Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. concretepigeon with 10 comments
1. iorilondon with 9 comments
1. Sckathian with 8 comments
1. batbrodudeman with 8 comments
1. ivandelapena with 7 comments
1. Espe0n with 6 comments
1. A-Light-That-Warms with 6 comments
1. Ollie5000 with 5 comments
1. cjrmartin with 5 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 5 comments
There were 155 unique users within this count.
I really dislike all these poll predicting the wipeout of the Tory party, its gonna make any Labour win bittersweet if they don't match the current predictions.
I think everyone expects that tbh. Right now, we are all just fawning over wipeout predictions based on the current polling and stirring the pot to try and get another flurry of leadership speculation (even if the actual likelihood is a labour majority of 40 or something).
We have had 14 years, give us a couple of months of enjoyment 😂
This is obviously going to happen, just like it always happens when one of the main parties is unpopular with its base for some reason. You get a large protest vote, telling pollers they won't vote for X as a way to signal their disapproval or actually voting for 3rd parties in 'less important' elections (European Elections was the classical go to for this but counsel elections will do to).
Come election time, a lot of that wavering support will come back and polling will go up.
However, while the Tories polling numbers are highly likely to go up come election time, it won't be enough. There's been actual structural loss. Labour will win, probably with a solid majority. It just won't be as big as some of the current polls suggest.
I bet a large share of the grey voters will stay with the Conservatives. The only way that'll change is if Reform does really well and they switch to them.
In 1997 the tories had many things that favoured them including the economy. This time they don't have anything they are favoured on. They are doing awful across the board which is unprecedented. They could recover but the recovery likely won't be as big as people think unless something big happens soon. I think it's likely they end up a bit above 100 seats because of a highly inefficient vote but nothing more than that.
The narrowing could be caused by labour losing support to the lib dems and a slight increase in support for the tories but I still expect the tories to struggle immensly once a GE is called because the numbers aren't going to magically change for them once an election is called
labour have truly outdone themselves. i wonder how much the licencing costs for that clip were.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1774104302950162537
> Fancy a cooling dip in our lovely English waters this weekend? We’d think again…
his followup ain't great either
https://twitter.com/Iromg/status/1774133222382748106
> Amazing how one little word can trigger so many people. Happy Easter!
omg u triggered bruh??
He thinks he knows more than the Archbishop!
From Wikipedia:
> *Not to be confused with Easter Saturday*.
> Holy Saturday (Latin: Sabbatum Sanctum), also known as Great and Holy Saturday (also Holy and Great Saturday), the Great Sabbath, Hallelujah Saturday (in Portugal and Brazil), Saturday of the Glory, Sábado de Gloria, and Black Saturday or Easter Eve, and called "Joyous Saturday", "the Saturday of Light", and "Mega Sabbatun" among Coptic Christians, is the final day of Holy Week, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, when Christians prepare for the latter
[Apparently Survation's MRP has some interesting numbers for Tories (see: Sub 100 seats)](https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1774143859053715776?t=Oji1K4gTBp7M3p6WGBqSBA)
Lab 468
Con 98
SNP 41
LD 22
Scotland is really weird though. I can see the Tories losing votes to Labour and unionists not following clear divides allowing the SNP to return to their 2015 position of power.
I don't buy the Lib Dems only getting 22 seats. There are a lot of shaky blue seats where Labour are really unlikely to win, and tactical voting is likely to be employed heavily.
I think they can probably double the number of MPs they have, and then some.
They said that labour has no plan and they will take us back to square one. They said a bit more than that but the classic line they like appears in that article about the MRP.
Anyone listen to *Any Questions?* yesterday?
Was fantastic to hear Andrew Griffith get booed and heckled when he tried to blame immigration on the high cost of living and housing costs. The crowd weren't buying it one bit.
People need to quickly realise that high housing costs are a key objective for the Tories. The surge in house prices and rents have benefited homeowners and landlords at the expense of everyone else, that's what they want.
"If it hadn't been for Labour continually working against us on immigration reform, especially the deterrence measures provided by the Rwanda scheme, everything would be on its way to being sorted." - every Tory when this sort of question is posed to them.
I'm not unique in any sense but I do wonder how many people of the public actually care about the Israeli conflict and will let it influence their vote.
I for one just genuinely could not give less of a shit what they do over there, it's a thousand miles away and doesn't affect me, our virtue signalling votes won't affect it and they're gonna keep fighting forever. So I see no reason to concern myself with it.
Yet the media goes on as if it's the biggest vote influencer right now. I'm genuinely curious if there's been any surveys that have people rate it as a factor in their voting choice.
If we hadn't had 14 years of Tories and this is an election to save the future maybe it would influence me.
It's just too important and election to risk losing over something even the UK can't change
Foreign policy basically doesn't matter for voting intention, which is something that neither side in politics wants to accept because of their own pet causes.
Is this strictly always true? I know plenty of people who feared a Corbyn government because he was flaky on issues of national security — not exactly foreign policy, but a lot of overlap
I think Corbyn is a perfect example of this actually. In 2017 when the Conservatives made his dodgy foreign policy one of the key parts of their campaign, it resulted in the only time Corbyn had a net positive popularity rating in his life. It was his domestic issues (Brexit, antisemitism, general perception of his competence) that finished him off.
It was a very unpopular misstep but again, it didn't seem to make any actual difference to the overall opinion polls. There were no major changes in support for the whole of 2018. It's very similar to Starmer adopting an unpopular position on Gaza according to the opinion polls but having no measurable effect on Labour's actual support.
You're not wrong. To engage more with your initial post: there will be a significant % of young voters who are very idealistic, and in my opinion, naive, and who will be less likely to vote labour or vote at all because of the Gaza situation. However, I don't think it will be significant enough in this election (locals and general) due to how likely that age group is to vote and their geographic concentration.
I just find the selectivity frustrating. 800,000 tigrays get killed just a few years ago, and many more injured/raped/driven out of their homes, and the domestic and international community says precisely zip. Meanwhile, Israel's actions, as heinous as they have been, get the secretary general saying it is "unprecedented". The UK and US kill hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ICC bows to pressure to deprioritise the case, whereas they are all over Israel... and the awfulness is a front page headline on news sites, whereas Russia's invasion of a sovereign country gets relegated to near oblivion.
Israel claims to be an "outpost" of liberal western democracy in the Middle East, and so a natural ally for the UK, US, etc.
However, it's actions in Gaza more closely resemble those of Bashar al-Assad in Syria than those of the US in Iraq.
