The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Tichtheid]

Interesting piece in the FT on populism in Europe, Bozo the Clown, Trump etc and how to best counter their simplistic idiocy- by letting them govern

https://archive.ph/4Jz2t

[Paddington Bear]

Populism in Europe is being driven by:
1) the failure of governments to take energy security seriously for a generation, making us all substantially worse off
2) historically unprecedented levels of migration that no one voted for and no government shows any inclination to reduce.

Sort those and the centre can muddle on as before

[dpedin]

Interesting piece in the FT on populism in Europe, Bozo the Clown, Trump etc and how to best counter their simplistic idiocy- by letting them govern

https://archive.ph/4Jz2t

It is interesting but the irreparable damage that the Tory feckers have done to the UK economy for years to come is a large and bitter pill to swallow for many. Whilst these populist Tory right wing feckers swan off with their millions claiming it wisnae me, honest, ordinary folk have seen their standard of living decline whilst public services have collapsed and many now pull out their own teeth with pliers! In the US the Trumpian impact upon thousands of innocent young girls and women, some of whom will die due to their barbarous anti abortion laws is, for me, too high a price to pay for some right wing, populist, evangelical, sex pervert Republican getting into power.

Having said all this I hope Macrons gamble pays off and he sees off the right wing populists in the snap election. If he doesnt then it is going to get very difficult indeed.

[sockwithaticket]

Populism in Europe is being driven by:
1) the failure of governments to take energy security seriously for a generation, making us all substantially worse off
2) historically unprecedented levels of migration that no one voted for and no government shows any inclination to reduce.

Sort those and the centre can muddle on as before

Keep hearing the same counter-arguments when migration is brought up of 'oh but we need migrants for the economy to work' and 'falling birth rate'. Well, yeah, that's how the economy has been designed by the owner and employer class. Whether it's fruit pickers, doctors or IT there are whole sectors where choices have been made by these industries to ensure that there are shortages of locals willing or able to perform the roles. Neo-liberal capitalist economies love having a global work force they can keep bringing in to suppress wages of the indigenous population. Why should businesses invest in training the locals to fulfil skill shortages or raising the wages of unattractive jobs when they don't have to? When wages have stagnated for at least a decade (recent growth still is nowhere close to making up for that) and the cost of living has risen so high is it any wonder that the birth rate falls? And yet, we still have one of the biggest economies in the world. The money is there, it needs to be shared around (as wages, not as redistribution via the government, though the latter might have to be the means to force the former) rather than funnelled upwards, it needs to be invested into people, the populous and society rather than enabling the asset rich to become more so.

[Paddington Bear]

Populism in Europe is being driven by:
1) the failure of governments to take energy security seriously for a generation, making us all substantially worse off
2) historically unprecedented levels of migration that no one voted for and no government shows any inclination to reduce.

Sort those and the centre can muddle on as before

Keep hearing the same counter-arguments when migration is brought up of 'oh but we need migrants for the economy to work' and 'falling birth rate'. Well, yeah, that's how the economy has been designed by the owner and employer class. Whether it's fruit pickers, doctors or IT there are whole sectors where choices have been made by these industries to ensure that there are shortages of locals willing or able to perform the roles. Neo-liberal capitalist economies love having a global work force they can keep bringing in to suppress wages of the indigenous population. Why should businesses invest in training the locals to fulfil skill shortages or raising the wages of unattractive jobs when they don't have to? When wages have stagnated for at least a decade (recent growth still is nowhere close to making up for that) and the cost of living has risen so high is it any wonder that the birth rate falls? And yet, we still have one of the biggest economies in the world. The money is there, it needs to be shared around (as wages, not as redistribution via the government, though the latter might have to be the means to force the former) rather than funnelled upwards, it needs to be invested into people, the populous and society rather than enabling the asset rich to become more so.

Yep, there will be no meaningful investment whilst companies (and governments) can hire from a potential workforce of billions for whom the low wages offered are well beyond what they could achieve at home.

