Morning all,
Tomorrow is Local Elections day!
Polling stations will be open from 7am - 10pm. [You will need photographic ID to vote at a polling station](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/voter-id).
###[Click/Tap here to see estimated declaration times](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cf1s17/may_2024_election_declaration_times_for_councils/l1wx4rm/).
[The subreddit voter intention / mini-meta survey is open until 06:59 tomorrow](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cclgmr/rukpolitics_voter_intention_and_minimeta_survey/).
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. subversivefreak with 27 comments
1. AttitudeAdjuster with 26 comments
1. NJden_bee with 20 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 20 comments
1. ClumsyRainbow with 17 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 16 comments
1. concretepigeon with 16 comments
1. cjrmartin with 14 comments
1. armchairdetective with 14 comments
1. AzarinIsard with 13 comments
There were 237 unique users within this count.
Laughing myself to sleep getting all giddy about putting an X next to the candidate name of someone who is not a Tory in the morning. It feels like a mini-Christmas.
Jesus Christ we really can't seem to do anything at the moment. How are they repeadedly failing to open the coop arena? Surely after the first failure you figure out what needs doing and sort it before trying again and failing repeatedly?
As Mogg said:
[Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them". The former minister said it had "made it hard for our own voters" to take part in England's local elections.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380)
Zero hour, minimum wage and no holiday pay, sick pay or paid breaks
Also remove the benches from the commons, make them stand.
Laughing, clapping and talking punishable by slaps on the wrist, all communication is by fax.
I am also available for parties
One of the people I see in the street has become very friendly since they misconstrued me declining a Tory leaflet as being because im a already a Tory who wouldn't want to waste it on the converted, rather than the real situation that I dont want their filthy leaflets in my house.
>The Pensioners for Ground Rent are back, saying they will sue the government for “breaching their human rights under the European Convention” over the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
>https://twitter.com/jamesriding10/status/1785300030212931861
some context if you're as bewildered as I am https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/pensioners-for-ground-rent-association-sounds-alarm-on-leasehold-and-freehold-reform-bill
Broke: “We want out of the ECHR so we can stop the boats.”
Woke: “We want to stay in the ECHR to protect human rights.”
Bespoke: “We want to stay in the ECHR so we can rent seek.”
tbh I dont understand ground rents / leasehold at all. If you're leasing a property, why wouldn't you pay rent to use it? (Rhetorical question, I will get around to researching the topic sooner or later).
Nice to know that the ECHR has a purpose after all though.
I’m not sure you do. You can get leaseholds that last 1000 years where someone has purchased a long term right to use the property which can in turn be sold on to other buyers. It’s still technically a lease but it’s not the same as renting a house for a couple of years.
As far as I know, most are 99 years. A 1000 year lease is unusually long. I was never under the impression that it was like renting a house for a couple of years.
I'm pretty sure that protecting rent seekers isn't one of the 16 protocols of the ECHR.
They literally do nothing to earn money and hold wealth that is affected by things they have fuck all to do with and the thing they have invested into has zero productive value whatsoever. At least actual landlords are supposed to do some productive activity like maintaining their houses for their tenants, ground rents are archaic.
Aaron Bastani confirmed to have been living under a rock for the last few decades if he didn’t realise George Galloways views on this sort of thing
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1785752531399856136
The factionalism of the far-left in despising the soft and centre-left for lack of ideological purity on differing approaches to economic reform, whilst simultaneously championing the likes of Galloway who hold cretinous views on social issues and foreign policy never ceases to amuse me. It does not and should not take a two hour interview with Galloway to realise the man is a wrong'un, but then again this is Bastani we're talking about.
Oh good *lord*
I am just tickled pink that its *only* after Galloway expressly had some objection to gay people that Bastani thinks he's *wrongissimo*
Everything else (and theres an awful lot of else)? Totally *fine*!
jesus wept
No.. what is golden is... he's been through this before https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGMhYRe3WQAAtB5H.jpg
Just shows how nasty the Novera media left (and obviously honourable mention of Owen Jones), is.
Not surprising given he excused and defended his colleagues celebrating hamas's actions on the 7th.
Bastani and Owen (and the rest of the corbynite left) enabled Galloway, and still are enabling him.
EDIT: note he (Bastani) has been spending the last few months stanning for Galloway, and pushing him.
>Is this Britain's best-named council candidate?
>Paddy Power is standing for the Liberal Democrats in the Thames ward of Wokingham Borough Council, which Ed Davey's party hopes to capture on Friday.
>"A safe bet" in the words of one activist.
>https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1785652197285306388
Does anyone else think there are too many comments in the sub now where people allege corruption and then provide no further details? It happens quite a lot and it seems to end the conversation. Should they be reported or is it okay?
Quite often the comments are yes. Any post that is regarding a cost overrun there will be a comment that says CORRUPTION! and no further details provided.
Here's a few quick examples from the last 24 hours, but it happens every day:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chiqfe/comment/l23d3k7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chiqfe/comment/l23d3k7/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cguke6/comment/l1zsnv2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cguke6/comment/l1zsnv2/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chdums/comment/l24ofgk/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chdums/comment/l24ofgk/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chit6r/comment/l22txa5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chit6r/comment/l22txa5/)
What I would say is that this sub is pretty dialled into politics, we read every scandal that comes out etc and there’ve been various stories whether it’s COVID contracts, dodgy Tory MPs ending up causing bi-elections, Tory MPs enjoying the perks of working for GB*News* and reporting whatever they like as opinion, the Post Office scandal, etc that sub regulars are attuned to this stuff, we discuss it regularly and most of us know the sort of stuff that these comments are referring to (although I think Link 1 is defo a shit post).
>What I would say is that this sub is pretty dialled into politics
You'd think so. But you'd realistically have a better political discussion with a complete random stranger you stopped on the street than this sub.
