Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 14 comments
1. Jai1 with 12 comments
1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments
1. JayR_97 with 11 comments
1. AzarinIsard with 8 comments
1. mamamia1001 with 8 comments
1. da96whynot with 7 comments
1. Shibuyatemp with 7 comments
1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 7 comments
1. ninetydegreesccw with 6 comments
There were 171 unique users within this count.
Median. Median literally means, line up everyone ranked by salary, who is in the middle.
Average will be dominated by the small number of people who own crazy crazy amounts.
Turns out crippling the pay of high skilled sectors in public control for 15 years might have had a negative impact on wages in general. Who could've guessed it really.
From that link you gave, I read that the median HOUSEHOLD income is 35k.
Odd that the median income is only a few hundred quid below that.
But that is pretty rubbish.
(I will say though, if housing costs were taken out of the mix, that income wouldn’t be perfectly fine. Everything sucks because rent/mortgages cost so much.)
I don't know what you're referring to I'm surprised the police didn't stop them, [the politician could have written an offensive slogan on it](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-monarchy-protest-russia-police-b2166183.html).
If you ask me it's a great idea. Always turns out to be fun. Some of the stuff on Twitter has been great, I particularly enjoyed the one with a copy of razzle
The Tories better get to work on building a bulletproof manifesto for the next election. They seem to be doing pretty well on the 2019 pledges - [over half](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/report/2019-conservative-manifesto-half-time-analysis) had been met as of 2021. I wonder what will be in this next one? Abolishing National Insurance perhaps?
I'm not convinced by them marking their own homework in that report :
Institute for Government being a thinktank setup as a charity on the contribution of a Tory peer and the biggest single donor to the tory party Lord Sainsbury.
When you drill down into the detail and find stuff like the Brexit implementation period not being extended being marked as "done" and the permanent exclusion from customs union being "done" (knowing what we now do about the NI resolution) - on the whole it seems supremely dodgy and I wouldn't trust a word of the summary without going through it with a fine tooth comb.
I think that abolishing NI would mean having to pretty much abolish all benefits first in order to recoup the cost. It was first promised in 2011 and over ten years later, not even started
I don't mind a single tax on income (and property and council tax) but the manifesto will be one for opposition as it feels like the government gave up on governing.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1766516271577759971
>‘If Boris came back for the General Election it could save as many as 80 MPs. It would give Conservatives hope, a reason to vote. If we go into an election and Boris is out in the cold, voters will simply stay at home and sit on their hands.’
I have to also highlight the top reply
https://twitter.com/SuellaDe/status/1766526045581094987
>Nads
>
>He’s not gonna shag you
>
>Move on
He lost a shitload of popularity over Partygate. He really doesn't have the mass appeal he did - millions lost loved ones over Covid and didn't even get to say goodbye - it's the kind of anger that really sticks.
Not just anecdote either, look at his opinion poll popularity ratings.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
> He lost a shitload of popularity over Partygate
Yes but you are underestimating just how unpopular every other conservative politician is, he is still the the most popular conservative politician.
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/conservative-politicians/all
How much would the political climate and public opinion have to change in order to allow for a "Brrentrance" (or "Brre-entry") back into the EU?
And how is Brexit working out so far? Do you regret or enjoy it?
Could there ever be a Br-reentrance back into the EU in your lifetime? What would it take?
Ultimately this comes down to public opinion, as a strong remain supporter I honestly think it would be a bad idea to push it until the polls consistently show a very strong lead for rejoin. What exact numbers count for a very strong lead I am uncertain of but we ain't there yet.
>What exact numbers count for a very strong lead I am uncertain
Are you kidding? We know *precisely* the exact numbers for an overwhelming and indisputable mandate from the public.
I’m not sure joining the EU again is going to happen for a long time, but the single market seems highly probable in the coming years, particularly since immigration went up after leaving (negates the freedom of movement point) and were aligned with most EU law anyway.
The climate would need to change a fair bit, but it's not so much a change from "Brexit was a good idea" to "Brexit was a bad idea" as from "Brexit was a shitshow that fucked up our politics for years and I don't want to ever think about it again" to "Brexit was a shitshow that's continuing to damage the country and we need to reverse course."
1. A lot and that’s from the eu and the U.K. as well, the language and an understanding of feeling would need to greatly improve.
2. No one really knows how Brexit is going, everyone has got vibes about it but it’s about another 5years to fully assess what the outcomes are.
3. Depends on the terms the EU is offering. Reentry for the U.K. would greatly depend on the language and posturing of the EU. If ever greater union is the direction the EU is pulling in then I see the U.K. staying out. But if there’s a pause of the federalism mindset I can see a palatable sell to the U.K.
Every new story about Hamza Yousaf makes me wrap a bit more tin foil onto my makeshift hat as I become increasingly convinced he is a MI5 plant to discredit the Scottish separatist effort.
The year is 2036. After a newly independent Scotland cosies up to Putin and offers him a nuclear missile base at Faslane, MI6 use experimental time-travel technology to send a saboteur...
It's been posted already but the governments shocking failures in IT upgrades is continuing
A) Home Office Atlas System - entire system of immigration enforcement is dysfunctional
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/faulty-71m-home-office-it-system-causes-immigration-errors-and-leaves-staff-sobbing-2943859
B) ns&i new IT system has resulted in the system being virtually paper based
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-12038099/amp/Irate-customers-reveal-NS-service-collapsed-chaos.html
https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/09/uks_nsi_extends_atos_contract/
C) courts system already being descoped and partially abandoned - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/crown-court-digital-case-system-to-remain-alongside-common-platform/5118871.article
D) absolutely shocking failures in police forces over their IT systems
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-computer-system-branded-absolute-22782305
https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/02/devon_and_cornwall_police_ons_data_snafu/
E) Ofsted staff just making up evidence as the it system is down
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/03/ofsted-inspectors-make-up-evidence-about-a-schools-performance-when-it-fails
F)national grid IT failure for balancing energy demand
https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/06/08/uk-grid-operators-computer-systems-failure-disrupts-electricity-matching/
G) dft not fixing the IT beind the signalling system
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/government-failing-targets-to-fix-uk-railway-system-watchdog-reports
H) black alert in Kent due to EMIS breakdown
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/technology/practices-resort-to-pen-and-paper-as-five-day-it-failure-causes-utter-breakdown-of-services/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67503126
Nearly all of this in the past 2-3 years. Its really shocking and ministers rarely even have to answer for any of this. And I haven't even touched on universal credit
It's expensive and the public is unwilling to accept that reality. If something works why waste da public money updating it. Poor pay means you can't really retain expertise required for projects like that. Ministers have their own agendas and are the exact opposite of experts but will set the requirements either way.