[Tichtheid]

Interesting piece in the FT on populism in Europe, Bozo the Clown, Trump etc and how to best counter their simplistic idiocy- by letting them govern

https://archive.ph/4Jz2t

It is interesting but the irreparable damage that the Tory feckers have done to the UK economy for years to come is a large and bitter pill to swallow for many. Whilst these populist Tory right wing feckers swan off with their millions claiming it wisnae me, honest, ordinary folk have seen their standard of living decline whilst public services have collapsed and many now pull out their own teeth with pliers! In the US the Trumpian impact upon thousands of innocent young girls and women, some of whom will die due to their barbarous anti abortion laws is, for me, too high a price to pay for some right wing, populist, evangelical, sex pervert Republican getting into power.

Having said all this I hope Macrons gamble pays off and he sees off the right wing populists in the snap election. If he doesnt then it is going to get very difficult indeed.

Yeah, it's a huge risk to take, but the thing I mostly took away from it is that they should be made to answer questions that only have complex answers in detail and not get away with facile dog whistle soundbites or with ludicrous posters

I saw Burger King had a picture of one of their burgers on the side of a London bus with the slogan - "Another Whopper on the side of a bus", which raised a smile from me, but big policies and rebuttals shouldn't really be reduced to that

[Jockaline]

Populism in Europe is being driven by:
1) the failure of governments to take energy security seriously for a generation, making us all substantially worse off
2) historically unprecedented levels of migration that no one voted for and no government shows any inclination to reduce.

Sort those and the centre can muddle on as before

Keep hearing the same counter-arguments when migration is brought up of 'oh but we need migrants for the economy to work' and 'falling birth rate'. Well, yeah, that's how the economy has been designed by the owner and employer class. Whether it's fruit pickers, doctors or IT there are whole sectors where choices have been made by these industries to ensure that there are shortages of locals willing or able to perform the roles. Neo-liberal capitalist economies love having a global work force they can keep bringing in to suppress wages of the indigenous population. Why should businesses invest in training the locals to fulfil skill shortages or raising the wages of unattractive jobs when they don't have to? When wages have stagnated for at least a decade (recent growth still is nowhere close to making up for that) and the cost of living has risen so high is it any wonder that the birth rate falls? And yet, we still have one of the biggest economies in the world. The money is there, it needs to be shared around (as wages, not as redistribution via the government, though the latter might have to be the means to force the former) rather than funnelled upwards, it needs to be invested into people, the populous and society rather than enabling the asset rich to become more so.

Excellent post.

[Biffer]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

[Jockaline]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

When EU workers came here a lot went home again, I'd like to see more temporary visas where the period you could stay had a limit, and it was enforced. If there needed to be incentives for temp migrants over permanent ones so be it. Better childcare and part time opportunities to encourage people to have families and older people in the workforce. I was made redundant a year from my NRA, which I was really pleased about, but I could have contributed for longer, even past my NRA if conditions were right (part time and less company / top down management horseshit justify their worth/bonuses.

[robmatic]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

I would expect the first two of those options to be where we ultimately end up but no political party will campaign on that.

The problem with increasing the number of workers through migration is that after 6 years they become citizens with an entitlement to a state pension so all you do is kick the can down the road for a few decades.

[Paddington Bear]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

This is fine, but explain how the fact that only c.25% of visas given out last year were for work (and much of it low paid work) helps our dependency ratios.

[Biffer]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

This is fine, but explain how the fact that only c.25% of visas given out last year were for work (and much of it low paid work) helps our dependency ratios.

That's got nothing to do with what I've said. I haven't taken a stance on current immigration or made any statement on it. Just outlined the economic case for migration, not said that it's in any way related to current, past or future government policy.