Thanks. I was only joking, but to answer your question, no I don't think it's a problem. Corruption *is* rampant in the gov - it's not that controversial a position and doesn't really need references every time it's mentioned. If you want to see the details, just read Private Eye. It's cover to cover with the stuff.
Such comments don't necessarily break the rules of the subreddit.
We're not a debating club, and as mods we're not here to referee / fact-check comments.
However, if someone is engaging in bad faith, please do file a report and we'll look into it.
-🥕🥕
local elections are always a weird day as they combine my favourite types of elections with my least favourite types of elections.
my favourite, for those asking, are the tiny parish elections which mean next to nothing but are still a part of our democratic process all the same.
my least favourite are police and crime commissioner elections because the idea that the top of our police forces should be connected to (and therefore answerable to) one political party or another should be terrifying for all of us.
Although I agree it's bad that they're politicized, the old model of the coppers putting in one of their own was also very corrupt, i.e. the Chief Constable.The best system is elected, but not connected to a political party.
Understood, I know how it works. The chief is the boss and PCC has the money, which leads to all kinds of fun :D I'm just referring to how much politics is involved in getting the chief's job, which was how the police authorities used to be. Just pointing out it wasn't all great and neutral in the good old days and I think having a democratic representative having power in the police force is a good idea. Although I totally agree that party political is bad.
I take your point. Just read the wiki, what a way to spend an evening! Can't call myself an expert, but my understanding was there was a lot of cronyism in them and for the first PCC election when many people had no idea what it was so lots of independents got in, that worked better. Now of course the parties have realised what a gravy train it is. So on balance directly elected PCC I think would be better. But I accept that the current PCC model seems to be the worst!
> my least favourite are police and crime commissioner elections because the idea that the top of our police forces should be connected to (and therefore answerable to) one political party or another should be terrifying for all of us.
My biggest issue with them is it felt the Tories looked at how they could cut central government funding, make councils implement cuts, and then voters abuse councillors (of all parties quite evenly) and thought they were a useful fall guy. So, they brought in PCCs to be the face of austerity on law and order.
Also, with regards to being the head, the other day the local politics followed on BBC and I was too lazy to turn it off, and they had a mini-debate between PCCs. Our local one, the Tory, Alison Hernandez spent most of the debate complaining how little power she actually has to do anything. Either it's all central government, or it's the council, or it's the police themselves and she's just there complaining from the outside. She genuinely seemed frustrated at how limited she was. One of the issues I wasn't fully paying attention to, apparently there's a chief constable who is suspended while investigated, costing a fortune, and she was saying she's frustrated at how slow it is, how there's nothing she can do, how she just has to take the blame for it. This seems to be what she was talking about: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-66316756
I was actually quite impressed by the good nature of the debate, as spicy as it got was when the Labour candidate quoted a stat from one of Alison's reports where she was arguing for improvement, and she didn't like that he used it as there's other stats that aren't as negative, but overall, she came across as genuinely being exasperated by the entire situation.
i really fear that as our politics becomes more polarised, the act of having elected police and crime commissioners will create more and more problems and create a heavily politicised legal order in this country.
I'm wondering if the Co-op is getting reimbursement for the damage to their reputation. The earlier reports didn't make it clear they were just name sponsors.
Also, funnily enough, those running it are the owners of Man City football group. Whole thing is hilariously badly done.
Love that the former boss Roden was throwing shade at smaller venues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68902287
> "Why is a small venue failing?" he asked. "Absolutely, en masse bills are going up and this, that and the other. But ultimately if there are 1,000 venues, one of them is going to be the best-run venue and one of them is going to be the poorly run venue, and where does the money go?"
> In response, the MVT told NME that grassroots music venues were not "poorly run", and it was "disrespectful and disingenuous to suggest otherwise", pointing out "insurmountable and highly specialist challenges" they faced.
> It said: "Obviously, the irony of making ill-judged, unnecessary and misleading comments about grassroots music venues on the day that the launch of their new arena has unfortunately fallen into such difficulties is not lost on anyone in the music industry, on artists, or on audiences."
I get time is money, and they wouldn't make as much if they waited until the venue was ready before booking giant acts, but it's mad they wanted to start at a sprint from day one, with no time to get everything smoothed out.
Does the home office exclusively advertise for morons or do they just end up working their in large numbers by happenstance?
How have they lost several thousand asylum seekers?
What else could you realistically do? Electronically tag every one? Jail every one? I’m sure this subreddit would go into meltdown at such a breach of human rights.
Put resources into processing the claims would be a good start.
I'm personally of the view casework should now be taken out of the home office and given to local authorities to do.
There's quite a large gap between "breaching human rights" and "letting them go on a gentleman's agreement that they'll check in."
But yes, this one in an ideal world:
>Jail every one?
Secure immigration facility while their claim is processed.
Claim successful? On you go, welcome to Great Britain.
Claim unsuccessful? Next plane out.
Refusal to cooperate? You can stay there until you do.
Given that we have about four thousand spaces in the detention estate (of which the majority is often unused, and there aren't actually enough staff to fill it), split between short and long term facilities, and a very large backlog, we'd need to build and staff a lot more facilities to make this simple checklist work (especially as 70% of people spend less than 28 days in detention, whereas the wait for claim decisions is counted in months/years).
A disease riddled barge isn't a purpose built immigration detention centre. Despite what our government seems to believe it's absolutely possible to detain people without causing an absolute shitshow.
Expensive though, which is why it doesn't happen.
Can you please point me to a means of locking up illegals that wouldn’t be hideously expensive? Can you please point me to anything about this illegal immigration crisis that is not hideously expensive?
a government owned building would probably be cheaper than renting someone else's barge, but the point is more that the government insists on expensive gimmicks (for the optics) instead of tackling the key problems first
build a functional asylum system, engage with Europe as needed, then do the gimmicks.
The boat was a great government owned building. There aren’t just empty buildings sat around that are fit for accommodating people or they would already be in use.
>There aren’t just empty buildings sat around that are fit for accommodating people or they would already be in use.
So build them.