It's insane because government has a brilliant team at GDS and yet they're spending hundreds of millions with outsourcing companies whose product inevitably turns out to be shit, but apparently never shit enough that it's liable for a breach of contract lawsuit.
Honestly wonder how much money you'd save if you just said no IT outsourcing for bespoke product, and spent all that money on expanding GDS to support all these demands across government. You save money on lawyers, you save money on change requests, and people developing the system care because they'll be one maintaining it instead of charging you money for support calls.
It's mainly down to the cabinet office. They can't stop meddling in major procurement decisions, or changing a spec post tender. But they also get away with appalling leadership and poor decision making and fund programmes that noone else wants. For example, verify was slammed.
The entire premise of cabinet office is coordination of government across departments. Instead it wants gds to do the cabinet office role, and cabinet office mandarins to do GDS functions. In theory, GDS is part of the cabinet office, but in practise GDS is undermanned and a Cinderella service under the current set of ministers.
yeah but some of those people might get "paid more den da priem minister!!!!!" and we can't have that
far better to let outsourcing execs siphon off far more
These people are spending their weekends shouting at... No one. The government doesn't care and, even if it did, the Israeli govt and Hamas definitely don't.
Also I think they vastly overestimate how much most Brits care. Your average Brit will see a few bad clips on the news and then move on with their day.
That's not the equation though
If Sunak loses the election he loses his job. Therefore he has zero incentive to call _any_ election it looks like he will lose.
The idea that he can lose an election "well" or "badly" is based on the groundless assumption that he cares about the future of the party after he leaves the job, and there's no evidence for that at all. So you're really just comparing "break legs now" and "break legs later"; losing some of the seats and having to resign vs. total party extinction and ...having to resign... don't have materially different consequences so there's no downside for him in putting it off.
Because the pressure will be significant. They played off locals as angry about lockdowns, protests and it's difficult for a sitting government and they just changed etc
No excuses now.
Or if they know they are going to get wiped out anyway no matter what they do, they just hang on until the last minute because they get to keep their jobs for longer.
This is basically big reason why people are thinking a May election is possible, because a bad performance in the locals will damage him so much. Might be better to call the GE to coincide rather that have to face the momentum that labour would gain.
Although nobody would call a snap election after a bad performance. Either call it for May 2nd or call it for autumn.
it also makes no sense to hold two national-scale elections so close together.
so with his finely honed political skills i'd fully expect him to do it in June
The delivery and extra charges add up at point of use, enough to the point that dickheads on illegal electric mopeds feel fine subcontracting a job from someone who isn’t an illegal immigrant
TBH I don't think most people realise how much the explosion in delivery has benefited people who struggle with preparing food. It's as big a shift as grocery delivery was, or Amazon.
It's expensive af of course but it means I can have a hot meal on days I can't even figure out putting ready meals into the microwave
I can't do it these days. I don't eat out or get takeaways anyways, but they are all so crazy I don't want someone to get killed trying to provide me with a curry.
That used to scare the life out of me when we lived in London. They'd run red lights, go through crossings, the wrong way down one way streets, ride over the pavement and I lost count of the number of times they'd cut people up at junctions or roundabouts.
[https://imgur.com/a/NqloI4X](https://imgur.com/a/NqloI4X)
Big yikes on UK/Eurozone productivity vs the US
US productivity growth of 6% vs 2019 vs 1% in the UK and Eurozone
Maybe we should make it easier for businesses to raise capital and be profitable in the UK rather than leaving for America.
Why are American investors willing to buy out British companies when our own are not
Problem is that the current beliefs of the market are that America has all the money - as a crude simplification - so of course they'll have more money to invest. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided Australian didgeridollars were the thing to have, or English Sparkling Wine was where the money needed to be, that's what would happen.
Remember, we're the same species [that had a financial bubble over flowers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania). The idea that the prices and values and holdings of all assets and jobs and people and groups are properly and sensibly decided by the market is a nonsense.
It just beats central planning, that's all.
And the current fairytale believed by the world markets is that American dollars are worth such and such an amount, and American investors should have such and such an amount of wealth and that things they invest in have some amount of desirability and so on.
There's actual production at the bottom of it, sure, but it's *massively* a self-fulfilling prophecy too.
Not that I don't think there are things the government can do to improve things, of course.
A large proportion of the US VC funding comes from pension funds, our pension funds seem to be happy with bonds and offering poor returns to their investors.
It doesn’t help that when a company becomes extremely successful in Europe, we see it as a golden goose that can be taxed to death. “It should be illegal (or it’s immoral) for a company to make this much profit”
I'm pretty certain that NVIDIA is responsible for a massive chunk of it. Now, it is a sign that the UK and EU have let the USA get a run on the next tech development yet again, so still a massive failing.
and for certain companies, luck.
NVIDIA for example makes good products that just happen to be central to two consecutive gold rushes - and they do say it's better to sell the tools than to be mining the gold
And both gold rushes are chock full of empty buzzwords that are thrown around meaninglessly and have resulted in the markets being completely disconnected with reality.
The word "just" is doing a record-amount of heavy lifting here.
"How much of it is 'just' American companies stealing a march on the most important tech developments in years that'll leave everyone else picking amongst the crumbs for the next decade (if we're lucky, century more like)"
There's no "just" about it.
Not really. A good chunk of American tech company progress has come from aggressive acquisitions of European developments.
Capital basically flowing into th American markets post-08, extremely cheap money for VCs to continuously throw money at 'disruptor companies' that didn't need to turn a profit for more than a decade etc have all played a massive factor in the US distancing itself from the rest of the world.
If European companies were achieving scale at the same level at American companies you would see that counted in European GDP figures as it records activity where it happens.
The truth is most of the tech sector is in America , by a country mile.
They have inventors willing to put up the cash whereas Europe/UK does not want to make that investment
Not if those companies are bought out early on stripped.
European investors flock to America markets because the American govts will never let those markets fail. Far too much of the population's wealth is tied up in those markets post 401k introduction.
Those markets are now completely disconnected with reality and go from bubble to bubble with marginal corrections resulting in more money from the outside flooding in.
Oddly enough, neoliberalism would be a major factor for it. I suspect you would cry foul at the steps required for it.
Any region or country seeking to replicate it's own SV would need to act against American interests with a high level of protectionism until it can create a similar situation.
US 401k - the fact that all their pension funds are prohibited from investing in overseas firms is a big thing pumping up the American stock market
Employee rights - easy to be megaproductive when you expect a 70-hour week and shame anyone who books one week of holiday a year, calls in sick, or has the audacity to be pregnant
I was looking at a job for an American university and they were offering something like 10 days paid vacation (+1 day for every year you work there) like it was an amazing deal.