[sockwithaticket]

I also consider that demographic change, whilst a long term trend in the developed world, is not inevitably continuous. It is possible to make material conditions better for the working population such that the indigenous fertility rate improves and arrests inexorable decline. That would take time and migration will need to be part of the interim solution and there will likely not be a point where we could, as some would clearly like, stop taking in any migrants whatsoever.

A focus on brain draining other nations of their 'high skilled' workers not only provides business in this country with a means to avoid putting any resource or effort into training locals, it contributes to perpetuating the status quo in the countries such workers are willing to leave and stymies their development.

[SaintK]

So this "Don't let Labour get a supermajority" theme is spreading.
Jenkyns would rather have a photo of Farage on her leaflet than the Tory leaader

[Paddington Bear]

One of the key drivers of immigration from an economic point of view is demographic change. Most of western Europe is getting older, the average age in the UK is now over 40, 3 years higher than it was at the start of the century. There are currently 5 working people for each state pensioner, this will be 4 in 10-15 years. Those four people will need to pay the taxes of five to support the pensioners (state pensions, NHS costs etc), the only ways to address that are

1. Higher taxes on the working people
2. Higher taxes on pensioners
3. Increase the pension age dramatically so the percentage of pensioners in the population remains the same
4. Increase the number of workers through migration
5. Increase the productivity of workers by 25%

Realistically, there will need to be some contribution from all of those, the argument is about how it's spread across them.

On a different point about immigration, I get pissed off with people saying they only want high value, high skill workers from overseas. That only leaves low value, low skill jobs for kids from our own country. Repeating that mantra over and over again imbues in them the sense that they're worthless and incapable of doing high value work.

This is fine, but explain how the fact that only c.25% of visas given out last year were for work (and much of it low paid work) helps our dependency ratios.

That's got nothing to do with what I've said. I haven't taken a stance on current immigration or made any statement on it. Just outlined the economic case for migration, not said that it's in any way related to current, past or future government policy.

The economic case for migration is defeated by the reality of migration, which seems pertinent

[_Os_]

The Tory desperation move pumping up the fear of a "super majority", is just more lies.

In the UK system there's a fusion of the legislature (Commons) and executive (PM/cabinet), every party whips their MPs. The PM may have had a hand in MP candidate selection, the PM picked his/her cabinet and controls the whips. The PM therefore controls most of what's happening and has very little checks and balances opposing them. What there is comes from within their own party and mostly only if they have a small majority, Johnson's removal was exceptional in the amount of his own MPs who turned on him and forced him out. If they had all stuck with him, Johnson would've survived lying to parliament.

In terms of the power available there's is no difference between Labour having a majority of 1 and 300 or some other high number. Obviously a majority of 1 wouldn't be stable at all, but once the majority is above 40 or 50 rebels aren't going to be able to do much, especially if the PM has had input into candidate selection (which Starmer has). In other systems there's locks on changing parts of the constitution which require super majorities and/or support from a majority of regions, as far as I know there's nothing like that in the UK.

"Super majority" = playing on ignorance they know exists.

[_Os_]

The "super majority" desperation does tell us one thing that's true though. This election isn't about if Labour wins with a majority anymore, everyone knows they will even Tory MPs. The election is now about if the Tories survive as party occupying the same space they have for over a century.

If they're badly beaten and lurch fully towards the far right/Farage/populism. Then they give up the centre ground to Labour and cease being the biggest electoral coalition. Which would mean Labour government punctuated by brief spells of Tory rule.

[Slick]

I also consider that demographic change, whilst a long term trend in the developed world, is not inevitably continuous. It is possible to make material conditions better for the working population such that the indigenous fertility rate improves and arrests inexorable decline. That would take time and migration will need to be part of the interim solution and there will likely not be a point where we could, as some would clearly like, stop taking in any migrants whatsoever.

A focus on brain draining other nations of their 'high skilled' workers not only provides business in this country with a means to avoid putting any resource or effort into training locals, it contributes to perpetuating the status quo in the countries such workers are willing to leave and stymies their development.