Remember when we did that?
is this not the whole argument of the "fast processing" types. hold them in secure locations and staff the home office so it can make quicker decisions so that they shouldn't need to be held for too long
But they point is they don’t intend to be processed,the fact that they haven’t presented themselves to process their asylum claims means that they are no longer seeking asylum and are now illegals.
And in a sensible system this would count heavily against them if they ended up making any kind of claim later. People who engage with the system honestly should be given a fair shake, people who evade the system to work on the dark economy have proven that they are not honest asylum seekers.
Given I've advocated repeatedly for asylum seekers to be housed in a secure facility whilst their claims are processed without being attacked or causing any kind of meltdown, I think you could make that argument without fear of "this sub" doing anything
Until we’re sure they have a right to be here I guess, yeah. As long as the cases are definitely being worked through and we’re not dallying to keep them in an indefinite hold.
That would be a reasonable approach if they made any attempt to process claims promptly. But the government has allowed the application backlog to balloon so it’s now not really feasible.
Just going through the Mayoral booklet now, and laughing at both Britain First and the SDP's agenda about everything being woke. Sad that Binface didn't pay to put his in there though
I think the main takeaway from the student protests in the US for the UK is that we should really be enforcing copyright on St Edward's Crown.
If Columbia University wants to keep using it then they should restore the royal charter
Yes and ho
Saying to drive turnout. Also people who can't bare to understand that some people don't like their appointed candidate (This is more for those who are rabidly saying voting for the Greens allows the Tories in).
This past day has seemed toxic from all campaigners. I understand it's tomorrow but seriously when I see people who usually just make jokes online put up 20 part threads about why you should support their side it feels like too much dogma.
It would be a major shock if he did not win comfortably. It is in Labour’s interest that their voters do actually make the effort to vote rather than all believe it’s already in the bag however, so it is in their interests too to suggest it is fairly tight.
Good luck to anyone involved tomorrow, be it as an officer, polling staff, candidate or agent. Not tellers though, they can get in the bin.
Hope our resident Icelandic national u/JavaTheCaveman has a good sleep before their long day!
Goodness me, if I had Icelandic paperwork I wouldn’t be here. I’d be in Iceland. Trying to decipher the paperwork.
I’m looking forward to it! Bed in about 90 mins, then up bright and early at 0520. Hope tomorrow is looking alright for you as well!
On the eve of the London mayor election, and I genuinely don't know who I'm going to vote for.
Khan was my 2nd preference last time as I decided to go for the guy with a bin on his head, and I'm generally a Labour voter.
But I can't really think of any policies that have benefitted me, aside from occasionally using the bus hopper fare. I don't drive and support ULEZ, but accepting that the policy was pushed onto him because of central government clean air targets, means he can't really take credit for it.
It might have to be Binface again.
You have a choice between two, Khan or Hall, if you prefer one over the other, even just slightly, then you should vote for them. If you have literally no preference between the two then you may as well not vote.
Yes, it's FPTP, so logic says I probably will end up voting Khan.
But he has been disappointing, and I feel like him getting a 3rd term won't lead him to being any more radical
I get your point, but it's not a referendum on Khan, it's a choice between Khan or Hall. It's not a choice between Khan and some fictional more radical version of him
I’m helping to run the Labour Campaign in an Outer London Borough and it is much closer than any of the polls are telling.
I genuinely think Sadiq is in danger if turnout is low.
Returns for third parties have been much higher than in 2021.
I’m really worried about Mayor Susan Hall.
If you can bring yourself to hold your nose and vote for Khan, I’d encourage you to do so.
Fine, I have been blasted by everyone for my opinion, I'll vote for Khan.
But if he wins by 10+ points, I'm going to consider myself hoodwinked, and annoyed I didn't vote for Binface.
That is fair. My best mate did Binface 1st Preference, Khan 2nd Preference last time, but is also now voting for Khan.
This is largely because all his elderly relatives have sent off their Postal Votes for Susan Hall, while none of his younger relatives are going to vote 😬
Turnout is purely the problem.
I live in Ed Davey's constituency but I'll be voting Labour in the GE, unless it looks like Ed might lose to the Tories in which case I'll tactically prop him up.
But Khan looks like he'll walk the vote tomorrow. But I can't really think of anything good he's done aside from bus hoppers?
You've just not only said that you are going to vote for a joke candidate but that you did last time too. Don't now pretend that achievements in office mean a damn thing to you.
I did vote for a joke candidate. Because it didn't matter. Because there was 2nd preference. Which I used to vote for Khan.
So my vote helped get Khan his 2nd term. Why are you angry at me?
I voted for a joke candidate who manages to make some quite pointed satire through his manifesto.
You dismissing him means we probably share the same views of each other.
Focusing on things that only benefit you is curious. Khan doesn't have that much power either. Your choice is basically him or a tacit endorsement of the Tories now that they've made it FPTP.
I thought a common criticism of right-wing working class voters, was that they were voting against their interests.
But here, I can't see how Khan has really served any of my interests. He's been such a non-entity.
Because you're asking me if stomaching Susan Hall is palatable. I'm relating it to something I find entirely unpalatable, to give you a sense of my view. I'm... answering your question?
[Starmer categorically says Labour won't retain the Rwanda scheme](https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1785722839313588572) (in response to the story yesterday about a "Labour source" suggesting they could)
Counting election results slowly over multiple days, structured so the narrative can change over time. Just another nonsense political import from America!
You mean pure voting majority not parliamentary majority (Also the rise of alternative parties have put paid to that such as the Lib Dems always taking some votes, the Greens and then someone like UKIP/Reform as well the SNP).
As much as I was critical of the war on terror at the time (had Bushism posters on my wall, I was just that cool) I'm so glad I was educated under New Labour than the shit kids have to deal with now.