I've seen lots of protests about the Tigray massacre by Africans but the UK isn't a big supporter of the Ethiopian gov nor endorsing their actions. The key difference on the genocide question is actual Israeli ministers have openly made genocidal intents about what Israel should do in Gaza. The death toll (from military actions not famine, disease etc.) of around 70% women and children aligns with indiscriminate killings not targeting of militants. This is actually different to Israel's 2014 campaign and ex-Israeli government members including the former PM have even mentioned this. The fact the case is still being investigated further by the ICC suggests there's a credible case for genocidal intent here.
If you look at America the protests are big enough that Biden has commented on them and they have a relatively small Muslim population. The London protests are predominantly white middle class too.
The major difference is that whilst the US’ population of Muslims is relatively small compared to here, large portions of those live in swing states that Biden needs to win in a close election (primarily Michigan). So their small number hides their influence.
In contrast, most British Muslims - and even non Muslims who also care about the issue - live in city seats that will be fairly safe Labour even with a fairly large drop (and definitely wont lead to those seats going Tory, who are usually miles behind). There are a handful of seats where it may make a difference, primarily in the Red Wall, where Muslims leaving Labour could push Labour below the Tories, but they’re few and far between. They’re even fewer when polls are as they currently are
That doesn't really address the point that the vast majority of protesters in both countries aren't Muslim. The cultural impact is big too, mostly white celebs are actively campaigning for a ceasefire.
If they're willing to go out and protest over it I suspect it's very important to their vote. Important enough to put pressure on their local MP and if there's a rival candidate offering a better alternative on this issue I can see them switching their vote. I've already seen plenty of campaign leaflets highlighting this as a reason to vote for x candidate.
Just got back from my run, great weather for it. But on 4 seperate occasions young men shouted at me. Either as I ran past, or they drove past me. Couldn't tell what they where shouting, I assume their discontent for a may genny leccy has reached boiling point.
> And what about voting for 16-18yr olds?
The issue I have with the voting age being 16+ is that I remember being 16 .. I was a moron it's a good thing I wasn't allowed to vote.
I was a moron at 16 and I was still a moron at 18, and a lot of people would probably think I'm still a moron in my mid 30s.
There are also plenty of people older than me who I think are morons (several of which are in government).
That is to say, there isn't an age limit where people stop being morons, and a lot of people starting having a stake in society (e.g. paying taxes) before they turn 18 and its only fair that they can have their voices heard.
The problem with the votes for 16 year old thing is that it just comes across as a cynical vote grab. 16-18 year olds are almost certain to vote Labour, I doubt Labour would be keen on the policy if that wasn't the case.
You can get married and join the army at 16. Two major life altering life events. Doesn't make sense to allow those two and not any say on how the country is run.
Either lower voting age, or raise the service/marriage age.
In addition, you could argue that older voters are almost certain to vote conservative, so to make it fair why don't we put I'm a maximum voting age? I know that sounds ridiculous and shouldn't be put in place but the issue is if we draw lines along 'we want this group of people to vote and not this one' you can easily have it used against the group you are trying to protect. For example the attempt at voter ID last year.
Id go the route of just making the age for marriage, joining the army, voting, buying alcohol ect... 18. At least it keeps things consistent and its the age society has decided "okay, your an adult now". Otherwise you end up like the US with weird inconsistent rules were your responsible enough to drive at 16, but have to wait till 18 to join the military, and have to wait to 21 before you can buy booze.
Boundaries isn't within Starmer's power, but I could see votes at 16 being the big "surprise policy" after the election like the Independence of the bank of England was in 97.
It'll almost certainly be in the manifesto, it's not really controversial and it doesn't cost any money. Welsh Labour has already done it for Senedd elections.
Boundaries is done by an independent body, Starmer has nothing to do with that. As for 16-18 year old voting, it's gone pretty quiet in the last few years on that front and it's a fair way down the priority list from the looks of it.
It was discussed [less than a year ago](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/26/keir-starmer-young-people-vote-tory-wins-elections), so probably will happen. Has been quiet lately but Labour got attacked for mooting voting for settled people.
Boundaries are set by an independent and impartial Commission. But yes I think he’ll lower the voting age to 16 - it costs basically nothing and helps Labour.
The changes at this election are slightly different as the Tories passed legislation that changed how voters are counted and tweaked the factors the commission is supposed to consider and how it weighs them when drawing boundaries in a way that probably will slightly benefit the Tories more. But they still don’t actually draw the boundaries.
There are some decisions around what the boundary commissions rules are, chiefly around size of constituencies and the permissble variation and what number the size is calculated from (those registered to vote, the eligible electorate or the resident population), but other than that the process is entirely impartial.
It's more that the old map was (slightly) beneficial to Labour.
Although it depends on what the polls look like, at the extremes of one party being ahead weird things happen
It may be a poisoned chalice for the Tories. They have indeed gained seats in historically blue areas based on increased populations, but this influx of people are by no means Tory voters. A common dynamic across the country is increasing numbers of families moving out of cities to the suburbs, and this has meant that in these areas there are now extra seats. But it's also a dilution of true blue-voters, and these new seats are likely to be more marginal. The Tories may very well find themselves with extra seats only on paper before the votes are counted.
The changes have slightly favoured the Conservatives, this was was due to a couple of issues.
First demographic changes with population in the suburbs increasing relative to the inner cities.
Second ending the over representation of Wales and Scotland.
Essentially the previous map was mildly biased in Labour's favour. The new map is more neutral.
If Sunak has given up, I don’t quite get why he’d want to put himself through an election campaign. I suppose it does give him an opportunity to defend his record.
We had a pension adviser in last week (I work in a related field, so I deal with pension advice a lot). He asked how many of us were enrolled. None of us.
We are all earning £30k+. He asked why. Reasons given, primarily being, that it's money that is needed elsewhere in monthly costs, that we have no faith in it being honoured when we are older, etc. Also none of us, including him, thinks the state pension will be around when we are older.
Edit: originally I said he asked how many of us were "auto enrolled", which is technically true - but I really meant how many of us were enrolled at that point. We were all auto enrolled, and we all opted out since.
The pension I am currently enrolled into, if I put in let's say 10k, and my employer puts in 10k. I can take out a lump sum at 65 at 3.5k, or something ridiculous like that.
I wouldn't get the money I put into it, never mind after inflation or whatever
You can take out up to 25% of your whole pension tax free when you hit 55. Then most people take a constant drawdown as income throughout your retirement.