A few years ago Ghana ran a "return home" scheme to diaspora which was pretty successful and brought a lot of the brain drain home and even a fair few 1st generation British Ghanaians. The economy was bubbling along nicely and it had some really positive economic and social impact. Fast forward a few years and the country is on its knees financially, huge numbers of those that came are now leaving and a new generation of emigrants are heading away.

In those years the government was pleading for help from the West to restructure loans, make investments, assist with training etc and mostly fuck all was done. It has to be said there was also massive corruption. My point is, that here was a politically stable African government attracting people and massively reducing numbers wanting to leave and we could have seen this as a model and got stuck in with financial and capacity building support, but didn't.

[Tichtheid]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

[Tichtheid]

I also consider that demographic change, whilst a long term trend in the developed world, is not inevitably continuous. It is possible to make material conditions better for the working population such that the indigenous fertility rate improves and arrests inexorable decline. That would take time and migration will need to be part of the interim solution and there will likely not be a point where we could, as some would clearly like, stop taking in any migrants whatsoever.

A focus on brain draining other nations of their 'high skilled' workers not only provides business in this country with a means to avoid putting any resource or effort into training locals, it contributes to perpetuating the status quo in the countries such workers are willing to leave and stymies their development.

A few years ago Ghana ran a "return home" scheme to diaspora which was pretty successful and brought a lot of the brain drain home and even a fair few 1st generation British Ghanaians. The economy was bubbling along nicely and it had some really positive economic and social impact. Fast forward a few years and the country is on its knees financially, huge numbers of those that came are now leaving and a new generation of emigrants are heading away.

In those years the government was pleading for help from the West to restructure loans, make investments, assist with training etc and mostly fuck all was done. It has to be said there was also massive corruption. My point is, that here was a politically stable African government attracting people and massively reducing numbers wanting to leave and we could have seen this as a model and got stuck in with financial and capacity building support, but didn't.

You're spot on Slick, if people are serious about halting immigration for whatever reason, they need to talk about the reasons people are leaving their homes in the first place and we in the richer nations have a lot to do with that.

[_Os_]

Keep hearing the same counter-arguments when migration is brought up of 'oh but we need migrants for the economy to work' and 'falling birth rate'. Well, yeah, that's how the economy has been designed by the owner and employer class. Whether it's fruit pickers, doctors or IT there are whole sectors where choices have been made by these industries to ensure that there are shortages of locals willing or able to perform the roles. Neo-liberal capitalist economies love having a global work force they can keep bringing in to suppress wages of the indigenous population. Why should businesses invest in training the locals to fulfil skill shortages or raising the wages of unattractive jobs when they don't have to? When wages have stagnated for at least a decade (recent growth still is nowhere close to making up for that) and the cost of living has risen so high is it any wonder that the birth rate falls? And yet, we still have one of the biggest economies in the world. The money is there, it needs to be shared around (as wages, not as redistribution via the government, though the latter might have to be the means to force the former) rather than funnelled upwards, it needs to be invested into people, the populous and society rather than enabling the asset rich to become more so.

There's two problems with this:
1. That is the structure of the UK economy. The Tories tried for 14 years to shut off immigration without changing the structure of the economy. The only structural change they implemented was Brexit, which meant the same Thatcher era economy (neo liberal etc) operating under worse conditions. Problem with changing the structure of the economy, is no one has a complete plan of what to do and anyone who comes up with something hasn't got far in elections because voters are scared of change (Starmer is polling where he is basically on the promise of very little change). There's also no guarantee changing the structure of the economy will work.

2. Can't increase wages without increasing productivity. Without the productivity increase there's no real terms wage increase because inflation eats it. The UK is basically at full employment, more vacancies than workers. Swapping whose doing the job is going to change nothing.

