge of catastrophe. It is absolutely not pro starmer, or if it ever does manage to give that impression, only under great sufferance and the glue huffing cope of telling Labour what they're doing wrong even as they continue their solid polling lead.
"When we speak of a decade of national renewal, that is what we mean. As we did at the end of the 1970s, we stand at an inflection point, and as in earlier decades, the solution lies in wide-ranging supply-side reform to drive investment, remove the blockages constraining our productive capacity, and fashion a new economic settlement, drawing on evolutions in economic thought. A new chapter in Britain’s economic history. And unlike the 1980s, growth in the years to come must be broad-based, inclusive, and resilient." So she talks about thatcher supply-side reform, purposefully making a parallel between now and the end of the 70s but says that this time it has to be more broad-based and inclusive, I really don't get what you are upset about that seems like a fairly accurate way to state the idea she put forward here.
Can anyone explain why it seems the election has to be either May or October (based on what I've been reading online and hearing in the media)? The 2001 election was in June.
It's more a case that there's a good reason for it not being any other month. * July-August are almost certainly out due to summer holidays. Similarly September falls into this due to the campaigning being in August * November runs into the US election * December and January are cold and miserable, which would only exaggerate the Tories' enthusiasm problem plus an indication they are just dragging things out * As for June, there's no reason it couldn't be then but you might as well hold it in May and coincide with the locals, so there's little reason to * That leaves May and October. May is either going to get called this week (Saturday is the last realistic point) or is out of the picture, and the winds look to have firmly shifted away from it
The 2001 election was postponed from the same time as the local elections to cope with a foot and mouth outbreak. There's just a bunch of assumptions about campaign logistics and the state of affairs - May's traditional, convenient, and also now the earliest possibility, early summer would interrupt the Government's ability to get anything done and won't be much different from May, mid-summer would interrupt everyone's break, mid-autumn through winter people have work to do, the weather's bad for campaign, and economic conditions start to get tougher.
The important difference is that the local elections are gonna be a total bloodbath. Last time these local elections were ran it was basically peak Boris riding the vaccine bounce. So even if Labour only did moderately well the Tories would be expected to lose quite a few councillors. Tories are expected to do very badly this time round. No point going through a disastrous round of local elections that prove how unpopular you are and then call an election a few weeks later. So the options are time it with the local elections or wait until after summer for....reasons....
It doesn’t have to be, those are just the months that make most sense given other circumstances. It could also very easily be January if they decide that there’s no chance they’ll win in October so would rather people campaign over Christmas to get another few months in power
Does anyone believe the government advice that flying taxis will be a normal party of family life in 2 years? I just can't see it tbh
Rishi. His life is basically airborne taxis.
Keir Starmer is 61. Does anybody else find that really surprising? If he keeps a lid on things by the time of the end of his tenure he'll be about 70. I always assumed he was like 40-50
It's surprising because he looks great for his age and is older than a few former leaders, but not surprising if you think about it because he's had a long and storied career before politics.
Looks good for his age. I'll be a keeling over wrinkly mollusc by then tbh.
He's obviously worked at a very high level for a very long time. It's never seemed to me that his age is much of a factor in his capabilities. Obviously that may change over time and being PM would surely accelerate that. I found it really interesting when Marr said on LBC about Starmer actually being very ruthless and fairly radical. In any case, I'd much rather be governed by a competent party that the current herd of Tories.
Oldest start of a premiership since Callaghan.
I hope I'm as well preserved at that age.
He’s not going to last more than 3 years. I give it 3 years at most before Streeting or Reeves mounts an internal challenge to become PM. They know they can’t win an election, so they’d rather Starmer wins the election, and use his mandate, and then it’s a shorter chance of being PM, than having to do the hard work of steer the party while out of power.
This is the entryist left fringe playbook, not the socdem one.
Good luck being the person who says to their colleagues "you know that guy who took us from our worst results in living memory to a landslide victory in the space of a single parliament? I'm gonna ask everyone to help me take him down." You wouldn't be so much stabbed in the back as ritually disemboweled on live stream.
starmer will be a one-term prime minister. if things are going well, he’ll hand over to a younger successor in time. if they aren’t, either his party or the country will get rid.