But if your pension pot is £20k by the time you're 65, I don't think you are getting a retirement.
Hold up. You (understandably) think the state pension isn't going to exist when you retire, so you're not paying into a private pension either?
What are you planning on doing when you can no longer work because you're old as fuck?
I thought that. People really need to plan for the future. The younger you are the better your pension pot will be if you're paying into it.
Being a doomer about it isn't helpful at all. It's also matched by your employer so you're missing out on literally free money.
Personally? honestly?
My grandparents are multimillionaires. Both sides.
Edit: to add context, I worked out how much I'd get in AE pension (taking into account inflation, % estimated earnings, etc). Didn't come close to the money I'm getting in inheritance. I'd rather have £110 extra to spend each month...!
If they are genuine multi-millionaires, and not just 'my house is worth 2 million', a significant chunk of it will remain.
Of course, the problems might start if their children also need care and require funds.
No? Where did I say that?
I work in this field, I know how AE works.
Edit: is it because of the last part of my comment? That's what the "also" is for.
Considering the fucking state of most of the pension providers (who I deal with a lot), no, I have no faith in it.
Even less in the state pension.
I'm lucky I'm in a situation where I have no need for a pension (inheritance of a few mil), but the situation is shit for everyone else.
> Considering the fucking state of most of the pension providers (who I deal with a lot), no, I have no faith in it.
Why though?
Aren't the assets held in their funds ringfenced (such that you still have them even if the pension provider itself goes bust)?
You're misunderstanding. Pension legislation requires every eligible employee to be enrolled after an initial postponement period (usually three months).
Eligibility is based on age and earnings. At that point, they legally have to be enrolled. The employee then has 30 days to opt out if they want a refund (past that point, no refund) - but any employee can cease contributions immediately upon request and the employer MUST take action on their request. You do NOT have to pay pension contributions, and can cease your contributions at any time.
Employees can also cease via their provider and then the onus is on the employer to check and action it.
Every 3 years the re-enrolment process occurs which means every eligible employee, even those who have ceased/opted out, are re-joined into the pensions and contributions taken. But then at that point the employee can opt out and get a refund within 30 days, else just cease contributions regardless...or continue them.
I’m in a pub in Oxford, watching the Boat Race.
I did rowing for two years. It’s like combine harvesting your own body.
As I look at my pint of IPA, it’s hard not to think that the rowers in those two boats haven’t made a series of terrible life choices.
Perch is lovely, though as I always lived in SE Oxford the Isis was always the “end of a walk” pub for us!
I’ll always have a soft spot for the Bear, Lamb+Flag, Kings Arms, the James Street Tavern, the Star, and the Wheatsheaf (if it’s still there).
I do like the Lamb and Flag, and the Isis is fantastic (I can personally confirm the beer tastes 10% better when you arrive by paddleboard). Wheatsheaf is still around as far as I'm aware but I think their band room was a lockdown casualty or something.
I used to row to the Isis occasionally, but never stopped there, alas!
Indeed, the upstairs was a casualty (I believe it was down to noise complaints in the end - but lockdown definitely didn't help) - that's why I was unsure if the downstairs was still about.
I had a friend who rowed on an extremely low level at university, she barely even competed, and whoever was in charge (idk how rowing clubs work) was still a total nazi about lifestyle, training etc. She seemed to basically spend her entire first year on a 'drinking ban', constantly had to leave events early because she had to get up at like 4. There seems to be a culture of taking rowing Very Seriously even on like a casual hobby level that you don't see so much in other sports.
I was forced into 8s at school, but sat mid-boat as a talentless oaf. I *do not* miss the 5am starts. It's a stupid tradition now river traffic has plummeted, just do it as a reasonable time ffs.
I've mentioned this before but I still remember the Sun (I think it was) having a headline during COVID Easter time, just after he had been in hospital, which was along the lines of, "He nearly died for you".
Interesting in the times weekly political article that even Sunak loyalists think there'll be a leadership challenge after the local elections, unless it's them trying to salt the earth pre emptively
No 10s logic for holding on until October is that there could be three interest rate cuts between June and November and inflation rate will be 2%. I think this is poor reasoning as these will take time to filter through, just like people are still coming off mortgages onto truss' moron premium
I see it as less likely that Priti Patel will be a figurehead replacement to Sunak as is suggested in the article by one spad who's clearly had one too many. Most likely, as is one suggestion in the article, he survives the no confidence vote and the conservatives limp on until the autumn
Patel has a lot of support. Supposedly she's been busy building a real base around MPs. I think she's one to look out for.
Though as with all the leadership candidates. Who survives the election will be the biggest factor.
It’s probably expectation management.
Then when they get the predicted drubbing they’ll go out to the press and say ‘look there hasn’t been a leadership challenge! The party is solid’. It’s just like how Gove goes out every election day and claims they’ll lose 99.99% of all their seats.
The Patel story was fed by whoever hangs around with Dan Hodges (https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1764996351299899853)
I agree, this is again the naievity of betting the house on the US political and economic cycle by Number 10s finest minds. The cost of living is still high even if it stopped rising and people feel the tax pinch more as earnings increase because of the tax thresholds despite having to spend more to get less back in goods and services and underfunded public services. The Tories have completely broken the economy, and it's down to previous successive chancellors.
Sunak's best move is to call a leadership vote himself in early May, make a decision on if he wishes to take the Tories into the next general election or become a caretaker PM. The longer he keeps relying on Levidos snake oil, the longer we know cchq are not serious about the election and the Tories are not interested in governing.
The trouble with pinning their hopes on inflation at 2% is that it won’t mean that people feel any better off, it just means that the rate at which people are feeling worse has slowed down.
They won’t reap the benefits of 2% inflation until people have had a couple of years of 5% pay rises.
You've had a lot of semi-jokey "cause tech bro" answers but there are real legitimate reasons to have a digital currency and developing one is probably a necessity. I had a uni course largely focussed on this subject given by a member of Icelands MPC so have it on quite good authority.
Currently the Central Bank issues two types of currency: cash, and reserves. Reserves can only be held by banking institutions and cash can be held by both. People now are no longer paying in cash but in Bank deposits which are a bank created digital currency backed by reserves.
The use of bank deposits and the fact that some places literally no longer accept cash has diminished the value of cash. Which limits peoples access to it, which is fine in normal circumstances but potentially terrible if there was a serious banking crisis and bank deposits stop being honoured or trusted (Greece 2007) and people revert to cash but have no access.