There needs to be investment from businesses (and the state) to increase productivity, anyone who has been involved with SMEs in the UK will know the following. Getting a business loan for an SME large enough to make a difference isn't easy, each year SME loans are a fraction of all UK business loans. In one quarter more mortgage debt will be issued than to SMEs in a full year. Most of the money is being pumped into corporates and non-productive assets, I would guess in the region of 90%+. Most of the SME loans issued aren't from the big banks because they're not interested. On top of all that the advice is always to "build the business so that's it ready to sell", the expectation of someone good at this stuff is that if they scale they will sell the business, and that often means to a foreigner (they have the cash) who will sweat it and not invest. A crazy amount of the UK economy isn't even owned by UK people.

As for state investment in such things as schools so that roofs don't fall down. People demand low taxes ...

[SaintK]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

If you believe the polls at the moment, we are sleepwalking into a one-party socialist state … The reality is, the consequences of that would be horrific, not just for the Conservative party for the country, but also for Labour … An opposition is important.

[Tichtheid]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

If you believe the polls at the moment, we are sleepwalking into a one-party socialist state … The reality is, the consequences of that would be horrific, not just for the Conservative party for the country, but also for Labour … An opposition is important.

They obviously think the electorate is stupid enough to believe this tripe.

eg, public ownership of the railways is not Socialist per se - if it were the fact the Tories have had to bring failed private railways back into public hands means the Tories are Socialists -

[SaintK]

Just in time to remind the electorate how much money this goverment spaffed and sent to their mates and donors

An arrest has been made in connection with the criminal investigation into PPE Medpro, the company that was awarded large government personal protective equipment contracts during the Covid pandemic.
In a statement, the National Crime Agency (NCA) said a 46-year-old man had been arrested at his north London home.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/a ... e-medpro

[_Os_]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

If you believe the polls at the moment, we are sleepwalking into a one-party socialist state … The reality is, the consequences of that would be horrific, not just for the Conservative party for the country, but also for Labour … An opposition is important.

Crazy, 3 weeks out and they're reduced to begging. They're just playing on the electorate's ignorance of how the system works.

In the UK there's no functional difference between a majority of 50 or 300 odd. Either way the opposition can do little to nothing.

If we're talking about the quality of the opposition. For an opposition to do something through committees etc, it needs competent MPs who are not morons. Scale isn't the issue.

[Biffer]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

If you believe the polls at the moment, we are sleepwalking into a one-party socialist state … The reality is, the consequences of that would be horrific, not just for the Conservative party for the country, but also for Labour … An opposition is important.

They obviously think the electorate is stupid enough to believe this tripe.

eg, public ownership of the railways is not Socialist per se - if it were the fact the Tories have had to bring failed private railways back into public hands means the Tories are Socialists -

Yeah, AmTrak is publicly owned ffs.

[fishfoodie]

It's the word "Socialist" in that stupid tweet that makes me roll my eyes - if only!

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

If you believe the polls at the moment, we are sleepwalking into a one-party socialist state … The reality is, the consequences of that would be horrific, not just for the Conservative party for the country, but also for Labour … An opposition is important.

Crazy, 3 weeks out and they're reduced to begging. They're just playing on the electorate's ignorance of how the system works.

In the UK there's no functional difference between a majority of 50 or 300 odd. Either way the opposition can do little to nothing.

If we're talking about the quality of the opposition. For an opposition to do something through committees etc, it needs competent MPs who are not morons. Scale isn't the issue.

Pardon my ignorance; there's no taxpayer funding of Political Parties in the UK, is there ?

This to me is all about the horror in Tory circles of the thought of consequence of all those votes for Reform meaning that the LibDems replace them as the official opposition.

Such a fall will mean that donors stop giving the party money, because why would you bother when they're so far away from power, & on their way to another civil war.

[_Os_]

Geoffrey Cox at it now..............a one partry socialiist state!!!!!

Crazy, 3 weeks out and they're reduced to begging. They're just playing on the electorate's ignorance of how the system works.

In the UK there's no functional difference between a majority of 50 or 300 odd. Either way the opposition can do little to nothing.