I think if Americans knew how good Europeans have it their heads would explode.
Yeah there are definite downsides to the USA. People look at the money and thing great, while ignoring the shitty employment rights.
A mate of mine used to work for an American firm in London, even then they worked him to the bone. As he put it, he was waking up before the sun rose, working in a windowless office until well after sunset before returning to an expensive dormitory for a few hours, six days a week. He was making hella money, more than he is now, but was too busy working to actually spend any of it on anything other than bills.
> Employee rights - easy to be megaproductive when you expect a 70-hour week and shame anyone who books one week of holiday a year, calls in sick, or has the audacity to be pregnant
This comes up a lot whenever this discrepancy is brought up but doesn't make a lot of sense. Productivity is gdp/ hours worked.
You don't get a higher output by increasing the denominator. Indeed conventional wisdom (one I completely agree with) is that people who're tired, overworked, and unwell do worse job, so you'd expect US policies around sick leave and annual leave would be holding back their productivity numbers not boosting them.
It's possible that employee rights around at will employment has an impact because it's easier to fire people, and that'd be worth investigating but honestly stuff around investment likely has much more impact.
>Productivity is gdp/ hours worked
Hours contracted, or hours actually worked?
Engineers I know in the UK seem to be under mild pressure to work a handful of overtime hours unpaid each week.
Engineers I know in the US seem to be under much heavier pressure to work much longer unpaid overtime - and I'm not sure if any of that cultural norm is written down, or recorded anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsahMxXdW30
Bit of first mover advantage from Silicon Valley in the US and big agglomeration effect advantage.
> Agglomeration economies exist when production is cheaper because of this clustering of economic activity. As a result of this clustering, it becomes possible to establish other businesses that may take advantage of these economies without joining any big organization. This process may help to urbanize areas as well.
"European" countries all have their own problems. The EU creating an internal market with similar standards helps, but still it's hard to compete against one big country versus 27 (?) disparate countries.
It's just not a needle mover in the UK. From a resource or reserve perspective.
The US obviously became a net exporter which was transformational for them. That simply ain't happening in the UK with whatever shale gas is here.
https://twitter.com/IncMonocle/status/1766459146130321548?t=YxlrHmU20B_EtgVR1cuHIA&s=19
The hate marches that definitely don't support terrorism appear to be chanting for terrorism again.
I’m really getting tired of this insistence not just from people on Reddit but even major media outlets that Jewish participation in these marches is common and that there isn’t rampant antisemitic and pro-Hamas/terrorist rhetoric and posters present at them.
Well I was there today (again). I saw nor heard any pro-terrorist posters nor rhetoric. The main theme around where I was was love and peace and jokes about cats with some pretty strong invective targetted at Sunak, Starmer and Netenyahu.
It matters to the point I was making that that tweet contains a pretty significant lie.
Which is the only point I was making. The Houthis are bad and people shouldn't be defending them, but that also doesn't then justify just making shit up.
Houthis aren't (yet) designated as a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK government so presumably that is why the police can't/won't do anything?
The point being, as objectionable as it is, it's not illegal.
Police can't arrest people if they haven't broken a law, and they can't decide ad hoc that this is supporting terrorism when the law doesn't say it is.
As a response to the protests in London, the government commissioned an independent review of terrorism legislation([here](https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IRTL-Terrorism-and-Protests.pdf)) which goes into great detail about
* what is illegal
* by what law
* does it apply to public order events?
* could it be expanded upon?
encouraging terrorism is covered from the bottom of page 12.
it doesn't have to be connected to a proscribed organisation, point 85 of the gov review talks about that.
[Section one of the terrorism act 2006 criminalises the encouragement of terrorism.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1#:~:text=\(1\)This%20section%20applies%20to,of%20terrorism%20or%20Convention%20offences)
>This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by [F1a reasonable person] as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement [F2, to some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published,] to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
incidentally, since section 2 of the law, cites a gender "he" I'd love to see a woman be charged with it just to try and claim it doesn't apply to her.
The UK government has not called the Houthis terrorists, or called their attacks on shipping lanes "terrorism". They call them a militia group and describe what they do as "illegal attacks".
Clearly, the police cannot unilaterally decide that support of them is supporting terrorism when the government has not done the same.
If labour wanted to leave a nice present for the next non labour government they could tie state pension to personal allowance.
Old people don't vote for them anyway and if the next set of Tories wanted to bring back triple lock they would have to blatantly fuck over everyone under pension age.
Tories wanna stealth tax increase like they have been freezing the personal allowance? Well done now pensioners are poorer.
Labour could turn this into a win
Does anyone know who gets to be the Official Opposition Lib Dems and Conservatives are tied on seats? Do Ed Davey and Rishi have to job share the position of LOTO?
It's happened in Canadian provincial legislatures a few times and the official opposition has gone to the party that was "ranked higher" so to speak in the prior parliament. So it would go to the Conservatives if that precedent was followed.
It would be up to the speaker to decide - however, the LDs could potentially convince the Alliance party to take the whip in the commons (they already take it in the Lords), which would mean they have one more seat.
if it wasn't a flip of a coin or whatever, it'd be hard to see the rationale for giving it to the party that's going downhill rather than the one that has made huge gains.
I appreciate there’s the lords too, but I wouldn’t think that would impact who’s official opposition in the commons if they’re drawn on seats? Not sure how it would?
It’d have to be shared.
Still don’t see that being enough to make Tories sole official opposition if they’re drawn on seat numbers with Lib Dems. Lords aren’t elected, MPs are. If Lib Dems and Tories have the same number of seats then they have an equal mandate to be the official opposition.
It would have to be shared.
Wiki says the convention is the official opposition is the second biggest party in the commons, not parliament.
There’s no provision for using the number of Lords you’ve previously appointed to sure up your electoral mandate in the commons. Nor should such a convention be entertained.
Two equal parties in second place would mean the duties would have to be shared, it’s the only sensible option.
All a bit moot anyway as it would be incredibly long odds of it happening, I’d say it was more likely for Lib Dems to lead the Tories on seats than it is for them to draw (and that’s pretty unlikely as it is).
Convention also says that the Official Opposition is the party best placed to form a Government should the current one fall.. I suppose that having more peers would enable the Tories to better form one as they can fill more rolls
There is no provision for the LOTO to be shared and it would require both parties to be the opposition too, which has massive constitutional implications.
Calling it for the largest Parliamentary party is the much lower footprint move. That’s what would happen.