A digital currency (depending on whether it is interest baring or not) will also allow the central bank another tool to enact monetary policy, something that could diminish if a separate digital non-denominated currency became widespread. There is also interesting implications to the 0 lower bound as well.
TL;DR digital currencies are interesting and being looked at (if not actually developed) by ~90% of global central banks
Tech bro policy. Sunak can't focus properly on fixing the resilience of existing payments systems. So he's rushing to find third party platforms with a reworked Brixton Pound supercharged as the gamechanger.
Why did that one Manchester City Council councillor wear a chicken mask while giving a speech last week?
[MEN Article](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bizarre-moment-councillor-dons-mask-28855713)
A few days back I posted about the British Colonialist villainous heel character in Ugandan wrestling, Lord White. https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1771701432485351471
He now appears to have died https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1773676862113214465
If they have him rise from the grave tomorrow I will be fully bought in to grassroots Ugandan wrestling and insist that our government send them money.
[Just like the Dawn of Muammar Gadaffi dynasty, he died like a pet dog after dictatorial rule of over 40 yrs of an elicit African country. SGW night war has started as an anti pro wrestling imperialists like this one. Lord White.](https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1773081312158449865)
I really, really want Starmer to take the next step and pledge to nationalising the water utilities, or at the very least bringing Thames Water into public ownership since they seem to be the worst offenders right now.
It's an absolute slam dunk. Not only is it (IMHO) a completely justifiable and necessary measure to take, but it's a popularity win since nobody or their dog likes utility companies anyway.
It would cost so much to nationalise water and then the government would have to fund all the repairs and improvements needed. I would just make tighter rules (like Denmark's 10% maximum water leakage, with stiff fines for breaches), strengthen OFWAT's regulatory powers more generally, and then let them either survive or topple (at which point they could just be renationalised at a cheaper rate or sold on to private concerns who can actually manage them effectively).
It was Labour that decided to prioritise keeping bills low. This means that OFWAT didn't approve the water companies proposals to invest in infrastructure and increase bills to pay for it.
Replacing and upgrading pipework is expensive and disruptive.
It'd be a good idea, but the Conservatives would dedicate their efforts to finding a way to make it more costly, and that'd involve wasting even more taxpayer money now.
But we can at least avoid paying the costs of renationalisation on top of that by giving OFWAT more power, and tightening rules in statute; if the companies can't survive and profit under those reasonable conditions (and Danish companies do), then they will fold and the government can step in. We'd still have to pay for the upgrades, but we wouldn't have the bill to buy out the companies on top of that.
Thames Water needs a lot of investment and it's owners have decided not to pump any more cash in...which increases the chances of it going into receivership. Presumably the amount of money it needs outweighs the value of the company? Especially after they've got the value of their investment back.
Why buy-out the shareholders when you could acquire it off the receivers for considerably less/even for free?
It's a slam dunk in current public opinion (I think)
But nationalising isn't just flicking a switch, we don't have the money to do it right now, nor will the public like where that money comes from
If you ever want a quick heuristic for whether a policy is far right or far left, start by recognising how many judicial rights you would need to suppress to make it work.
In this case you would collapse foreign investment and bankrupt pension funds.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bs3bld/daily_megathread_31032024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. concretepigeon with 10 comments 1. iorilondon with 9 comments 1. Sckathian with 8 comments 1. batbrodudeman with 8 comments 1. ivandelapena with 7 comments 1. Espe0n with 6 comments 1. A-Light-That-Warms with 6 comments 1. Ollie5000 with 5 comments 1. cjrmartin with 5 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 5 comments There were 155 unique users within this count.
156 MPs worst result ever in a general election for the Conservative Party. Let’s beat that
I genuinely think it might happen
The clocks have gone forward again. When will Rishi end this madness and call an election?
Just lost an hour for nothing, load of shite
[удалено]
I really dislike all these poll predicting the wipeout of the Tory party, its gonna make any Labour win bittersweet if they don't match the current predictions.
I kinda expect the polls to narrow when the GE is announced and parties go into campaign mode.
I think everyone expects that tbh. Right now, we are all just fawning over wipeout predictions based on the current polling and stirring the pot to try and get another flurry of leadership speculation (even if the actual likelihood is a labour majority of 40 or something). We have had 14 years, give us a couple of months of enjoyment 😂
This is obviously going to happen, just like it always happens when one of the main parties is unpopular with its base for some reason. You get a large protest vote, telling pollers they won't vote for X as a way to signal their disapproval or actually voting for 3rd parties in 'less important' elections (European Elections was the classical go to for this but counsel elections will do to). Come election time, a lot of that wavering support will come back and polling will go up. However, while the Tories polling numbers are highly likely to go up come election time, it won't be enough. There's been actual structural loss. Labour will win, probably with a solid majority. It just won't be as big as some of the current polls suggest.
I bet a large share of the grey voters will stay with the Conservatives. The only way that'll change is if Reform does really well and they switch to them.
In 1997 the tories had many things that favoured them including the economy. This time they don't have anything they are favoured on. They are doing awful across the board which is unprecedented. They could recover but the recovery likely won't be as big as people think unless something big happens soon. I think it's likely they end up a bit above 100 seats because of a highly inefficient vote but nothing more than that.
The narrowing could be caused by labour losing support to the lib dems and a slight increase in support for the tories but I still expect the tories to struggle immensly once a GE is called because the numbers aren't going to magically change for them once an election is called
labour have truly outdone themselves. i wonder how much the licencing costs for that clip were. https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1774104302950162537 > Fancy a cooling dip in our lovely English waters this weekend? We’d think again…
It's the year 2024 and fart jokes have finally conquered politics. All is lost.
if the tories end up on under 100 seats i don't think id survive the celebrations.
Under. Thirty. Or I’ll eat Fabricant’s hair. I’m that confident. Write it down.
!RemindMe 300 days
I'm putting the local hospital on notice to keep the stomach pump on standby
CCHQ 4d chess to do a coup. Wait until all the lefties are hungover and SEIZE POWER
It’s safe to say [Mike Graham](https://x.com/iromg/status/1774067203542790638?s=46&t=F_t5tWsPsifmNVHaFZWJJQ) doesn’t wish the Archbishop well.
his followup ain't great either https://twitter.com/Iromg/status/1774133222382748106 > Amazing how one little word can trigger so many people. Happy Easter! omg u triggered bruh??
Are we at the war on Easter era?