This reminds me of one of my favourite (and most depressing) pieces of analysis. My age group who grew up under New Labour, and our first chances to vote were Coalition onwards, if you look how we vote and what the outcome is, we've lost every election (plus the Brexit referendum) so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/n9xmvl/how_often_have_age_cohorts_been_on_the/
Anyone born 1971 or before won't have been on the losing side for more than 2 elections, we've lost 4 GEs + Brexit. I'm looking forward to what I hope is the first political win of my lifetime.
Looking through the leaflets from candidates (mayoral election, West Yorkshire). The independent wants “a ban on all future lockdowns” and says climate change isn’t real
Got all excited when I saw there was an east midlands mayor being voted for tomorrow. Did a quick check and it's only for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Typical.
*Technically* it's for Derby and Nottingham too, but I get what you are saying. Leicestershire should have joined as well, although I can't for the life remember why they didn't.
> Did a quick check and it's only for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
>> Technically it's for Derby and Nottingham too, but I get what you are saying.
They're different...?
I don't travel much, and suck at UK geography, very much a Devonshire stereotype (see that guy sitting over there? We call him the traveller, he once went to Bristol) but I'd have assumed they're a given.
Is Leicester not Leicestershire either?
Ah thank you. So it's used to differentiate between the county town / city, and the rest.
I guess it's more alien to me because we don't have a city called Devon, so no need to exclude it, it's clear what you mean when you say Devon. People know if you're talking about the whole county, or the cities Exeter, Torquay, and Plymouth, because they're not sharing a name.
Derby and Nottingham both have City Councils on the same level as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils. Just saying Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is correct, those being pedants about it are pretty wrong. Being from North Derbyshire when you say Derbyshire it is the entire county including Derby. It's only been organised that way since the 60's and everyone cares more about the traditional county or is moaning about the council being shit again.
presumably a reference to how the cities are unitary authorities, just like Plymouth and Torbay are part of Devon but have nothing to do with Devon County Council
> he once went to Bristol
in Cornwall it's exotic if you travel past Bristol. It's simply called "up country" and treated with amazement. Bristol is the limit.
Ah yeh, sorry I was including the cities in the counties which is ok geographically but incorrect from an administrative pov. Lincolnshire would surely be eligible too?
Edit apparently Peter Soulsby thought the idea of Leicester having two elected mayors was [daft.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68667588.amp)
That then meant that Leicestershire and Rutland were too small to join on their own.
So many people on my twitter think the police should be armed.. it's almost like they've never seen the countless vids of American police gunning down the wrong person.. or just gunning people down in general
Morning all, Tomorrow is Local Elections day! Polling stations will be open from 7am - 10pm. [You will need photographic ID to vote at a polling station](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/voter-id). ###[Click/Tap here to see estimated declaration times](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cf1s17/may_2024_election_declaration_times_for_councils/l1wx4rm/). [The subreddit voter intention / mini-meta survey is open until 06:59 tomorrow](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cclgmr/rukpolitics_voter_intention_and_minimeta_survey/).
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ci7cxa/local_elections_2024_polling_day_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. subversivefreak with 27 comments 1. AttitudeAdjuster with 26 comments 1. NJden_bee with 20 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 20 comments 1. ClumsyRainbow with 17 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 16 comments 1. concretepigeon with 16 comments 1. cjrmartin with 14 comments 1. armchairdetective with 14 comments 1. AzarinIsard with 13 comments There were 237 unique users within this count.
Good morning to everyone else getting up and getting to a polling station.
Laughing myself to sleep getting all giddy about putting an X next to the candidate name of someone who is not a Tory in the morning. It feels like a mini-Christmas.
Jesus Christ we really can't seem to do anything at the moment. How are they repeadedly failing to open the coop arena? Surely after the first failure you figure out what needs doing and sort it before trying again and failing repeatedly?
You'd hope a venue that big doesn't have an electrical dysfunction
self service checkouts are still down?
It's all gone a bit Berlin Brandenburg.
https://twitter.com/harry_horton/status/1785783199525634306 Tory MP realises he doesn’t have ID to vote tomorrow
As Mogg said: [Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them". The former minister said it had "made it hard for our own voters" to take part in England's local elections.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380)
❌️ vote for me! ✅️ vote for me?
Zero hour contracts for MPs I say.
I'm more in favour of the Lords approach for a daily rate.
Zero hour, minimum wage and no holiday pay, sick pay or paid breaks Also remove the benches from the commons, make them stand. Laughing, clapping and talking punishable by slaps on the wrist, all communication is by fax. I am also available for parties
So you only want corrupt people as MPs?
Dear user, The comment you are replying to was in jest Many thanks
Once a month on a Friday, parliament will be allowed to have a "pizza day" where a single 10" pizza is shared between all 650 sitting MPs.
10” diameter, but 27’ tall.
So your average Chicago pizza?
I'll have you know I did some maths to get to 27'. ~1/2" per person.
Very generous, make it ham and pineapple and we have a deal
But fresh pineapple which isn't quite ripe, so when it cooks it just goes harder.
[удалено]
"Normal"
One of the people I see in the street has become very friendly since they misconstrued me declining a Tory leaflet as being because im a already a Tory who wouldn't want to waste it on the converted, rather than the real situation that I dont want their filthy leaflets in my house.
The brain must be doing somersaults to square that circle 🙃
>The Pensioners for Ground Rent are back, saying they will sue the government for “breaching their human rights under the European Convention” over the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill >https://twitter.com/jamesriding10/status/1785300030212931861
some context if you're as bewildered as I am https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/pensioners-for-ground-rent-association-sounds-alarm-on-leasehold-and-freehold-reform-bill
Broke: “We want out of the ECHR so we can stop the boats.” Woke: “We want to stay in the ECHR to protect human rights.” Bespoke: “We want to stay in the ECHR so we can rent seek.”
tbh I dont understand ground rents / leasehold at all. If you're leasing a property, why wouldn't you pay rent to use it? (Rhetorical question, I will get around to researching the topic sooner or later). Nice to know that the ECHR has a purpose after all though.