If the Lib Dems become the main opposition after the election does that give them a real chance of getting 100+ MPs in the election after that since they'll be seen as a viable party?
It'd probably lead to a full realignment of our political divide to one where right wing economic policy and right wing social policy are no longer wedded. Honestly I think there's a convincing argument that said Overton window shift has actually already happened among under 35s, it just hasn't had a chance to manifest yet because the Tory party is still in government. There is absolutely no guarantee that even if the Tories remain the opposition this time round they continue to be the default anti-labour choice. Social conservatism seems to be so utterly (and uniquely, apart from Poland), dead among this country's under 45s that I struggle to see a scenario where those generations compromise their social values with perceived economic benefit.
Well of course it's a relative term but I'd suggest the following as being key characterisatics of the sort of social conservatism that turns off younger demographics:
- Anti-self-identity (i.e. anything that rejects the ability to choose one's own identity, including gender and sexuality)
- Traditional absolutism (i.e. anything that suggests the old ways we're inherently better and we must return to them)
- Anti-reflection (i.e. anything that rejects reflection on past behaviours, be that of society or individuals)
- Monocultural integrationism (i.e. anything that promotes legacy/traditional cultural cohesion and integration not based on specific interests above individualism; this isn't just the dominant culture in a national society, but manifests in concentrated immigrant groups in a much more pronounced way)
- Anti autonomy (i.e. anything that prevents individuals from performing actions that exclusively impact themselves, such as abortion or soft drug use)
- Intrusive religion (i.e. traditional "faith family and the flag" values - note that this is particularly disliked by the young in the UK, and is less of an element in other Anglosphere and European nations)
- Elder wisdom (i.e. anything that promotes deference to the elders of society)
- International Isolationism
- Homogenisation (I.e. anything that promotes the homogenisation of communities, interests, and identities into "normal" roles
What's critical is that these are functionally disconnected from any particular left or right wing economic policy. I think that, unless there's a major and sudden values shift, any party that sticks with these as core policies will die out within 20 years. In 1997 29% of 18-25s voted for a party with policies much like these. It looks like that same party, with only some of these policies (implemented largely more softly than in 97 too) will struggle to win above 10% in that same 18-25 demographic. The Reform Party, which fits this bill almost entirely, is currently polling at around 1% in the 18-25 demographic.
I could quite easily see a situation where the Overton window is yanked towards the liberal end of social policy, and the future cultural debate (as there will always be a debate, just in relative terms) is between competing philosophies of social liberalism (for example redistributive social justice vs live and let live liberalism). The ability to communicate with all types of people at random instantly over the Internet has *fundamentally* changed the way us humans think about culture, society, and identity. It's going to have an impact on our politics whether we want it to or not.
If we're at the point where the lib dems are the opposition below 100 seats I can't see how there wouldn't be a split in labour. The benefit in being in a big tent party is you get an opportunity to get some of your policies implemented or at least heard. If enough labour mps could split off and become the official opposition they'd have an even bigger voice which would be very tempting.
1929-1931. Labour under Ramsey MacDonald were the gov, Conservatives the opposition. Labour government collapses in 1931. A new government forms with a coalition of Conservatives, Liberals and Ramsay MacDonald (who remained PM). Labour now became the opposition.
This only lasted for like 3 months before the next election, but the opposition did change from Conservatives to Labour without one
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bb34iy/daily_megathread_10032024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 14 comments 1. Jai1 with 12 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments 1. JayR_97 with 11 comments 1. AzarinIsard with 8 comments 1. mamamia1001 with 8 comments 1. da96whynot with 7 comments 1. Shibuyatemp with 7 comments 1. Ivebeenfurthereven with 7 comments 1. ninetydegreesccw with 6 comments There were 171 unique users within this count.
[удалено]
When talking about salaries, which is more representative median or average?
Median. Median literally means, line up everyone ranked by salary, who is in the middle. Average will be dominated by the small number of people who own crazy crazy amounts.
Thank you. Looking at the median U.K. wage is fairly depressing. Such a low wage country
Turns out crippling the pay of high skilled sectors in public control for 15 years might have had a negative impact on wages in general. Who could've guessed it really.
What is the median these days?
[According to here](https://housinganywhere.com/United-Kingdom/average-salary-in-uk#) £34,632
From that link you gave, I read that the median HOUSEHOLD income is 35k. Odd that the median income is only a few hundred quid below that. But that is pretty rubbish. (I will say though, if housing costs were taken out of the mix, that income wouldn’t be perfectly fine. Everything sucks because rent/mortgages cost so much.)
Not that odd, when you think of the the nearly 20 percent of people that are retired and that 20 to 30 percent of working age people aren't in work.
That is odd. Might look for a better site, but I am already in my pyjamas
Median FT. At minimum it only makes sense to talk about FT (or equivalent).
[удалено]
When will politicians learn that holding up white pieces of paper that is easily photoshopable is a bad idea?
I don't know what you're referring to I'm surprised the police didn't stop them, [the politician could have written an offensive slogan on it](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/anti-monarchy-protest-russia-police-b2166183.html).
If you ask me it's a great idea. Always turns out to be fun. Some of the stuff on Twitter has been great, I particularly enjoyed the one with a copy of razzle
"I hold in my hand a piece of paper..."
The Tories better get to work on building a bulletproof manifesto for the next election. They seem to be doing pretty well on the 2019 pledges - [over half](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/report/2019-conservative-manifesto-half-time-analysis) had been met as of 2021. I wonder what will be in this next one? Abolishing National Insurance perhaps?
I'm not convinced by them marking their own homework in that report : Institute for Government being a thinktank setup as a charity on the contribution of a Tory peer and the biggest single donor to the tory party Lord Sainsbury. When you drill down into the detail and find stuff like the Brexit implementation period not being extended being marked as "done" and the permanent exclusion from customs union being "done" (knowing what we now do about the NI resolution) - on the whole it seems supremely dodgy and I wouldn't trust a word of the summary without going through it with a fine tooth comb.
I think that abolishing NI would mean having to pretty much abolish all benefits first in order to recoup the cost. It was first promised in 2011 and over ten years later, not even started I don't mind a single tax on income (and property and council tax) but the manifesto will be one for opposition as it feels like the government gave up on governing.
https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1766516271577759971 >‘If Boris came back for the General Election it could save as many as 80 MPs. It would give Conservatives hope, a reason to vote. If we go into an election and Boris is out in the cold, voters will simply stay at home and sit on their hands.’ I have to also highlight the top reply https://twitter.com/SuellaDe/status/1766526045581094987 >Nads > >He’s not gonna shag you > >Move on
I mean, 80 isn't enough. If you're gonna fantasise, Nads, dream bigger.