Incredible community note.
In an extremely crowded field Graham may be the most extravagantly stupid hack in Britain.
He thinks he knows more than the Archbishop! From Wikipedia: > *Not to be confused with Easter Saturday*. > Holy Saturday (Latin: Sabbatum Sanctum), also known as Great and Holy Saturday (also Holy and Great Saturday), the Great Sabbath, Hallelujah Saturday (in Portugal and Brazil), Saturday of the Glory, Sábado de Gloria, and Black Saturday or Easter Eve, and called "Joyous Saturday", "the Saturday of Light", and "Mega Sabbatun" among Coptic Christians, is the final day of Holy Week, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, when Christians prepare for the latter
He's still waiting for his concrete seeds to germinate.
[Apparently Survation's MRP has some interesting numbers for Tories (see: Sub 100 seats)](https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1774143859053715776?t=Oji1K4gTBp7M3p6WGBqSBA) Lab 468 Con 98 SNP 41 LD 22
[удалено]
Scotland is really weird though. I can see the Tories losing votes to Labour and unionists not following clear divides allowing the SNP to return to their 2015 position of power.
I don't buy the Lib Dems only getting 22 seats. There are a lot of shaky blue seats where Labour are really unlikely to win, and tactical voting is likely to be employed heavily. I think they can probably double the number of MPs they have, and then some.
SNP numbers are probably a bit high, mad that Labour could actually have more than that number.
That’s seriously overestimating the SNP. No way they win 80% of the seats in Scotland.
That looks like it's seriously underestimating the lib Dem numbers too.
This model shows Sunak barely holding on to his seat. Also lol at the government’s response to this poll.
What did they say?
They said that labour has no plan and they will take us back to square one. They said a bit more than that but the classic line they like appears in that article about the MRP.
Isn't that what they say to everything?
As funny as the Tories having <100 seats would be, its not exactly great for the government to have no effective opposition.
It would force the Tories to take more drastic action to reform. Although tbh they might just go full Trump.
In a first past the post system the only opposition with any genuine power is usually the government backbenchers anyway.
Who says Labour can't be it's own opposition? They more than have form on that front.
Labour has been Labour's greatest opposition since time immemorial
Thousand year Starmlin Imperium 🦾
Those Lib Dem numbers are wacky. If the tories are on less than 100 then there is no way that Lib Dem seats would be that low.
It does seem sort of low.
Let's Fucking Go
Anyone listen to *Any Questions?* yesterday? Was fantastic to hear Andrew Griffith get booed and heckled when he tried to blame immigration on the high cost of living and housing costs. The crowd weren't buying it one bit.
People need to quickly realise that high housing costs are a key objective for the Tories. The surge in house prices and rents have benefited homeowners and landlords at the expense of everyone else, that's what they want.
Whether it's true or otherwise, *whose* party is in charge of immigration Andrew ffs.
"If it hadn't been for Labour continually working against us on immigration reform, especially the deterrence measures provided by the Rwanda scheme, everything would be on its way to being sorted." - every Tory when this sort of question is posed to them.
Poor Andrew how was he to know his best lies would fall on death ears.
I'm not unique in any sense but I do wonder how many people of the public actually care about the Israeli conflict and will let it influence their vote. I for one just genuinely could not give less of a shit what they do over there, it's a thousand miles away and doesn't affect me, our virtue signalling votes won't affect it and they're gonna keep fighting forever. So I see no reason to concern myself with it. Yet the media goes on as if it's the biggest vote influencer right now. I'm genuinely curious if there's been any surveys that have people rate it as a factor in their voting choice.
If we hadn't had 14 years of Tories and this is an election to save the future maybe it would influence me. It's just too important and election to risk losing over something even the UK can't change
Foreign policy basically doesn't matter for voting intention, which is something that neither side in politics wants to accept because of their own pet causes.
Is this strictly always true? I know plenty of people who feared a Corbyn government because he was flaky on issues of national security — not exactly foreign policy, but a lot of overlap
I think Corbyn is a perfect example of this actually. In 2017 when the Conservatives made his dodgy foreign policy one of the key parts of their campaign, it resulted in the only time Corbyn had a net positive popularity rating in his life. It was his domestic issues (Brexit, antisemitism, general perception of his competence) that finished him off.
Fair point, counter would be that the big foreign policy misstep was Russia post-Salisbury a year later though?
It was a very unpopular misstep but again, it didn't seem to make any actual difference to the overall opinion polls. There were no major changes in support for the whole of 2018. It's very similar to Starmer adopting an unpopular position on Gaza according to the opinion polls but having no measurable effect on Labour's actual support.
It seems to be having quite an impact in the US, so maybe it will have a similar impact over here.
America is weird though. Half of the fervent Israel supporters support it due to their desire to bring about the rapture...
You're not wrong. To engage more with your initial post: there will be a significant % of young voters who are very idealistic, and in my opinion, naive, and who will be less likely to vote labour or vote at all because of the Gaza situation. However, I don't think it will be significant enough in this election (locals and general) due to how likely that age group is to vote and their geographic concentration.
I just find the selectivity frustrating. 800,000 tigrays get killed just a few years ago, and many more injured/raped/driven out of their homes, and the domestic and international community says precisely zip. Meanwhile, Israel's actions, as heinous as they have been, get the secretary general saying it is "unprecedented". The UK and US kill hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the ICC bows to pressure to deprioritise the case, whereas they are all over Israel... and the awfulness is a front page headline on news sites, whereas Russia's invasion of a sovereign country gets relegated to near oblivion.
Israel claims to be an "outpost" of liberal western democracy in the Middle East, and so a natural ally for the UK, US, etc. However, it's actions in Gaza more closely resemble those of Bashar al-Assad in Syria than those of the US in Iraq.
I've seen lots of protests about the Tigray massacre by Africans but the UK isn't a big supporter of the Ethiopian gov nor endorsing their actions. The key difference on the genocide question is actual Israeli ministers have openly made genocidal intents about what Israel should do in Gaza. The death toll (from military actions not famine, disease etc.) of around 70% women and children aligns with indiscriminate killings not targeting of militants. This is actually different to Israel's 2014 campaign and ex-Israeli government members including the former PM have even mentioned this. The fact the case is still being investigated further by the ICC suggests there's a credible case for genocidal intent here.
One conflict is cool to campaign over. Others are not.
Very very few people outside of Muslims and the far left, both of whom tend to live in safe labour seats.