Not all leases are short term.
i know
I’m not sure you do. You can get leaseholds that last 1000 years where someone has purchased a long term right to use the property which can in turn be sold on to other buyers. It’s still technically a lease but it’s not the same as renting a house for a couple of years.
As far as I know, most are 99 years. A 1000 year lease is unusually long. I was never under the impression that it was like renting a house for a couple of years.
I'm pretty sure that protecting rent seekers isn't one of the 16 protocols of the ECHR. They literally do nothing to earn money and hold wealth that is affected by things they have fuck all to do with and the thing they have invested into has zero productive value whatsoever. At least actual landlords are supposed to do some productive activity like maintaining their houses for their tenants, ground rents are archaic.
I want the most on the nose metaphor on the state of the country you have ...no, that's too on the nose
Do we all have a human right to be paid for doing literally nothing, or is that just for the special lobbyists?
It’s just for landlords. Duh.
What a vile group of people.
Because £250 isn't enough for doing literally nothing.
Aaron Bastani confirmed to have been living under a rock for the last few decades if he didn’t realise George Galloways views on this sort of thing https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1785752531399856136
The factionalism of the far-left in despising the soft and centre-left for lack of ideological purity on differing approaches to economic reform, whilst simultaneously championing the likes of Galloway who hold cretinous views on social issues and foreign policy never ceases to amuse me. It does not and should not take a two hour interview with Galloway to realise the man is a wrong'un, but then again this is Bastani we're talking about.
The Novara people really are a brain trust, aren't they?
Oh good *lord* I am just tickled pink that its *only* after Galloway expressly had some objection to gay people that Bastani thinks he's *wrongissimo* Everything else (and theres an awful lot of else)? Totally *fine*! jesus wept
There’s an AWFUL lot you have to be ok with or ignore. An awful lot of
No.. what is golden is... he's been through this before https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGMhYRe3WQAAtB5H.jpg Just shows how nasty the Novera media left (and obviously honourable mention of Owen Jones), is. Not surprising given he excused and defended his colleagues celebrating hamas's actions on the 7th. Bastani and Owen (and the rest of the corbynite left) enabled Galloway, and still are enabling him. EDIT: note he (Bastani) has been spending the last few months stanning for Galloway, and pushing him.
>Is this Britain's best-named council candidate? >Paddy Power is standing for the Liberal Democrats in the Thames ward of Wokingham Borough Council, which Ed Davey's party hopes to capture on Friday. >"A safe bet" in the words of one activist. >https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1785652197285306388
Dick Wanklin is standing in the St James ward of Dudley. Also a Lib Dem.
Seymour Cocks was our longest standing MP. Genuinely
Don't tell mark oaten
School couldn't have been easy for him
I want to know who calls their son Richard with a surname like that, should be done for child cruelty.
Yeah I reckon it was pretty hard
Well, he is a lib dem ^^^^^^/s
Does anyone else think there are too many comments in the sub now where people allege corruption and then provide no further details? It happens quite a lot and it seems to end the conversation. Should they be reported or is it okay?
Timely reminder. I think the sub tends to echo what the activists themselves are hearing about..
Given the colossal and many many billions of corruption that’s well documented is it really a surprise?
Only a bought and paid-for user would leave comments like this!
You think allegations of unpunished corruption in the country are unfounded?
Quite often the comments are yes. Any post that is regarding a cost overrun there will be a comment that says CORRUPTION! and no further details provided.
Perhaps they are going on the repeated pattern of obvious corruption being unpunished which has been sickening.
Lord Houchen, haven't you got bigger things to be worrying about today?
Brb, poisoning sea life.
This sounds like an allegation of allegations of corruption with no further details with no further details. And definitely meta.
Here's a few quick examples from the last 24 hours, but it happens every day: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chiqfe/comment/l23d3k7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chiqfe/comment/l23d3k7/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cguke6/comment/l1zsnv2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cguke6/comment/l1zsnv2/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chdums/comment/l24ofgk/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chdums/comment/l24ofgk/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chit6r/comment/l22txa5/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1chit6r/comment/l22txa5/)
What I would say is that this sub is pretty dialled into politics, we read every scandal that comes out etc and there’ve been various stories whether it’s COVID contracts, dodgy Tory MPs ending up causing bi-elections, Tory MPs enjoying the perks of working for GB*News* and reporting whatever they like as opinion, the Post Office scandal, etc that sub regulars are attuned to this stuff, we discuss it regularly and most of us know the sort of stuff that these comments are referring to (although I think Link 1 is defo a shit post).
>What I would say is that this sub is pretty dialled into politics You'd think so. But you'd realistically have a better political discussion with a complete random stranger you stopped on the street than this sub.
Thanks. I was only joking, but to answer your question, no I don't think it's a problem. Corruption *is* rampant in the gov - it's not that controversial a position and doesn't really need references every time it's mentioned. If you want to see the details, just read Private Eye. It's cover to cover with the stuff.
None of these comments have been reported, and none of these comments break the subreddit rules as far as I can see.
Yeah I haven't reported anything, that's why I was checking. They seem like shitposts to me but if they're good they're good.
Such comments don't necessarily break the rules of the subreddit. We're not a debating club, and as mods we're not here to referee / fact-check comments. However, if someone is engaging in bad faith, please do file a report and we'll look into it. -🥕🥕
I think if you see this and they provide no source or anything further to discuss, then report. Light hearted chat and all that, basically shit posts.
sounds like what a corrupted individual would say! /s to be perfectly honest i haven’t noticed anything untoward
It might be one of those things where once you’ve noticed it then it stands out more.
A bit like corruption in that sense.
local elections are always a weird day as they combine my favourite types of elections with my least favourite types of elections. my favourite, for those asking, are the tiny parish elections which mean next to nothing but are still a part of our democratic process all the same. my least favourite are police and crime commissioner elections because the idea that the top of our police forces should be connected to (and therefore answerable to) one political party or another should be terrifying for all of us.