If we're talking about the quality of the opposition. For an opposition to do something through committees etc, it needs competent MPs who are not morons. Scale isn't the issue.

Pardon my ignorance; there's no taxpayer funding of Political Parties in the UK, is there ?

This to me is all about the horror in Tory circles of the thought of consequence of all those votes for Reform meaning that the LibDems replace them as the official opposition.

Such a fall will mean that donors stop giving the party money, because why would you bother when they're so far away from power, & on their way to another civil war.

They get short money which is state funding to help with running costs, it is apportioned by seats and votes and positions too (leader of the opposition). It's not nothing but it's not huge amounts, and should all go on running costs (no clue if that's checked).

Not being the opposition has a big impact on media profile. The Tories would have the SNP's current position in PMQs, less slots on political shows.

The counterweight is that billionaires throw shit loads of cash at the Tories. They even maintain loss making UK national newspapers. Whole TV stations almost no one watches. Those people will always fund something right wing pushing their agenda, they don't seem to care (or understand) if that party is loony with little chance of winning. If they're still funding the Tories or make their funding conditional on the Tories and Reform joining up, or something else, who knows.

[Biffer]

Crazy, 3 weeks out and they're reduced to begging. They're just playing on the electorate's ignorance of how the system works.

In the UK there's no functional difference between a majority of 50 or 300 odd. Either way the opposition can do little to nothing.

If we're talking about the quality of the opposition. For an opposition to do something through committees etc, it needs competent MPs who are not morons. Scale isn't the issue.

Pardon my ignorance; there's no taxpayer funding of Political Parties in the UK, is there ?

This to me is all about the horror in Tory circles of the thought of consequence of all those votes for Reform meaning that the LibDems replace them as the official opposition.

Such a fall will mean that donors stop giving the party money, because why would you bother when they're so far away from power, & on their way to another civil war.

They get short money which is state funding to help with running costs, it is apportioned by seats and votes and positions too (leader of the opposition). It's not nothing but it's not huge amounts, and should all go on running costs (no clue if that's checked).

Not being the opposition has a big impact on media profile. The Tories would have the SNP's current position in PMQs, less slots on political shows.

The counterweight is that billionaires throw shit loads of cash at the Tories. They even maintain loss making UK national newspapers. Whole TV stations almost no one watches. Those people will always fund something right wing pushing their agenda, they don't seem to care (or understand) if that party is loony with little chance of winning. If they're still funding the Tories or make their funding conditional on the Tories and Reform joining up, or something else, who knows.

They won't get fewer slots on politics shows. If the LDs are the opposition, the media will just give them equal billing.

[_Os_]

Pardon my ignorance; there's no taxpayer funding of Political Parties in the UK, is there ?

This to me is all about the horror in Tory circles of the thought of consequence of all those votes for Reform meaning that the LibDems replace them as the official opposition.

Such a fall will mean that donors stop giving the party money, because why would you bother when they're so far away from power, & on their way to another civil war.

They get short money which is state funding to help with running costs, it is apportioned by seats and votes and positions too (leader of the opposition). It's not nothing but it's not huge amounts, and should all go on running costs (no clue if that's checked).

Not being the opposition has a big impact on media profile. The Tories would have the SNP's current position in PMQs, less slots on political shows.

The counterweight is that billionaires throw shit loads of cash at the Tories. They even maintain loss making UK national newspapers. Whole TV stations almost no one watches. Those people will always fund something right wing pushing their agenda, they don't seem to care (or understand) if that party is loony with little chance of winning. If they're still funding the Tories or make their funding conditional on the Tories and Reform joining up, or something else, who knows.

They won't get fewer slots on politics shows. If the LDs are the opposition, the media will just give them equal billing.

Probably, because the UK is mad. But they should get what the Lib Dems currently get, which is almost nothing.

[_Os_]

The election campaign from hell continues to go well. Corrupt to the core.

[fishfoodie]

The election campaign from hell continues to go well. Corrupt to the core.