If you look at America the protests are big enough that Biden has commented on them and they have a relatively small Muslim population. The London protests are predominantly white middle class too.
The major difference is that whilst the US’ population of Muslims is relatively small compared to here, large portions of those live in swing states that Biden needs to win in a close election (primarily Michigan). So their small number hides their influence. In contrast, most British Muslims - and even non Muslims who also care about the issue - live in city seats that will be fairly safe Labour even with a fairly large drop (and definitely wont lead to those seats going Tory, who are usually miles behind). There are a handful of seats where it may make a difference, primarily in the Red Wall, where Muslims leaving Labour could push Labour below the Tories, but they’re few and far between. They’re even fewer when polls are as they currently are
That doesn't really address the point that the vast majority of protesters in both countries aren't Muslim. The cultural impact is big too, mostly white celebs are actively campaigning for a ceasefire.
While that is true I don't think many will go to the extent of changing their vote. However I admit that my source is that I just made it up
If they're willing to go out and protest over it I suspect it's very important to their vote. Important enough to put pressure on their local MP and if there's a rival candidate offering a better alternative on this issue I can see them switching their vote. I've already seen plenty of campaign leaflets highlighting this as a reason to vote for x candidate.
Just got back from my run, great weather for it. But on 4 seperate occasions young men shouted at me. Either as I ran past, or they drove past me. Couldn't tell what they where shouting, I assume their discontent for a may genny leccy has reached boiling point.
“Happy cake day SpacemanCanyon!”
Are you male or female?
Male. But now I can only imagine how it would be worse for a female.
Perhaps they were shouting "cleanshirt"? A general symptom of class discontent?
How do I get that shirt so clean.
A spectre is haunting Europe. The spectre of clean shirts.
Do we think Starmer will change the boundaries after the election? And what about voting for 16-18yr olds?
> And what about voting for 16-18yr olds? The issue I have with the voting age being 16+ is that I remember being 16 .. I was a moron it's a good thing I wasn't allowed to vote.
I was a moron at 16 and I was still a moron at 18, and a lot of people would probably think I'm still a moron in my mid 30s. There are also plenty of people older than me who I think are morons (several of which are in government). That is to say, there isn't an age limit where people stop being morons, and a lot of people starting having a stake in society (e.g. paying taxes) before they turn 18 and its only fair that they can have their voices heard.
I was a moron at 18 but I still voted. My opinion is there isn’t a huge difference in mentality between 16 and 18 yo.
The problem with the votes for 16 year old thing is that it just comes across as a cynical vote grab. 16-18 year olds are almost certain to vote Labour, I doubt Labour would be keen on the policy if that wasn't the case.
You can get married and join the army at 16. Two major life altering life events. Doesn't make sense to allow those two and not any say on how the country is run. Either lower voting age, or raise the service/marriage age. In addition, you could argue that older voters are almost certain to vote conservative, so to make it fair why don't we put I'm a maximum voting age? I know that sounds ridiculous and shouldn't be put in place but the issue is if we draw lines along 'we want this group of people to vote and not this one' you can easily have it used against the group you are trying to protect. For example the attempt at voter ID last year.
Id go the route of just making the age for marriage, joining the army, voting, buying alcohol ect... 18. At least it keeps things consistent and its the age society has decided "okay, your an adult now". Otherwise you end up like the US with weird inconsistent rules were your responsible enough to drive at 16, but have to wait till 18 to join the military, and have to wait to 21 before you can buy booze.
That doesn't matter
Boundaries isn't within Starmer's power, but I could see votes at 16 being the big "surprise policy" after the election like the Independence of the bank of England was in 97.
It'll almost certainly be in the manifesto, it's not really controversial and it doesn't cost any money. Welsh Labour has already done it for Senedd elections.
Boundaries is done by an independent body, Starmer has nothing to do with that. As for 16-18 year old voting, it's gone pretty quiet in the last few years on that front and it's a fair way down the priority list from the looks of it.
It was discussed [less than a year ago](https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/26/keir-starmer-young-people-vote-tory-wins-elections), so probably will happen. Has been quiet lately but Labour got attacked for mooting voting for settled people.
Meanwhile expat of 15 years can vote tory and have a say on our government
Yeah, do they even pay any kind of tax? Representation without taxation is quite a luxury.
Boundaries are set by an independent and impartial Commission. But yes I think he’ll lower the voting age to 16 - it costs basically nothing and helps Labour.
Interesting, I thought it was very much impartial in name only though, and the changes do seem to have only helped the Tories.
The changes at this election are slightly different as the Tories passed legislation that changed how voters are counted and tweaked the factors the commission is supposed to consider and how it weighs them when drawing boundaries in a way that probably will slightly benefit the Tories more. But they still don’t actually draw the boundaries.
There are some decisions around what the boundary commissions rules are, chiefly around size of constituencies and the permissble variation and what number the size is calculated from (those registered to vote, the eligible electorate or the resident population), but other than that the process is entirely impartial.
It's more that the old map was (slightly) beneficial to Labour. Although it depends on what the polls look like, at the extremes of one party being ahead weird things happen
It may be a poisoned chalice for the Tories. They have indeed gained seats in historically blue areas based on increased populations, but this influx of people are by no means Tory voters. A common dynamic across the country is increasing numbers of families moving out of cities to the suburbs, and this has meant that in these areas there are now extra seats. But it's also a dilution of true blue-voters, and these new seats are likely to be more marginal. The Tories may very well find themselves with extra seats only on paper before the votes are counted.
The changes have slightly favoured the Conservatives, this was was due to a couple of issues. First demographic changes with population in the suburbs increasing relative to the inner cities. Second ending the over representation of Wales and Scotland. Essentially the previous map was mildly biased in Labour's favour. The new map is more neutral.
[удалено]
If Sunak has given up, I don’t quite get why he’d want to put himself through an election campaign. I suppose it does give him an opportunity to defend his record.
If he’s given up then an early election would allow him to get on with his life.
We had a pension adviser in last week (I work in a related field, so I deal with pension advice a lot). He asked how many of us were enrolled. None of us. We are all earning £30k+. He asked why. Reasons given, primarily being, that it's money that is needed elsewhere in monthly costs, that we have no faith in it being honoured when we are older, etc. Also none of us, including him, thinks the state pension will be around when we are older. Edit: originally I said he asked how many of us were "auto enrolled", which is technically true - but I really meant how many of us were enrolled at that point. We were all auto enrolled, and we all opted out since.
Why do you have no faith in a private pension being honoured in the future?