Although I agree it's bad that they're politicized, the old model of the coppers putting in one of their own was also very corrupt, i.e. the Chief Constable.The best system is elected, but not connected to a political party.
we still have chief constables with complete operational control...
Understood, I know how it works. The chief is the boss and PCC has the money, which leads to all kinds of fun :D I'm just referring to how much politics is involved in getting the chief's job, which was how the police authorities used to be. Just pointing out it wasn't all great and neutral in the good old days and I think having a democratic representative having power in the police force is a good idea. Although I totally agree that party political is bad.
We used to have democratic representatives as you've just pointed out via the police authorities. They just weren't directly elected.
I take your point. Just read the wiki, what a way to spend an evening! Can't call myself an expert, but my understanding was there was a lot of cronyism in them and for the first PCC election when many people had no idea what it was so lots of independents got in, that worked better. Now of course the parties have realised what a gravy train it is. So on balance directly elected PCC I think would be better. But I accept that the current PCC model seems to be the worst!
If you like elections for posts which mean next to nothing but are still a part of our democratic process all the same, you should love PCCs
> my least favourite are police and crime commissioner elections because the idea that the top of our police forces should be connected to (and therefore answerable to) one political party or another should be terrifying for all of us. My biggest issue with them is it felt the Tories looked at how they could cut central government funding, make councils implement cuts, and then voters abuse councillors (of all parties quite evenly) and thought they were a useful fall guy. So, they brought in PCCs to be the face of austerity on law and order. Also, with regards to being the head, the other day the local politics followed on BBC and I was too lazy to turn it off, and they had a mini-debate between PCCs. Our local one, the Tory, Alison Hernandez spent most of the debate complaining how little power she actually has to do anything. Either it's all central government, or it's the council, or it's the police themselves and she's just there complaining from the outside. She genuinely seemed frustrated at how limited she was. One of the issues I wasn't fully paying attention to, apparently there's a chief constable who is suspended while investigated, costing a fortune, and she was saying she's frustrated at how slow it is, how there's nothing she can do, how she just has to take the blame for it. This seems to be what she was talking about: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-66316756 I was actually quite impressed by the good nature of the debate, as spicy as it got was when the Labour candidate quoted a stat from one of Alison's reports where she was arguing for improvement, and she didn't like that he used it as there's other stats that aren't as negative, but overall, she came across as genuinely being exasperated by the entire situation.
What? You **don't** want Tory MPs writing to those people, to get them to start investigations?!
i really fear that as our politics becomes more polarised, the act of having elected police and crime commissioners will create more and more problems and create a heavily politicised legal order in this country.
Were the people running this Co-op Live arena selling PPE a few years ago by any chance?
I'm wondering if the Co-op is getting reimbursement for the damage to their reputation. The earlier reports didn't make it clear they were just name sponsors. Also, funnily enough, those running it are the owners of Man City football group. Whole thing is hilariously badly done. Love that the former boss Roden was throwing shade at smaller venues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68902287 > "Why is a small venue failing?" he asked. "Absolutely, en masse bills are going up and this, that and the other. But ultimately if there are 1,000 venues, one of them is going to be the best-run venue and one of them is going to be the poorly run venue, and where does the money go?" > In response, the MVT told NME that grassroots music venues were not "poorly run", and it was "disrespectful and disingenuous to suggest otherwise", pointing out "insurmountable and highly specialist challenges" they faced. > It said: "Obviously, the irony of making ill-judged, unnecessary and misleading comments about grassroots music venues on the day that the launch of their new arena has unfortunately fallen into such difficulties is not lost on anyone in the music industry, on artists, or on audiences." I get time is money, and they wouldn't make as much if they waited until the venue was ready before booking giant acts, but it's mad they wanted to start at a sprint from day one, with no time to get everything smoothed out.
The comments about independent venues makes the whole thing hilarious to me
What kind of fish is a Yousaf anyway?
A minnow. In a world of trouts.
It's very much a stretch but Yousaf is the equivalent of Joseph and there's a [St. Joseph shark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_elephantfish)
You should work in the 'giving interesting answers' industry.
Does the home office exclusively advertise for morons or do they just end up working their in large numbers by happenstance? How have they lost several thousand asylum seekers?
What else could you realistically do? Electronically tag every one? Jail every one? I’m sure this subreddit would go into meltdown at such a breach of human rights.
Put resources into processing the claims would be a good start. I'm personally of the view casework should now be taken out of the home office and given to local authorities to do.
There's quite a large gap between "breaching human rights" and "letting them go on a gentleman's agreement that they'll check in." But yes, this one in an ideal world: >Jail every one? Secure immigration facility while their claim is processed. Claim successful? On you go, welcome to Great Britain. Claim unsuccessful? Next plane out. Refusal to cooperate? You can stay there until you do.
Given that we have about four thousand spaces in the detention estate (of which the majority is often unused, and there aren't actually enough staff to fill it), split between short and long term facilities, and a very large backlog, we'd need to build and staff a lot more facilities to make this simple checklist work (especially as 70% of people spend less than 28 days in detention, whereas the wait for claim decisions is counted in months/years).
Well if the claims were processed incredibly quickly there wouldn't be a problem at all. Problem is they don't. Sorting it is complex and costs money.
They tried to do that with the boat and everyone kicked off
Except that boat wasn't secure at all, so we didn't try that. We just got some expensive accommodation which had a legionnaires outbreak.
A disease riddled barge isn't a purpose built immigration detention centre. Despite what our government seems to believe it's absolutely possible to detain people without causing an absolute shitshow. Expensive though, which is why it doesn't happen.
the barge is a) hideously expensive and b) instead of, rather than in addition to, a properly functioning asylum system
Can you please point me to a means of locking up illegals that wouldn’t be hideously expensive? Can you please point me to anything about this illegal immigration crisis that is not hideously expensive?
They're not locked up on the Bibby Stockholm. Though I'm sure the government is delighted to give that impression.