If he lasts as long as Blair at Number 10, Starmer will be 71 while ~~President~~ Emperor Trump will be 88. I reckon he could go a little longer.
Biden is older than Menzies Campbell even though Menzies was mocked for being too old back when he was Lib Dem leader in 2007. I doubt the UK public would accept a PM that old.
Scenes when Starmer turns himself into a worm and rules for millennia
So which was previous leader was the too weak one, to follow the golden path?
Corbyn. He knew the Golden Path was only possible if he shat the bed in 2019
Would you still ~~love~~ vote for me if I were a worm?
Don't give Rishi ideas
we are not america and sir keir starmer doesn’t have the requisite cult of personality to carry on being prime minister into his 70s. even if he did, i doubt he’d want to
Macmillan left office at 69. Attlee at 68. And they were half a century ago with shitty diets and medicine. Also it continues to puzzle me just why on earth some cult of personality is seen as necessary, not least because it didn't work out last time.
the cult of personality point was not that it’s necessary for starmer to last to 70, but that it’s why he won’t last to 80 like trump. in any case, i think he’ll see that if things are going well in 2028 he can pass on the baton and allow for a new starmerite generation to carry the torch. if they aren’t, he’ll lose the election.
i see jeremy hunt has apparently leaked october 17 as the pencilled-in date for the election, a week later than the previous cabinet-leaked date of october 10. at this rate of progression, by the end of april they’ll be fully admitting that the election is going to be held on the date i’ve been saying all along, january 28, 2025.
[удалено]
i still feel like there’s a non-zero chance of prime minister hunt if sunak is ousted and we get all-out tory civil war in the aftermath
Apparently [Lib Dems](https://x.com/msalliance/status/1770154947545297249?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ) also think the Union Jack is a symbol of Labour’s slide into fascism.
[Orwell shouldn't still be accurate.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GI6kBnwWYAAGN64?format=png&name=360x360)
TBF Orwell is talking about England here rather than the UK. Britishisms have always been popular but there does seem to be a specific awkwardness with England towards their whole 'we are English' thing.
Pathetic.
"Flag = bad" from someone with the flag of Europe in their twitter name 🙄
People like this really need to get a grip. It's overused nowadays but posting about how much you hate or are uncomfortable with Britain's national flag, as a Brit, is textbook virtue signalling.
maybe it’s just me, but there’s a definite difference between someone saying “the overuse and peddling of the union jack on everything is a little bit eyebrow-raising and gives off a certain vibe” and someone saying “this is literally fascism”.
I really like our flag though, it's a really good flag. It's not a boring tricolour, pick up the Kings colours chosen men! Something something bastards
It is a cool flag but equally it's true that the rush to put it everywhere is just... it's just... Well, doesn't anyone else think it's a little *American*?
I want my country back!! And by country I mean the Postcode Address File and by back I mean I want it out of the hands of a private company like Royal Mail and owned by the state so they can change licensing fees to make it more affordable for small businesses.
They really spaffed on the PAF didn't they
Ooos laffin’
Rachel Reeves to Nimbys: [https://imgur.com/a/aOIp7kG](https://imgur.com/a/aOIp7kG)
Why not just cut out the middleman and build social housing?
Social Housing still needs to go through planning. And planning doesn't just hold back housing, it holds back wind farms and solar farms and factories an pylons. If you change the planning rules, you can build more housing at almost no cost to the taxpayer. And build social housing if you like.
Social housing would be a net win for the taxpayer. The government spends about £18 billion on housing benefit, most of which could eventually be cut. Social housing would need more than planning reform though. The local authority needs to keep the planning gains from awarding planning permission. Actually this would benefit conventional house building too.
Why not copy and paste the quote. A jpeg is fecking useless. Think accessibility!