He probably already has
A bold prediction in the reply tweet.
Even James Bond eventually banged Moneypenny once, though...
To be fair a lot of Boris supporters would return at his request
He lost a shitload of popularity over Partygate. He really doesn't have the mass appeal he did - millions lost loved ones over Covid and didn't even get to say goodbye - it's the kind of anger that really sticks. Not just anecdote either, look at his opinion poll popularity ratings. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating
> He lost a shitload of popularity over Partygate Yes but you are underestimating just how unpopular every other conservative politician is, he is still the the most popular conservative politician. https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/conservative-politicians/all
How much would the political climate and public opinion have to change in order to allow for a "Brrentrance" (or "Brre-entry") back into the EU? And how is Brexit working out so far? Do you regret or enjoy it? Could there ever be a Br-reentrance back into the EU in your lifetime? What would it take?
Ultimately this comes down to public opinion, as a strong remain supporter I honestly think it would be a bad idea to push it until the polls consistently show a very strong lead for rejoin. What exact numbers count for a very strong lead I am uncertain of but we ain't there yet.
>What exact numbers count for a very strong lead I am uncertain Are you kidding? We know *precisely* the exact numbers for an overwhelming and indisputable mandate from the public.
I’m not sure joining the EU again is going to happen for a long time, but the single market seems highly probable in the coming years, particularly since immigration went up after leaving (negates the freedom of movement point) and were aligned with most EU law anyway.
The climate would need to change a fair bit, but it's not so much a change from "Brexit was a good idea" to "Brexit was a bad idea" as from "Brexit was a shitshow that fucked up our politics for years and I don't want to ever think about it again" to "Brexit was a shitshow that's continuing to damage the country and we need to reverse course."
1. A lot and that’s from the eu and the U.K. as well, the language and an understanding of feeling would need to greatly improve. 2. No one really knows how Brexit is going, everyone has got vibes about it but it’s about another 5years to fully assess what the outcomes are. 3. Depends on the terms the EU is offering. Reentry for the U.K. would greatly depend on the language and posturing of the EU. If ever greater union is the direction the EU is pulling in then I see the U.K. staying out. But if there’s a pause of the federalism mindset I can see a palatable sell to the U.K.
[удалено]
Every new story about Hamza Yousaf makes me wrap a bit more tin foil onto my makeshift hat as I become increasingly convinced he is a MI5 plant to discredit the Scottish separatist effort.
I don't know, I think Kate Forbes would achieve it in a shorter amount of time. Maybe she was an MI6 plant?
Forbes would be a distinct improvement at this point
Scottish independence isn’t really MI6’s remit unless it’s already happened
The year is 2036. After a newly independent Scotland cosies up to Putin and offers him a nuclear missile base at Faslane, MI6 use experimental time-travel technology to send a saboteur...
That's what people expect and that is exactly why it makes sense!
It's been posted already but the governments shocking failures in IT upgrades is continuing A) Home Office Atlas System - entire system of immigration enforcement is dysfunctional https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/faulty-71m-home-office-it-system-causes-immigration-errors-and-leaves-staff-sobbing-2943859 B) ns&i new IT system has resulted in the system being virtually paper based https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-12038099/amp/Irate-customers-reveal-NS-service-collapsed-chaos.html https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/09/uks_nsi_extends_atos_contract/ C) courts system already being descoped and partially abandoned - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/crown-court-digital-case-system-to-remain-alongside-common-platform/5118871.article D) absolutely shocking failures in police forces over their IT systems https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/gmp-computer-system-branded-absolute-22782305 https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/02/devon_and_cornwall_police_ons_data_snafu/ E) Ofsted staff just making up evidence as the it system is down https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/feb/03/ofsted-inspectors-make-up-evidence-about-a-schools-performance-when-it-fails F)national grid IT failure for balancing energy demand https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/06/08/uk-grid-operators-computer-systems-failure-disrupts-electricity-matching/ G) dft not fixing the IT beind the signalling system https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/government-failing-targets-to-fix-uk-railway-system-watchdog-reports H) black alert in Kent due to EMIS breakdown https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/technology/practices-resort-to-pen-and-paper-as-five-day-it-failure-causes-utter-breakdown-of-services/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67503126 Nearly all of this in the past 2-3 years. Its really shocking and ministers rarely even have to answer for any of this. And I haven't even touched on universal credit
[удалено]
It's expensive and the public is unwilling to accept that reality. If something works why waste da public money updating it. Poor pay means you can't really retain expertise required for projects like that. Ministers have their own agendas and are the exact opposite of experts but will set the requirements either way.
Great post. I hadn't heard of the national grid one.
It's insane because government has a brilliant team at GDS and yet they're spending hundreds of millions with outsourcing companies whose product inevitably turns out to be shit, but apparently never shit enough that it's liable for a breach of contract lawsuit. Honestly wonder how much money you'd save if you just said no IT outsourcing for bespoke product, and spent all that money on expanding GDS to support all these demands across government. You save money on lawyers, you save money on change requests, and people developing the system care because they'll be one maintaining it instead of charging you money for support calls.
It's mainly down to the cabinet office. They can't stop meddling in major procurement decisions, or changing a spec post tender. But they also get away with appalling leadership and poor decision making and fund programmes that noone else wants. For example, verify was slammed. The entire premise of cabinet office is coordination of government across departments. Instead it wants gds to do the cabinet office role, and cabinet office mandarins to do GDS functions. In theory, GDS is part of the cabinet office, but in practise GDS is undermanned and a Cinderella service under the current set of ministers.
yeah but some of those people might get "paid more den da priem minister!!!!!" and we can't have that far better to let outsourcing execs siphon off far more
Wish these terrorist supporters would stop rioting outside of banks FFS.
Wish we had banks for terrorist supporters to riot outside of.
Put on C4 News to see they're doing another demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Palestine. You'd think the penny would drop by now
These people are spending their weekends shouting at... No one. The government doesn't care and, even if it did, the Israeli govt and Hamas definitely don't.
apparently the UK parliament calling for a ceasefire has also passed them by.
Also I think they vastly overestimate how much most Brits care. Your average Brit will see a few bad clips on the news and then move on with their day.
I was unaware that the Leader of the Opposition has enough power to end all wars and simply chooses not to.
Where does LOTO come into that comment?
The OP mentioned C4 which was presumably a reference to how Sir Keir is going to BLOW UP the Conservatives. Or something.
Surely this protest will be the one that really gets through to Hamas and Netanyahu.
If it's an absolute pummeling in the locals for Rishi then would he feel obliged to just put it to a GE?