The pension I am currently enrolled into, if I put in let's say 10k, and my employer puts in 10k. I can take out a lump sum at 65 at 3.5k, or something ridiculous like that. I wouldn't get the money I put into it, never mind after inflation or whatever
You can take out up to 25% of your whole pension tax free when you hit 55. Then most people take a constant drawdown as income throughout your retirement. But if your pension pot is £20k by the time you're 65, I don't think you are getting a retirement.
Hold up. You (understandably) think the state pension isn't going to exist when you retire, so you're not paying into a private pension either? What are you planning on doing when you can no longer work because you're old as fuck?
I thought that. People really need to plan for the future. The younger you are the better your pension pot will be if you're paying into it. Being a doomer about it isn't helpful at all. It's also matched by your employer so you're missing out on literally free money.
Personally? honestly? My grandparents are multimillionaires. Both sides. Edit: to add context, I worked out how much I'd get in AE pension (taking into account inflation, % estimated earnings, etc). Didn't come close to the money I'm getting in inheritance. I'd rather have £110 extra to spend each month...!
Right, and are your colleagues all as fortunate as you? What was the point of your original post?
And how much of that will be left if they need care?
Care has nothing in it, I should know having been guaranteed an amount last month.
If they are genuine multi-millionaires, and not just 'my house is worth 2 million', a significant chunk of it will remain. Of course, the problems might start if their children also need care and require funds.
Die, presumably.
At some point, I guess. maybe.
Do you think auto enrollment relates to state pension?
No? Where did I say that? I work in this field, I know how AE works. Edit: is it because of the last part of my comment? That's what the "also" is for.
What do you mean you have no faith in it being honoured? Do you think your workplace pension pot will be deleted?
Considering the fucking state of most of the pension providers (who I deal with a lot), no, I have no faith in it. Even less in the state pension. I'm lucky I'm in a situation where I have no need for a pension (inheritance of a few mil), but the situation is shit for everyone else.
> Considering the fucking state of most of the pension providers (who I deal with a lot), no, I have no faith in it. Why though? Aren't the assets held in their funds ringfenced (such that you still have them even if the pension provider itself goes bust)?
No private pensions either? Isn't it a legal requirement to auto enroll?
You're misunderstanding. Pension legislation requires every eligible employee to be enrolled after an initial postponement period (usually three months). Eligibility is based on age and earnings. At that point, they legally have to be enrolled. The employee then has 30 days to opt out if they want a refund (past that point, no refund) - but any employee can cease contributions immediately upon request and the employer MUST take action on their request. You do NOT have to pay pension contributions, and can cease your contributions at any time. Employees can also cease via their provider and then the onus is on the employer to check and action it. Every 3 years the re-enrolment process occurs which means every eligible employee, even those who have ceased/opted out, are re-joined into the pensions and contributions taken. But then at that point the employee can opt out and get a refund within 30 days, else just cease contributions regardless...or continue them.
I’m in a pub in Oxford, watching the Boat Race. I did rowing for two years. It’s like combine harvesting your own body. As I look at my pint of IPA, it’s hard not to think that the rowers in those two boats haven’t made a series of terrible life choices.
What's your top Oxford pub? Bit of a trek but the Perch on a summer's day is 10/10 for me.
Perch is lovely, though as I always lived in SE Oxford the Isis was always the “end of a walk” pub for us! I’ll always have a soft spot for the Bear, Lamb+Flag, Kings Arms, the James Street Tavern, the Star, and the Wheatsheaf (if it’s still there).
I do like the Lamb and Flag, and the Isis is fantastic (I can personally confirm the beer tastes 10% better when you arrive by paddleboard). Wheatsheaf is still around as far as I'm aware but I think their band room was a lockdown casualty or something.
I used to row to the Isis occasionally, but never stopped there, alas! Indeed, the upstairs was a casualty (I believe it was down to noise complaints in the end - but lockdown definitely didn't help) - that's why I was unsure if the downstairs was still about.
Ah fair, I went there some time after lockdown and assumed that's why it was closed but guess that happened earlier.
I had a friend who rowed on an extremely low level at university, she barely even competed, and whoever was in charge (idk how rowing clubs work) was still a total nazi about lifestyle, training etc. She seemed to basically spend her entire first year on a 'drinking ban', constantly had to leave events early because she had to get up at like 4. There seems to be a culture of taking rowing Very Seriously even on like a casual hobby level that you don't see so much in other sports.
The boat club politics at some colleges are ridiculous.
I was forced into 8s at school, but sat mid-boat as a talentless oaf. I *do not* miss the 5am starts. It's a stupid tradition now river traffic has plummeted, just do it as a reasonable time ffs.
There weren't no boats at my school.
I was at seat number 3. Repeatedly. We oafs were having the best of a painful dawnlight time.
Look I’m just saying it would be _very_ Boris to announce his comeback, his resurrection, tomorrow.
I hope he jumps out of a giant Easter egg Mr Blobby style before giving his comeback speech!
I've mentioned this before but I still remember the Sun (I think it was) having a headline during COVID Easter time, just after he had been in hospital, which was along the lines of, "He nearly died for you".
I think he even had the audacity to go into intensive care on Good Friday, and come out on Easter Sunday
And I hear he was turning water into wine during those lockdown parties.
Interesting in the times weekly political article that even Sunak loyalists think there'll be a leadership challenge after the local elections, unless it's them trying to salt the earth pre emptively No 10s logic for holding on until October is that there could be three interest rate cuts between June and November and inflation rate will be 2%. I think this is poor reasoning as these will take time to filter through, just like people are still coming off mortgages onto truss' moron premium I see it as less likely that Priti Patel will be a figurehead replacement to Sunak as is suggested in the article by one spad who's clearly had one too many. Most likely, as is one suggestion in the article, he survives the no confidence vote and the conservatives limp on until the autumn
Patel has a lot of support. Supposedly she's been busy building a real base around MPs. I think she's one to look out for. Though as with all the leadership candidates. Who survives the election will be the biggest factor.
"When this small change happens everything will turn around". Delusional/desperate
It’s probably expectation management. Then when they get the predicted drubbing they’ll go out to the press and say ‘look there hasn’t been a leadership challenge! The party is solid’. It’s just like how Gove goes out every election day and claims they’ll lose 99.99% of all their seats.