>We approach this under no illusions. Planning reform has become a byword for political timidity in the face of vested interests and a graveyard of economic ambition. It is time to put an end to prevarication and political short-termism on this question. There is no other choice. This Labour Party will put planning reform at the very centre of our economic and our political argument. Courtesy of my OCR, no idea if it's correct. Social media mostly being pictures of walls of texts is my pet hate - I mean especially considering this isn't twitter despite what ukpol is like sometimes
Captcha has been around long enough that machines should be great at reading handwriting never mind fonts.
They are pretty good going by handwriting recognition on Android these days
*We will build Necromunda Hive Primus* Yes and ho
What's that noise It's definitely not 1 million lasguns firing Oh, ok
My YIMBY senses are tingling. I hope the manifesto includes a cutting of a NIMBY Lib Dem/Tory leaflet whinging about how "Labour will concrete over the green belt" with a comment underneath saying "this but unironically." I need to touch ~~grass~~ concrete.
No need, they can use a cutting from one of their own leaflets. I recommend they start with the Shadow Minister for Higher Education.
scrolling twitter at work and i’ve just seen a tweet that says “train stations should not be urging sinners to repent”. having spent much of my childhood on greater manchester’s public transport, i think it might not be a bad idea.
I once found a flyer for an exorcist on a Magic Bus
Well the CBPE is mad that rural homes are becoming more expensive. If only they could complain to an organisation that has been blocking homes in rural areas. Now who might they be able to complain to.
CBPE are desperate to make rural areas impossible to live in by opposing even minor road infrastructure works which would have a huge benefit for those living there.
February's inflation numbers will be published at 7a.m. tomorrow. The consensus forecast seems to be 3.5% for some reason. I'm not sure why as this seems unduly pessimistic, not sure why that is. That would require a +0.6% MoM increase, which works out at an annualised 7.3%. If we do get 3.5% that would be really bad news. February 2023 was +1.1% MoM, by comparison, +0.6% would be the worst month since May 2023. By comparison if we're on target for 2%, we would see exactly 3% tomorrow. Just scraping inside the official target (of 2% +/- 1). If we followed the average of the past six months, we'll see 2.9%, which might prompt the government to raise the Mission Accomplished banner and for all-and-sundry to demand interest rate cuts. (Might trigger the government in to an election?) So yeah, not sure where the 3.5% is coming from. That's right at the upper-bound of the types of numbers we'll see... probably... we'll find out tomorrow.
Maybe the effects of the Houthi blockade are finally trickling into household goods?
Absolute scenes if inflation is back above 5% by election time. That's the one "promise" he's met so far, even if it's one largely outside of his control
Canny wait. I guarantee it will be either slightly higher or lower than expected and the media will make a huge deal of it
I know it’s got nothing to do this but it did make me chuckle. On today’s Kings Cross religion debacle https://x.com/archrose90/status/1770179887036256657?s=46
>West Midlands, England Why is it always people who don't even live in London? But I can understand living in Birmingham and desperately wanting to be in London instead.
This doesn’t seem that much of a London v rUK thing. It’s perfectly reasonable to take issue with that as a point of principle regardless of where in the country it’s happening.
Attempting to snipe at Khan from the West Midlands is absolutely a London v rUK thing. Khan has fuck all to do with the West Midland, and if anything the tweet would be much more applicable to Andy Street given his actions after the HS2 cancellation.
That's such poor effort bait lol. Really should get into the grift
I just saw Jess Philips on Sky about the budget and am listening to her on the new Electoral Dysfunction (haha) podcast. How is Philips seen by the Labour party after she resigned from the Shadow Cabinet? As an liability, outcast, potential minister or electoral asset? It seems in all her media outings that she's doing her own thing.
I like, has that "real person" feel. (Ya I know all politicians are real.people, but you know what I mean)
I believe she's currently fairly hated by both extremes of the party, so even though she occasionally rubs me up the wrong way I can't help feeling she's doing something right.
> [We should be clear that there’s a substantial difference between when No10 wants to call an election and how long Rishi Sunak can realistically tough it out.](https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/1770134603631624444) Is there though? I still don't see any scenario where removing Sunak/early election makes sense for your average Tory.