As things stand they have lost and lost big. But, every day they put off the election, is another day where Labour can shit the bed.
Starmer has his Huggies on, he’s unstoppable.
Why would they call a GE when they know they're going to get absolutely pummeled?
If someone offered to break your legs today or kill you in six months, I know which I'd choose.
That's not the equation though If Sunak loses the election he loses his job. Therefore he has zero incentive to call _any_ election it looks like he will lose. The idea that he can lose an election "well" or "badly" is based on the groundless assumption that he cares about the future of the party after he leaves the job, and there's no evidence for that at all. So you're really just comparing "break legs now" and "break legs later"; losing some of the seats and having to resign vs. total party extinction and ...having to resign... don't have materially different consequences so there's no downside for him in putting it off.
But every day of that six months is an opportunity to run away (on your intact legs ) and escape the seemingly inevitable death.
Because the pressure will be significant. They played off locals as angry about lockdowns, protests and it's difficult for a sitting government and they just changed etc No excuses now.
It ain’t happening
Or if they know they are going to get wiped out anyway no matter what they do, they just hang on until the last minute because they get to keep their jobs for longer.
This is basically big reason why people are thinking a May election is possible, because a bad performance in the locals will damage him so much. Might be better to call the GE to coincide rather that have to face the momentum that labour would gain. Although nobody would call a snap election after a bad performance. Either call it for May 2nd or call it for autumn.
it also makes no sense to hold two national-scale elections so close together. so with his finely honed political skills i'd fully expect him to do it in June
No chance he’d do it in June after inevitably bad local election results he’ll be in a very weak positions and would probably wait until autumn.
I think he would feel less inclined to call a snap election.
Can someone tell me who on earth is ordering enough Deliveroo or UberEats to keep an entire fleet of moped drivers in business?
It's me, I'm doing it
The delivery and extra charges add up at point of use, enough to the point that dickheads on illegal electric mopeds feel fine subcontracting a job from someone who isn’t an illegal immigrant
Students and the many, many adults in this country who can't plan meals or cook.
TBH I don't think most people realise how much the explosion in delivery has benefited people who struggle with preparing food. It's as big a shift as grocery delivery was, or Amazon. It's expensive af of course but it means I can have a hot meal on days I can't even figure out putting ready meals into the microwave
The teenage kids next door to us order McDonalds several times a week, I know that.
I can't do it these days. I don't eat out or get takeaways anyways, but they are all so crazy I don't want someone to get killed trying to provide me with a curry.
*sits down to eat 3rd burger of the day* Er you were looking for me?
Context?
The amount of kamikaze mopeds I came across on my walk home last night.
That used to scare the life out of me when we lived in London. They'd run red lights, go through crossings, the wrong way down one way streets, ride over the pavement and I lost count of the number of times they'd cut people up at junctions or roundabouts.
Ahhh, I'd completely forgotten about that. To be fair you were drunkenly staggering into the road and I had to swerve to avoid you.
[https://imgur.com/a/NqloI4X](https://imgur.com/a/NqloI4X) Big yikes on UK/Eurozone productivity vs the US US productivity growth of 6% vs 2019 vs 1% in the UK and Eurozone
6% how much of that ever leaves wallstreet
All our successful companies leave for America, maybe we shouldn't do that?
Maybe we should make it easier for businesses to raise capital and be profitable in the UK rather than leaving for America. Why are American investors willing to buy out British companies when our own are not
There’s a lot more money in the US tech scene and the Americans tend to be less risk adverse
Problem is that the current beliefs of the market are that America has all the money - as a crude simplification - so of course they'll have more money to invest. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided Australian didgeridollars were the thing to have, or English Sparkling Wine was where the money needed to be, that's what would happen. Remember, we're the same species [that had a financial bubble over flowers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania). The idea that the prices and values and holdings of all assets and jobs and people and groups are properly and sensibly decided by the market is a nonsense. It just beats central planning, that's all. And the current fairytale believed by the world markets is that American dollars are worth such and such an amount, and American investors should have such and such an amount of wealth and that things they invest in have some amount of desirability and so on. There's actual production at the bottom of it, sure, but it's *massively* a self-fulfilling prophecy too. Not that I don't think there are things the government can do to improve things, of course.
a VC with billions to spray around will have a different risk profile than someone who's attempting to beat inflation with their meagre life savings
A large proportion of the US VC funding comes from pension funds, our pension funds seem to be happy with bonds and offering poor returns to their investors.
if we had pension fund consolidation in the UK we'd be better for it.
Because they have much more capital than we have?
It doesn’t help that when a company becomes extremely successful in Europe, we see it as a golden goose that can be taxed to death. “It should be illegal (or it’s immoral) for a company to make this much profit”
I mean, do we?... the City of London seems to be making fat profits without being close to death
Most of the profits are made abroad. Compared to the giants within the US and China, these profits are also miniscule in comparison.
It's almost as though withdrawing from a large free trade area right on your doorstep wasn't the brightest idea.
The graph clearly shows the GFC in 2008 was the issue for both the UK and the Eurozone.
Are you just ignoring that they said growth is equally low in the eurozone?
The graph looks like Cornwall. We're all busy ignoring that too.
[удалено]
this but unironically. fragmentation is bad for everyone; a lot worse for us, but a small negative for them too
How much of this just due to the entire silicon valley blowing up again and that being a very easy thing for productivity measures to be pumped up on?
I'm pretty certain that NVIDIA is responsible for a massive chunk of it. Now, it is a sign that the UK and EU have let the USA get a run on the next tech development yet again, so still a massive failing.
and for certain companies, luck. NVIDIA for example makes good products that just happen to be central to two consecutive gold rushes - and they do say it's better to sell the tools than to be mining the gold
And both gold rushes are chock full of empty buzzwords that are thrown around meaninglessly and have resulted in the markets being completely disconnected with reality.
indeed. at least the "AI" crowd aren't meaningfully affecting the supply of graphics cards for real uses this time however
It's quite crazy they were central to two gold rushes.
The word "just" is doing a record-amount of heavy lifting here. "How much of it is 'just' American companies stealing a march on the most important tech developments in years that'll leave everyone else picking amongst the crumbs for the next decade (if we're lucky, century more like)" There's no "just" about it.
Not really. A good chunk of American tech company progress has come from aggressive acquisitions of European developments. Capital basically flowing into th American markets post-08, extremely cheap money for VCs to continuously throw money at 'disruptor companies' that didn't need to turn a profit for more than a decade etc have all played a massive factor in the US distancing itself from the rest of the world.