Is it even an actual offense ?

It would be if it were Stock Market transaction, or a Sports person, but are there insider trading rules for SPADS ?

I'd say fuck the bookies for running a book on something were they can be done over so easily.

[I like neeps]

The election campaign from hell continues to go well. Corrupt to the core.

Is it even an actual offense ?

It would be if it were Stock Market transaction, or a Sports person, but are there insider trading rules for SPADS ?

I'd say fuck the bookies for running a book on something were they can be done over so easily.

If it was an offence it would be investigated by the police rather than the gambling commission I reckon?

I reckon he bet a suspiciously large amount on the date. The firm he did it too cried about it to the industry stooges at the gambling commission and they've realised it's not a crime but they want to embarrass him.

Reminds me a bit of when Kieran Trippier's family put loads of money on him going to Atletico Madrid. He did get banned (unfair) but there was no crime.

[_Os_]

The election campaign from hell continues to go well. Corrupt to the core.

Is it even an actual offense ?

It would be if it were Stock Market transaction, or a Sports person, but are there insider trading rules for SPADS ?

I'd say fuck the bookies for running a book on something were they can be done over so easily.

That will be what the Gambling Commission is determining. It would be odd if the amount was as small as Williams seems to be indicating, not convinced the bookie would notice a "flutter" enough to get the Gambling Commission to make "routine enquiries".

[C69]

Ouch Rishi being eviscerated

[Slick]

I thought Swinney got a relatively easy ride, but again I don’t think a Westminster based journo has enough of the nuance to really go at the SNP.

What does annoy me though is the continued statement that only SNP MP’s will stand up for Scotland in Westminster. The obvious inference is that Scottish Labour MP’s don’t care about Scotland and will “talk us down”. I wish someone would ask him if he doesn’t think that being a Scottish MP at the heart of government will be able to effect a lot more change than a bunch of clapping goons just intent on being a protest movement

[sefton]

That was a shocker from Sunak, looks like a beaten man.

[C69]

That was a shocker from Sunak, looks like a beaten man.

He did, as an aside. My daughter's politics class is meeting with all the candidates in our constituency tomorrow.
The lack of anyone canvassing is strange, the amount of visible Labour support is much greater than I have ever seen.
Fingers crossed

[fishfoodie]

That was a shocker from Sunak, looks like a beaten man.

He did, as an aside. My daughter's politics class is meeting with all the candidates in our constituency tomorrow.
The lack of anyone canvassing is strange, the amount of visible Labour support is much greater than I have ever seen.
Fingers crossed

It's been a bizarre campaign, from the PM looking like a drowned rat announcing the start in the pouring rain.

I've been listening to the Times radio updates, & even though they were supposed to be on an Election footing from the start of the year, the head boy completely wrong footed his own people. The candidates selection was a mess, the timing after the locals was a mess, CCHQ is making impossible demands of the candidates, & they're led by someone with zero Political IQ, & no personal charisma.

[Lobby]

The election campaign from hell continues to go well. Corrupt to the core.

Is it even an actual offense ?

It would be if it were Stock Market transaction, or a Sports person, but are there insider trading rules for SPADS ?

I'd say fuck the bookies for running a book on something were they can be done over so easily.

If it was an offence it would be investigated by the police rather than the gambling commission I reckon?

I reckon he bet a suspiciously large amount on the date. The firm he did it too cried about it to the industry stooges at the gambling commission and they've realised it's not a crime but they want to embarrass him.

Reminds me a bit of when Kieran Trippier's family put loads of money on him going to Atletico Madrid. He did get banned (unfair) but there was no crime.

According to a Gambling Commission spokesperson quoted on the BBC the confidential use of information in order to gain an unfair advantage when betting "may constitute an offence of cheating under Section 42 of the Gambling Act, which is a criminal offence".

So if they conclude he had access to confidential information about the election date before he placed his bet, it may well be a criminal offence.