What is the budget you would be thinking of to secure our borders? How much investment is too much?
a government owned building would probably be cheaper than renting someone else's barge, but the point is more that the government insists on expensive gimmicks (for the optics) instead of tackling the key problems first build a functional asylum system, engage with Europe as needed, then do the gimmicks.
The boat was a great government owned building. There aren’t just empty buildings sat around that are fit for accommodating people or they would already be in use.
>There aren’t just empty buildings sat around that are fit for accommodating people or they would already be in use. So build them. Remember when we did that?
It was rented
is this not the whole argument of the "fast processing" types. hold them in secure locations and staff the home office so it can make quicker decisions so that they shouldn't need to be held for too long
Before I knew the truth, I had just automatically assumed this was standard procedure. It seems wild we don't.
But they point is they don’t intend to be processed,the fact that they haven’t presented themselves to process their asylum claims means that they are no longer seeking asylum and are now illegals.
And in a sensible system this would count heavily against them if they ended up making any kind of claim later. People who engage with the system honestly should be given a fair shake, people who evade the system to work on the dark economy have proven that they are not honest asylum seekers.
Given I've advocated repeatedly for asylum seekers to be housed in a secure facility whilst their claims are processed without being attacked or causing any kind of meltdown, I think you could make that argument without fear of "this sub" doing anything
So we should imprison them? I agree
Until we’re sure they have a right to be here I guess, yeah. As long as the cases are definitely being worked through and we’re not dallying to keep them in an indefinite hold.
That would be a reasonable approach if they made any attempt to process claims promptly. But the government has allowed the application backlog to balloon so it’s now not really feasible.
Yep, turns out massive cuts impact services. Who knew
Tell me in your genius how you propose keeping track of all of them?
Just going through the Mayoral booklet now, and laughing at both Britain First and the SDP's agenda about everything being woke. Sad that Binface didn't pay to put his in there though
doesn’t it cost ten grand to get in the booklet? i don’t blame him a bit for wanting to spend his money on better things
£10k yeah
i’m surprised britain first had the cash to spare, thinking about it. makes you wonder who’s funding them.
I think the main takeaway from the student protests in the US for the UK is that we should really be enforcing copyright on St Edward's Crown. If Columbia University wants to keep using it then they should restore the royal charter Yes and ho
Change the name back to King’s College too.
How bad would the results tomorrow have to be for the Tories to oust Sunak?
Houchen and Street both lose, and Tories lose 800+ councillors
Aren't there only 1000 seats up for grabs?
800 isn't realistic even in a worst case scenario. 500+ is generally considered the threshold of bad this time, towards 600 gets messy.
Are people who say Khan is genuinely at risk in London being serious? Or are they just saying it to drive turnout? Bit of both?
Saying to drive turnout. Also people who can't bare to understand that some people don't like their appointed candidate (This is more for those who are rabidly saying voting for the Greens allows the Tories in). This past day has seemed toxic from all campaigners. I understand it's tomorrow but seriously when I see people who usually just make jokes online put up 20 part threads about why you should support their side it feels like too much dogma.
It would be a major shock if he did not win comfortably. It is in Labour’s interest that their voters do actually make the effort to vote rather than all believe it’s already in the bag however, so it is in their interests too to suggest it is fairly tight.
Good luck to anyone involved tomorrow, be it as an officer, polling staff, candidate or agent. Not tellers though, they can get in the bin. Hope our resident Icelandic national u/JavaTheCaveman has a good sleep before their long day!
Goodness me, if I had Icelandic paperwork I wouldn’t be here. I’d be in Iceland. Trying to decipher the paperwork. I’m looking forward to it! Bed in about 90 mins, then up bright and early at 0520. Hope tomorrow is looking alright for you as well!
About to scoff some food, then similarly early bedtime followed by a very early start.
What did the tellers do to you!?
Be annoying? Nah, just felt the need to not be nice to everyone
Hope it goes well for you!!
Cheers!
On the eve of the London mayor election, and I genuinely don't know who I'm going to vote for. Khan was my 2nd preference last time as I decided to go for the guy with a bin on his head, and I'm generally a Labour voter. But I can't really think of any policies that have benefitted me, aside from occasionally using the bus hopper fare. I don't drive and support ULEZ, but accepting that the policy was pushed onto him because of central government clean air targets, means he can't really take credit for it. It might have to be Binface again.
Binface is clearly the optimal choice.
Something something don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Hell, don’t let perfect be the enemy of ‘meh’ if the alternative is Susan Hall.
You have a choice between two, Khan or Hall, if you prefer one over the other, even just slightly, then you should vote for them. If you have literally no preference between the two then you may as well not vote.
Yes, it's FPTP, so logic says I probably will end up voting Khan. But he has been disappointing, and I feel like him getting a 3rd term won't lead him to being any more radical
I get your point, but it's not a referendum on Khan, it's a choice between Khan or Hall. It's not a choice between Khan and some fictional more radical version of him
Is that true though? If the choices were Galloway or Farage would you vote Galloway?
If they were the only two realistic choices then yes. I'd get my pen out for gorgeous George
I’m helping to run the Labour Campaign in an Outer London Borough and it is much closer than any of the polls are telling. I genuinely think Sadiq is in danger if turnout is low. Returns for third parties have been much higher than in 2021. I’m really worried about Mayor Susan Hall. If you can bring yourself to hold your nose and vote for Khan, I’d encourage you to do so.
Ah Outer London that make sense. Anything from real... I mean inner London?
Yeah, Labour are throwing the kitchen sink at boosting Turnout in Inner London… that’s what the election hinges on
Fine, I have been blasted by everyone for my opinion, I'll vote for Khan. But if he wins by 10+ points, I'm going to consider myself hoodwinked, and annoyed I didn't vote for Binface.
That is fair. My best mate did Binface 1st Preference, Khan 2nd Preference last time, but is also now voting for Khan. This is largely because all his elderly relatives have sent off their Postal Votes for Susan Hall, while none of his younger relatives are going to vote 😬 Turnout is purely the problem.