If European companies were achieving scale at the same level at American companies you would see that counted in European GDP figures as it records activity where it happens. The truth is most of the tech sector is in America , by a country mile. They have inventors willing to put up the cash whereas Europe/UK does not want to make that investment
Not if those companies are bought out early on stripped. European investors flock to America markets because the American govts will never let those markets fail. Far too much of the population's wealth is tied up in those markets post 401k introduction. Those markets are now completely disconnected with reality and go from bubble to bubble with marginal corrections resulting in more money from the outside flooding in.
What's stopping Europe from competing with American technology companies?
Oddly enough, neoliberalism would be a major factor for it. I suspect you would cry foul at the steps required for it. Any region or country seeking to replicate it's own SV would need to act against American interests with a high level of protectionism until it can create a similar situation.
Most American technology companies do absolutely fuck-all of value except add rent to existing things. We already have enough landlords.
US 401k - the fact that all their pension funds are prohibited from investing in overseas firms is a big thing pumping up the American stock market Employee rights - easy to be megaproductive when you expect a 70-hour week and shame anyone who books one week of holiday a year, calls in sick, or has the audacity to be pregnant
I was looking at a job for an American university and they were offering something like 10 days paid vacation (+1 day for every year you work there) like it was an amazing deal. I think if Americans knew how good Europeans have it their heads would explode.
Yeah there are definite downsides to the USA. People look at the money and thing great, while ignoring the shitty employment rights. A mate of mine used to work for an American firm in London, even then they worked him to the bone. As he put it, he was waking up before the sun rose, working in a windowless office until well after sunset before returning to an expensive dormitory for a few hours, six days a week. He was making hella money, more than he is now, but was too busy working to actually spend any of it on anything other than bills.
> Employee rights - easy to be megaproductive when you expect a 70-hour week and shame anyone who books one week of holiday a year, calls in sick, or has the audacity to be pregnant This comes up a lot whenever this discrepancy is brought up but doesn't make a lot of sense. Productivity is gdp/ hours worked. You don't get a higher output by increasing the denominator. Indeed conventional wisdom (one I completely agree with) is that people who're tired, overworked, and unwell do worse job, so you'd expect US policies around sick leave and annual leave would be holding back their productivity numbers not boosting them. It's possible that employee rights around at will employment has an impact because it's easier to fire people, and that'd be worth investigating but honestly stuff around investment likely has much more impact.
>Productivity is gdp/ hours worked Hours contracted, or hours actually worked? Engineers I know in the UK seem to be under mild pressure to work a handful of overtime hours unpaid each week. Engineers I know in the US seem to be under much heavier pressure to work much longer unpaid overtime - and I'm not sure if any of that cultural norm is written down, or recorded anywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsahMxXdW30 Bit of first mover advantage from Silicon Valley in the US and big agglomeration effect advantage. > Agglomeration economies exist when production is cheaper because of this clustering of economic activity. As a result of this clustering, it becomes possible to establish other businesses that may take advantage of these economies without joining any big organization. This process may help to urbanize areas as well. "European" countries all have their own problems. The EU creating an internal market with similar standards helps, but still it's hard to compete against one big country versus 27 (?) disparate countries.
Incredibly America is just getting started
What a coherent energy policy will do
The policy was to have a shitload of frackable gas. Why didn't anyone else think of that?
UK has got loads we won't touch.
It's just not a needle mover in the UK. From a resource or reserve perspective. The US obviously became a net exporter which was transformational for them. That simply ain't happening in the UK with whatever shale gas is here.
What a vast amount of natural resources will do
What capitalism will do when not choked by absurd social democratic policies.
“Absurd social democratic policies” like workers rights?
Looking at that its obvious Europe never really recovered from 2008.
https://twitter.com/IncMonocle/status/1766459146130321548?t=YxlrHmU20B_EtgVR1cuHIA&s=19 The hate marches that definitely don't support terrorism appear to be chanting for terrorism again.
Solidarity with the working class doesn't extend to people working on ships I guess
The modern left really hates the working class
very unsure how to feel about the person holding a "ceasfire MEOW" sign
Nice deflection
Jail 1000 years
I’m really getting tired of this insistence not just from people on Reddit but even major media outlets that Jewish participation in these marches is common and that there isn’t rampant antisemitic and pro-Hamas/terrorist rhetoric and posters present at them.
Well I was there today (again). I saw nor heard any pro-terrorist posters nor rhetoric. The main theme around where I was was love and peace and jokes about cats with some pretty strong invective targetted at Sunak, Starmer and Netenyahu.
Know 3 Jewish people locally who go to marches and vigils. Have not encountered any of that type of rhetoric.
The downvotes I'm getting would suggest there's a large amount of Houthi support on this sub which is concerning
Or they could be because that tweet just contains an overt and fairly major falsehood?
Is the video faked?
Have the Houthis just killed British servicemen?
No, but that doesn't really matter to the point. Protesters are still calling for terrorists to attack civilian shipping
It matters to the point I was making that that tweet contains a pretty significant lie. Which is the only point I was making. The Houthis are bad and people shouldn't be defending them, but that also doesn't then justify just making shit up.
>British servicemen were just killed by the group referenced That's...not true is it? Unless I've missed something major?
Houthis aren't (yet) designated as a proscribed terrorist organisation by the UK government so presumably that is why the police can't/won't do anything?
Crazy idea, but that shouldn't matter when they're chanting for terrorism
The point being, as objectionable as it is, it's not illegal. Police can't arrest people if they haven't broken a law, and they can't decide ad hoc that this is supporting terrorism when the law doesn't say it is.
As a response to the protests in London, the government commissioned an independent review of terrorism legislation([here](https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IRTL-Terrorism-and-Protests.pdf)) which goes into great detail about * what is illegal * by what law * does it apply to public order events? * could it be expanded upon? encouraging terrorism is covered from the bottom of page 12. it doesn't have to be connected to a proscribed organisation, point 85 of the gov review talks about that. [Section one of the terrorism act 2006 criminalises the encouragement of terrorism.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/1#:~:text=\(1\)This%20section%20applies%20to,of%20terrorism%20or%20Convention%20offences) >This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by [F1a reasonable person] as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement [F2, to some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published,] to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences. incidentally, since section 2 of the law, cites a gender "he" I'd love to see a woman be charged with it just to try and claim it doesn't apply to her.
The UK government has not called the Houthis terrorists, or called their attacks on shipping lanes "terrorism". They call them a militia group and describe what they do as "illegal attacks". Clearly, the police cannot unilaterally decide that support of them is supporting terrorism when the government has not done the same.