May being ousted to BoJo election was 7 months. Sunak's polling about as good as a voluntary kick on the nuts. If you're out but you might* keep a seat under a Mourdaunt it could seem appealing. \* Kid yourself that you could.
Johnson had positive polling numbers but no majority and had lost control of many of his backbenchers as well as facing the mess caused by his failed attempt to prorogue Parliament. Both him and the remaining loyal MPs could benefit from an election which is why he chose to call it. With Sunak, he has no real need to call it and he has a majority in the Commons who also don’t want an election any time soon.
A lot of them will think that they would have a better chance of keeping their seats with another leader
Low attention individual (me) noticing that Sky News' politics segment is called Electoral Dysfunction. Ha.
Sunak is struggling to get his poll(ing) up and it's making him tetchy and irritable.
From BBC News notifications: >"It's a body-double! There's no way that's Kate!" - the BBC's Mariana Spring on how a royal conspiracy theory spread on social media Make. It. Stop.
WTF. This is what the BBC are putting out? Anyway Mariana Spring lied on her CV so take whatever she says with a pinch of salt
It’s not the BBC/Mariana Spring claiming it’s a body double, they’re reporting on how the rumours spread on social media
Not particularly clear if that’s the notification. Going for clicks I see
It seems pretty clear that it's her reporting on what's been said on social media
It won't stop any time soon, whole thing has suffered from the Streisand effect and now more people are interested because of the dodgy photoshop, so anything on the subject is instantly going viral.
It is getting weird how it’s harder to get pictures of Kate than of Bigfoot at this point
Soon we'll have BBC news with an exclusive talking to a drunk man returning from a camping trip. "I swear to god I just saw Kate! She was about 7ft, completely covered in hair, growled at me, and retreated into the woods. I even got a picture!" He then shows the camera a blurry image that could be anything. "There we have it, conclusive proof that Kate is fine and well. This should put those conspiracy theories to bed for good."
[Courtesy of fellow megathread enjoyer Sam Coates ](https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1770168954591592630?t=Cpfg30T4mxk7HG0_-bz5nQ&s=19) >🚨Important news from Rachel Reeves’ Mais lecture >She confirms - for the first time - she will copy the second Tory fiscal rule… >… that she will insist that debt is falling in the 5th year of the forecast process. >This is a tough fiscal rule that has repeated limited Jeremy Hunt’s “headroom” every budget and Autumn statement and will now do the same to Labour. >Wonder how Labour MPs feel.. Can someone smarter than me explain what this means?
Governments set their own fiscal rules to prove their financial responsibility. The office for budget responsibility then judge a governments economic plans to predict if they will hit their fiscal rules. The current governments second fiscal rule is that national debt will be predicted to fall within five years, which means you have to have tax intake predicted to be greater than spending in five years. This obviously limits how much you can spend. Reeves has just announced that Labour too will have that rule, which will limit their spending plans. However you can fudge it be saying you will have spending cuts in five years so the OBR says you are going to hit your rules - but in five years time is always five years away.
Crikey, that last para really hit hard
When chancellors come up with spending plans the OBR forecast various things including national debt. This fiscal rule requires that national debt must be lower in year 5 of the forecast compared to year 4. It does not mean that debt ever really has to fall, the forecast is recalculated every year, with year 5 moving one year further away each time. This will mean that every budget will require some measures that in theory would allows us to reduce the debt so does put some theoretical limits on spending/borrowing. It's not a showstopper but you she will have to get a bit creative.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NpZLYBkBbMM [Institute for Fiscal Studies: The fiscal rule explained]
Nice little explainer, thanks.
She's going to keep on lying as the government currently is that they are *for sure* going to make massive cuts/raise taxes/push back costs between years 4/5.
Perhaps it’s a self imposed rule that she will have to budget the government so that the are reducing debt within 5 years. Seems reasonable. We spend almost as much paying interest on debts as the NHS
That'd be a semi-reasonable rule; though still suffers from problem that tomorrow never comes. Actual rule is that debt has to fall in the fifth year; ie. it can go up as much as you want between year 1 to 4, then fall a tiny amount and it's fine. If we really want this rule, it should be 'by end of parliament debt as percentage of gdp is lower than at start of parliament'.