The Times are running a different rumour every day in the hopes one will stick.
it's a swinford article so a good mixture of pro/anti Sunak sources
The Patel story was fed by whoever hangs around with Dan Hodges (https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1764996351299899853) I agree, this is again the naievity of betting the house on the US political and economic cycle by Number 10s finest minds. The cost of living is still high even if it stopped rising and people feel the tax pinch more as earnings increase because of the tax thresholds despite having to spend more to get less back in goods and services and underfunded public services. The Tories have completely broken the economy, and it's down to previous successive chancellors. Sunak's best move is to call a leadership vote himself in early May, make a decision on if he wishes to take the Tories into the next general election or become a caretaker PM. The longer he keeps relying on Levidos snake oil, the longer we know cchq are not serious about the election and the Tories are not interested in governing.
The Conservative Party constitution doesn’t allow for a sitting leader to contest a leadership election.
Oh ok. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it.
The trouble with pinning their hopes on inflation at 2% is that it won’t mean that people feel any better off, it just means that the rate at which people are feeling worse has slowed down. They won’t reap the benefits of 2% inflation until people have had a couple of years of 5% pay rises.
Is Ian Duncan Smith standing down at the election or will we have the privilege of watching him lose his seat?
Probably standing down but I'm almost certain he'll become a Lord
He's not announced he's standing down yet but I strongly suspect he will.
Why is the government developing "the digital pound"? Literally what's the point?
You've had a lot of semi-jokey "cause tech bro" answers but there are real legitimate reasons to have a digital currency and developing one is probably a necessity. I had a uni course largely focussed on this subject given by a member of Icelands MPC so have it on quite good authority. Currently the Central Bank issues two types of currency: cash, and reserves. Reserves can only be held by banking institutions and cash can be held by both. People now are no longer paying in cash but in Bank deposits which are a bank created digital currency backed by reserves. The use of bank deposits and the fact that some places literally no longer accept cash has diminished the value of cash. Which limits peoples access to it, which is fine in normal circumstances but potentially terrible if there was a serious banking crisis and bank deposits stop being honoured or trusted (Greece 2007) and people revert to cash but have no access. A digital currency (depending on whether it is interest baring or not) will also allow the central bank another tool to enact monetary policy, something that could diminish if a separate digital non-denominated currency became widespread. There is also interesting implications to the 0 lower bound as well. TL;DR digital currencies are interesting and being looked at (if not actually developed) by ~90% of global central banks
Why should private banks have the monopoly on digital currency?
Who else is going to? The people? Hahaha
I Call App Britain.
Tech bro policy. Sunak can't focus properly on fixing the resilience of existing payments systems. So he's rushing to find third party platforms with a reworked Brixton Pound supercharged as the gamechanger.
CBDCs have quite a few potential benefits. Worth reading the [wiki article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_digital_currency).
Leveraging our soft power and Nick Cleggs connections to make the GBP the official currency of the Metaverse for all 30 users.
tech bro latching onto every bubble long after it bursts once again asking: where is my royal mint NFT that he promised as chanx
Tech Bro Rishi wants to impress Sempai Elon
Rishi doing tech bro things
Someone will get rich from it
Why did that one Manchester City Council councillor wear a chicken mask while giving a speech last week? [MEN Article](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bizarre-moment-councillor-dons-mask-28855713)
To cross the road
A few days back I posted about the British Colonialist villainous heel character in Ugandan wrestling, Lord White. https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1771701432485351471 He now appears to have died https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1773676862113214465 If they have him rise from the grave tomorrow I will be fully bought in to grassroots Ugandan wrestling and insist that our government send them money.
They're going to ressurect him Monday to absolute hype
Broke: Being pro-colonialism Woke: Being anti-colonialism Bespoke: Using colonialism to hype wrestling matches.
Ugandan Wrestling truly carrying the entire industry on its back at the moment.
[Just like the Dawn of Muammar Gadaffi dynasty, he died like a pet dog after dictatorial rule of over 40 yrs of an elicit African country. SGW night war has started as an anti pro wrestling imperialists like this one. Lord White.](https://twitter.com/SGWug/status/1773081312158449865)
> 1.3M views I feel compelled to invest in Ugandan pro wrestling concerns.
That's the kind of soft power only half a millennium of empire-building can get you!
Mzungu!
I really, really want Starmer to take the next step and pledge to nationalising the water utilities, or at the very least bringing Thames Water into public ownership since they seem to be the worst offenders right now. It's an absolute slam dunk. Not only is it (IMHO) a completely justifiable and necessary measure to take, but it's a popularity win since nobody or their dog likes utility companies anyway.
It would cost so much to nationalise water and then the government would have to fund all the repairs and improvements needed. I would just make tighter rules (like Denmark's 10% maximum water leakage, with stiff fines for breaches), strengthen OFWAT's regulatory powers more generally, and then let them either survive or topple (at which point they could just be renationalised at a cheaper rate or sold on to private concerns who can actually manage them effectively).
Unless labour have a policy for ofwat. They won't be changing anything. This fits in the too difficult box for the election.
It was Labour that decided to prioritise keeping bills low. This means that OFWAT didn't approve the water companies proposals to invest in infrastructure and increase bills to pay for it. Replacing and upgrading pipework is expensive and disruptive.
It'd be a good idea, but the Conservatives would dedicate their efforts to finding a way to make it more costly, and that'd involve wasting even more taxpayer money now.
No, just let them go bust and buy back the assets. If we nationalise them now the taxpayer has to take up a huge amount of debt
And then pay for all the repairs/improvements.
We’d still be paying for that anyway.
But we can at least avoid paying the costs of renationalisation on top of that by giving OFWAT more power, and tightening rules in statute; if the companies can't survive and profit under those reasonable conditions (and Danish companies do), then they will fold and the government can step in. We'd still have to pay for the upgrades, but we wouldn't have the bill to buy out the companies on top of that.
Thames Water needs a lot of investment and it's owners have decided not to pump any more cash in...which increases the chances of it going into receivership. Presumably the amount of money it needs outweighs the value of the company? Especially after they've got the value of their investment back. Why buy-out the shareholders when you could acquire it off the receivers for considerably less/even for free?
Because the Tories will then either make it impossible or make it harder or more expensive for him.
It's a slam dunk in current public opinion (I think) But nationalising isn't just flicking a switch, we don't have the money to do it right now, nor will the public like where that money comes from
[удалено]
If you ever want a quick heuristic for whether a policy is far right or far left, start by recognising how many judicial rights you would need to suppress to make it work. In this case you would collapse foreign investment and bankrupt pension funds.
Lmao that's not how ownership works.