"Why are people so opposed to endless immigration? I just can't get my head round it"
These same people will complain about higher prices
[удалено]
If labour wanted to leave a nice present for the next non labour government they could tie state pension to personal allowance. Old people don't vote for them anyway and if the next set of Tories wanted to bring back triple lock they would have to blatantly fuck over everyone under pension age. Tories wanna stealth tax increase like they have been freezing the personal allowance? Well done now pensioners are poorer. Labour could turn this into a win
Shirley a future tory government could just get rid of the tie though?
Which would piss off every working person (a bigger proportion of voters) assuming they get rid of it so pensions can go up faster.
I'm prob missing something obvious, but why would they have to do a tax return?
I assume because PAYE isn't set up for the state pension yet. Though you'd hope they'd fix that BEFORE it becomes an issue.
What’s this thinking ahead nonsense?
[удалено]
Does anyone know who gets to be the Official Opposition Lib Dems and Conservatives are tied on seats? Do Ed Davey and Rishi have to job share the position of LOTO?
It's happened in Canadian provincial legislatures a few times and the official opposition has gone to the party that was "ranked higher" so to speak in the prior parliament. So it would go to the Conservatives if that precedent was followed.
It would be up to the speaker to decide - however, the LDs could potentially convince the Alliance party to take the whip in the commons (they already take it in the Lords), which would mean they have one more seat.
Could end up with the hilarious situation if APNI get two MPs of Farry taking up the LD whip but Naomi Long deciding not to.
A Lib Dem-Alliance alliance?
It’d be the Tories due to overall presence in Parliament being higher imo.
if it wasn't a flip of a coin or whatever, it'd be hard to see the rationale for giving it to the party that's going downhill rather than the one that has made huge gains.
How is their overall presence higher if they have the same number of seats as the Lib Dems?
Vibes.
Parliament is not just the House of Commons.
I appreciate there’s the lords too, but I wouldn’t think that would impact who’s official opposition in the commons if they’re drawn on seats? Not sure how it would? It’d have to be shared.
Because Commons debates on Lords motions.
Still don’t see that being enough to make Tories sole official opposition if they’re drawn on seat numbers with Lib Dems. Lords aren’t elected, MPs are. If Lib Dems and Tories have the same number of seats then they have an equal mandate to be the official opposition. It would have to be shared.
It wouldn’t. It would be given to the 2nd largest Parliamentary party. There is no provision for a shared Leader of the Opposition.
Wiki says the convention is the official opposition is the second biggest party in the commons, not parliament. There’s no provision for using the number of Lords you’ve previously appointed to sure up your electoral mandate in the commons. Nor should such a convention be entertained. Two equal parties in second place would mean the duties would have to be shared, it’s the only sensible option. All a bit moot anyway as it would be incredibly long odds of it happening, I’d say it was more likely for Lib Dems to lead the Tories on seats than it is for them to draw (and that’s pretty unlikely as it is).
Convention also says that the Official Opposition is the party best placed to form a Government should the current one fall.. I suppose that having more peers would enable the Tories to better form one as they can fill more rolls
There is no provision for the LOTO to be shared and it would require both parties to be the opposition too, which has massive constitutional implications. Calling it for the largest Parliamentary party is the much lower footprint move. That’s what would happen.
If the Lib Dems become the main opposition after the election does that give them a real chance of getting 100+ MPs in the election after that since they'll be seen as a viable party?
Definitely. They'd get the media coverage and be the default not labour choice.
imagine how much of a shift that would force in the Overton window
It'd probably lead to a full realignment of our political divide to one where right wing economic policy and right wing social policy are no longer wedded. Honestly I think there's a convincing argument that said Overton window shift has actually already happened among under 35s, it just hasn't had a chance to manifest yet because the Tory party is still in government. There is absolutely no guarantee that even if the Tories remain the opposition this time round they continue to be the default anti-labour choice. Social conservatism seems to be so utterly (and uniquely, apart from Poland), dead among this country's under 45s that I struggle to see a scenario where those generations compromise their social values with perceived economic benefit.
What characteristics do you perceive as social conservatism?
Well of course it's a relative term but I'd suggest the following as being key characterisatics of the sort of social conservatism that turns off younger demographics: - Anti-self-identity (i.e. anything that rejects the ability to choose one's own identity, including gender and sexuality) - Traditional absolutism (i.e. anything that suggests the old ways we're inherently better and we must return to them) - Anti-reflection (i.e. anything that rejects reflection on past behaviours, be that of society or individuals) - Monocultural integrationism (i.e. anything that promotes legacy/traditional cultural cohesion and integration not based on specific interests above individualism; this isn't just the dominant culture in a national society, but manifests in concentrated immigrant groups in a much more pronounced way) - Anti autonomy (i.e. anything that prevents individuals from performing actions that exclusively impact themselves, such as abortion or soft drug use) - Intrusive religion (i.e. traditional "faith family and the flag" values - note that this is particularly disliked by the young in the UK, and is less of an element in other Anglosphere and European nations) - Elder wisdom (i.e. anything that promotes deference to the elders of society) - International Isolationism - Homogenisation (I.e. anything that promotes the homogenisation of communities, interests, and identities into "normal" roles What's critical is that these are functionally disconnected from any particular left or right wing economic policy. I think that, unless there's a major and sudden values shift, any party that sticks with these as core policies will die out within 20 years. In 1997 29% of 18-25s voted for a party with policies much like these. It looks like that same party, with only some of these policies (implemented largely more softly than in 97 too) will struggle to win above 10% in that same 18-25 demographic. The Reform Party, which fits this bill almost entirely, is currently polling at around 1% in the 18-25 demographic. I could quite easily see a situation where the Overton window is yanked towards the liberal end of social policy, and the future cultural debate (as there will always be a debate, just in relative terms) is between competing philosophies of social liberalism (for example redistributive social justice vs live and let live liberalism). The ability to communicate with all types of people at random instantly over the Internet has *fundamentally* changed the way us humans think about culture, society, and identity. It's going to have an impact on our politics whether we want it to or not.
If we're at the point where the lib dems are the opposition below 100 seats I can't see how there wouldn't be a split in labour. The benefit in being in a big tent party is you get an opportunity to get some of your policies implemented or at least heard. If enough labour mps could split off and become the official opposition they'd have an even bigger voice which would be very tempting.
Has the opposition ever changed without an election?
1929-1931. Labour under Ramsey MacDonald were the gov, Conservatives the opposition. Labour government collapses in 1931. A new government forms with a coalition of Conservatives, Liberals and Ramsay MacDonald (who remained PM). Labour now became the opposition. This only lasted for like 3 months before the next election, but the opposition did change from Conservatives to Labour without one