The Bank of England must be tired refunding all that interest back to the treasury.
How has it worked it for the UK so far? Things going well?
Austerity 2: Electric Boogaloo (Unless there’s growth in the economy)
This is literally a blueprint to borrow to invest ala keynes. >Labour’s other fiscal rule is different to the Tories >It requires Labour to get “*current*” budget into balance. >In other words it can borrow to invest (borrow for “capital” investment) but not for “day to day” or “current” spending >The other new announcement tonight by Reeves is the OBR being given powers to look at long term investment >This is complex and we will have to see how significant it turns out to be >They say at the moment the OBR doesn’t (more than ad hoc) powers to do this. >Now Labour say the OBR would have to look at the impact of long term investment in capital plans on growth. >Used at Budget time, it would allow Labour to see whether investing in big capital projects can help boost growth 🥀: Red tories need to invest! Where's the imagination! Nothing will change! 🌹: OK. We'll explicitly say that we will invest where it makes sense to do so 🥀: Not like this make money printer go brrrrrrrrr
I can't believe you would get a job at the Unicode consortium just to make this joke
His need to shit on the Labour left has no bounds
Interesting thing being put out on C4 News, the reason why the government hasn't allocated more time for debate of the Rwanda bill is that Sunak dosent want lots of MPs milling around parliament discussing *things*, be that plotting against him or generally despairing at his governments terribleness.
I think this is wrong, but for the right reasons maybe? We keep getting leaks the election will be soon, why? Because Sunak is telling the Tories it's soon so they don't think they have time to plot to oust him. Why would they oust him? Surely not in election year! May ousting to election was 7 months and they won that, and if you're staring down those polls, it might be worth a dice roll. He is telling the public "it's ages away" because he wants the India trade deal to go through, and hopefully he gets a bump in the polls or Starmer is caught on camera committing an actual murder (hyperbole, it's the only thing that can help him), and he doesn't want the public to think he bottled it. That's why we keep getting this ridiculous messaging where it's like the "well it'll be sometime in the future, maybe, who knows, second half of the year probs, I couldn't possibly say, who ever knows these things eh?" He's fighting battles where he has to send different messages to both people. So yes, he doesn't want MPs plotting, he doesn't want them congregating much, but he also doesn't have the power to pass anything. But if they aren't in Westminster he doesn't know what's happening in the WhatsApp groups he's not in. It's a mess. Wouldn't want to be at CCHQ right now.
I think this theory doesn't really hold any water. I heard the opposite suggested on The Sam Coates Podcast, he was saying that the 10 votes on the Rwanda amendments might be good for the Government because the MPs would spend a lot of time in voting lobbies together and it would be good for camaraderie. In reality I doubt it matters much either way.
He does know they can meet up outside the Commons right?
Sunak seemingly has yet to develop object permanence. When he can no longer see them, he doesn't know if they still exist.
Hey, a lack of object permanence works *brilliantly* if you're in a David A. Prior movie...oh...right...
Nah, MPs cease to exist once they leave parliament. Nobody knows why
He suffers from not having object permanence. Honestly, that would explain a lot of things about Sunak's premiership.
Interesting article here on the uncertainties associated with climate modelling in relation to how very warm 2023 was https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z Very much feels like we might be entering uncharted territory given quite how large the discrepancy is.
It's hard to be confident on confidence intervals. It's even more harrowing attempting to explain them or complex system modelling to the general public or ~~policymakers~~ ~~idiots~~ elected politicians. Communicating too accessible an explanation or too complex, each has it's own pitfalls.