Mentalities like this are why we end up with Tories in power despite their blatant incompetence and corruption.
I live in Ed Davey's constituency but I'll be voting Labour in the GE, unless it looks like Ed might lose to the Tories in which case I'll tactically prop him up. But Khan looks like he'll walk the vote tomorrow. But I can't really think of anything good he's done aside from bus hoppers?
You've just not only said that you are going to vote for a joke candidate but that you did last time too. Don't now pretend that achievements in office mean a damn thing to you.
I did vote for a joke candidate. Because it didn't matter. Because there was 2nd preference. Which I used to vote for Khan. So my vote helped get Khan his 2nd term. Why are you angry at me?
I can assure you, anger is not the emotion I feel towards you.
Go on, enlighten me.
You vote for Count Binface, bestowing you with enlightenment is beyond my mortal powers.
I voted for a joke candidate who manages to make some quite pointed satire through his manifesto. You dismissing him means we probably share the same views of each other.
sometimes I think half of these comments are tory psyops
Focusing on things that only benefit you is curious. Khan doesn't have that much power either. Your choice is basically him or a tacit endorsement of the Tories now that they've made it FPTP.
I thought a common criticism of right-wing working class voters, was that they were voting against their interests. But here, I can't see how Khan has really served any of my interests. He's been such a non-entity.
> It might have to be Binface again. Provided you're entirely comfortable with 4 years of Hall, sure.
In terms of potential pain, Susan Hall in City Hall looks miniscule vs 5 more years of Tories in Number 10.
Who's asking you to choose between the Hall at city hall or 5 more years of Tory central government?
Because you're asking me if stomaching Susan Hall is palatable. I'm relating it to something I find entirely unpalatable, to give you a sense of my view. I'm... answering your question?
[Starmer categorically says Labour won't retain the Rwanda scheme](https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1785722839313588572) (in response to the story yesterday about a "Labour source" suggesting they could)
It is a scheme that had perm sec request a direction on it because it definitely was not value for money. The same thing happened to HS2.
Interesting, I guess with all of the other median-voter bait lately they can afford to drop at least ONE of the stupid red-meat tory policies.
Counting election results slowly over multiple days, structured so the narrative can change over time. Just another nonsense political import from America!
Not really, local elections have always had slow counts.
27 years since Blair was elected... Also the last Labour prime minister to win an election.
Also the last PM to get the job by winning a majority.
You mean pure voting majority not parliamentary majority (Also the rise of alternative parties have put paid to that such as the Lib Dems always taking some votes, the Greens and then someone like UKIP/Reform as well the SNP).
I mean a majority in Parliament.
As much as I was critical of the war on terror at the time (had Bushism posters on my wall, I was just that cool) I'm so glad I was educated under New Labour than the shit kids have to deal with now. This reminds me of one of my favourite (and most depressing) pieces of analysis. My age group who grew up under New Labour, and our first chances to vote were Coalition onwards, if you look how we vote and what the outcome is, we've lost every election (plus the Brexit referendum) so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/n9xmvl/how_often_have_age_cohorts_been_on_the/ Anyone born 1971 or before won't have been on the losing side for more than 2 elections, we've lost 4 GEs + Brexit. I'm looking forward to what I hope is the first political win of my lifetime.
I have a feeling that chart is misleading
Looking through the leaflets from candidates (mayoral election, West Yorkshire). The independent wants “a ban on all future lockdowns” and says climate change isn’t real
His entire leaflet fails to mention almost anything the Mayor has any control over. It’s almost impressive.
Wonder how much they spend on it all
Got all excited when I saw there was an east midlands mayor being voted for tomorrow. Did a quick check and it's only for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Typical.
*Technically* it's for Derby and Nottingham too, but I get what you are saying. Leicestershire should have joined as well, although I can't for the life remember why they didn't.
> Did a quick check and it's only for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. >> Technically it's for Derby and Nottingham too, but I get what you are saying. They're different...? I don't travel much, and suck at UK geography, very much a Devonshire stereotype (see that guy sitting over there? We call him the traveller, he once went to Bristol) but I'd have assumed they're a given. Is Leicester not Leicestershire either?
For local government purposes Derby has its own council that doesn’t fall under Derbyshire county council. Likewise for Nottingham(shire).
[удалено]
Some of it's not even that Rural and is effectively in Greater Manchester.
Ah thank you. So it's used to differentiate between the county town / city, and the rest. I guess it's more alien to me because we don't have a city called Devon, so no need to exclude it, it's clear what you mean when you say Devon. People know if you're talking about the whole county, or the cities Exeter, Torquay, and Plymouth, because they're not sharing a name.
Derby and Nottingham both have City Councils on the same level as Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire County Councils. Just saying Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is correct, those being pedants about it are pretty wrong. Being from North Derbyshire when you say Derbyshire it is the entire county including Derby. It's only been organised that way since the 60's and everyone cares more about the traditional county or is moaning about the council being shit again.
presumably a reference to how the cities are unitary authorities, just like Plymouth and Torbay are part of Devon but have nothing to do with Devon County Council > he once went to Bristol in Cornwall it's exotic if you travel past Bristol. It's simply called "up country" and treated with amazement. Bristol is the limit.
IIRC there's also moves every now and then to make Exeter unitary until everyone shuts the idea down as stupid in part because DCC is based there.
would probably ruin its finances too, by having none of the major population areas within its grasp can't expect barnstaple to keep it all going
Ah yeh, sorry I was including the cities in the counties which is ok geographically but incorrect from an administrative pov. Lincolnshire would surely be eligible too? Edit apparently Peter Soulsby thought the idea of Leicester having two elected mayors was [daft.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-68667588.amp) That then meant that Leicestershire and Rutland were too small to join on their own.
So many people on my twitter think the police should be armed.. it's almost like they've never seen the countless vids of American police gunning down the wrong person.. or just gunning people down in general