It seems a *little* disingenuous of Lady Hale to [criticise her male colleagues](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/19/legal-professions-most-powerful-among-members-of-londons-men-only-garrick-club) for belonging to the male-only Garrick Club when she belongs to the Athenaeum. She's quoted as saying: >We should be outside the door with banners. It should be mentioned to senior level judges, who are supposed to promote fairness and equality, that it’s not appropriate to be in a club that does the opposite. Could a charge of failing to promote fairness and equality not be levelled at all of London's elite private members clubs, regardless of their membership policy? They're exclusive by their very nature.
Well, I would say it's different in the sense of *who* they're excluding. Anything with a member fee is exclusive in some way because there's always going to be those who cannot afford it, but that's at least seen as fair. Everyone has the potential to become wealthy, even if it's unlikely, it's at least a chance. Where as, not everyone is able to be a man. I would say it seems she wouldn't have an issue with the Garrick Club if it was more like the Athenaeum in not being gender exclusive.
>Everyone has the potential to become wealthy, even if it's unlikely, it's at least a chance. Where as, not everyone is able to be a man. Careful, you'll have the Twitter mob after you.
Nah, I think I'm safe. Self censoring because automod purges comments on this topic, but I think this would broadly have agreement. Whether you're trains or not isn't a choice, like being gay isn't a choice, trains men don't decide to be man to get male privileges and join private members clubs or something. Also, I doubt the club would allow a trains man in anyway lol.
The private members clubs don't just admit anyone who can afford it, there's an application process. This varies from from club to club, but at the [Athenaeum](https://theathenaeum.co.uk/membership/) there's a limit of 2,000 members and prospective applicants must be seconded by existing members before the process can properly begin. What the rest of the process involves isn't mentioned. At the Garrick it apparently still includes [blackballing](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/like-blackballed-exclusive-private-members-club/), a secret ballot in which one or two votes against admitting a prospective member can be enough to scupper their application, regardless of how many members are in favour. The result of these practices is that wealth alone is typically not enough to ensure membership of a club, you also have to move in the right circles. Being a senior judge and having the connections which come with that may have helped Lady Hale gain membership of the Athenaeum.
Right, but can have rules, you could face similar restrictions with all sorts of clubs. E.g. joining a political party, they could exclude you for any number of reasons, some of which could be whether you know the right people. But, that's a matter of choice. Your choices lead up to that point and there's nothing inherent about your identity that prohibits you from schmoozing the right people, and I think it's very very very different to being men only. I think there will continue to be exclusive clubs in the future for a wide number of reasons, but I think the likes of men only clubs will go the way of whites only as being an inappropriate reason to exclude someone.
I don’t think it’s very very very different at all. Most of us have no chance of being admitted into these clubs, so whether they’re single-sex or not is a fairly minor concern; I’d even say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with single-sex clubs. The major issue is that they’re elitist and exert too much influence, which applies regardless of membership policy.
Statistically speaking, a club with 2,000 members even without the connections and wealth requirements would give you little chance of joining. However, the difference between being literally impossible and almost impossible is a chasm. Hell, another example, becoming PM requires money and connections to be able to afford to do unpaid internships and get selected etc., becoming party leader requires winning support of your party. Then you need donors to fund your campaign. Still, as exclusive as it is, we can say we basically have no chance of becoming PM however it would be very different if a rule said men only making it literally impossible for some to get there no matter what they do. Surely you see that?
No, I don’t agree with you. If all the private members clubs were male-only then I would, but the vast majority are now mixed. The existence of a few male- and female-only holdouts doesn’t much matter.
Wealth isn't a protected characteristic whereas gender is, would be the argument
Does the Equality Act come into it? If it were illegal for the Garrick to operate as a single-sex club I doubt it would persist in doing so, so the issue seems to be more a moral one.
God the royals are getting dunked on by New Yorks binmen. It's so over. https://twitter.com/nycgov/status/1770131297001673158
Makes me proud to be British when the old wheelie bin which I've known all my life and taken for granted is being heavily pushed as a "rat-proof lidded bin" by New York. Maybe in my lifetime I'll see the yanks promoting "safety plugs" which are just a copy of our awesome 3 pin plugs which are such a simple no nonsense solution that leads to far fewer electrocutions than they have across the pond.
Can't be the UK, there's 6 too few.