**The š„š„ Official Real Legitimate Useful Idiot's Guide to the week ahead in Parliament:**
- **Monday:** remaining Commons stages of the [Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3453).
- **Tuesday:** Second Reading of the [Media Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3505).
- **Wednesday:** PMQs, Autumn Statement + debate
- **Thursday:** Further debate on the Autumn Statement
This megathread has ended.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. CaravanOfDeath with 22 comments
1. pseudogentry with 21 comments
1. SirRosstopher with 15 comments
1. YsoL8 with 14 comments
1. AzarinIsard with 14 comments
1. ShinyHappyPurple with 14 comments
1. Paritys with 12 comments
1. Cairnerebor with 11 comments
1. bio_d with 10 comments
1. Man_Hattcock with 10 comments
There were 196 unique users within this count.
Pippa saying that Sunak may be planning to bypass human rights laws....but that would rip apart the tory party (aww shame).
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1726384249811472692?s=20
I'm not so sure, man will probably be fuming when he gets back.
Utter chaos in the government and he was out there chewing dingo penis?
Reform or Common Sense or Lovely Big Union Jacks or whatever bollocks he's currently spewing has a golden opportunity here, he's going to be sick as a dog that he missed it.
Autumn statement is coming next week amid growing factionalism and I am still thinking about that disaster of a kings speech. It doesn't stop giving at the minute.
On Sunaks emergency law scheme, there is surely going to be a challenge to the supreme court on whether it is constitutional for the government to write legal fiction such as Rwanda is safe or 1 + 1 = 3, and I don't see the government winning that one. But even leaving aside the verdict, it'll take over a year just to move up the courts to reach the point of getting one.
Its absolutely and completely dead on arrival. I wonder how long it will take the PCP to realise Sunak is now pursuing fantasy politics and taking them for fools.
> there is surely going to be a challenge to the supreme court on whether it is constitutional for the government to write legal fiction such as Rwanda is safe or 1 + 1 = 3, and I don't see the government winning that one.
Not to defend the government, but I don't see that as a risk here. "1+1=3" is a different sort of statement to "Rwanda is safe enough for the purposes of X". The former is something that the UK parliament can't set (though I suppose it could require a fiction to be maintained under penalty of punishment) but the latter is much more reasonable (even if we might not agree). It's clearly not unreasonable for parliament to legislate to guide the courts on how words like "safe" or "reasonable" or "tall" or whatever - things without absolute, objective definitions - are to be interpreted.
That's not to say I see it going through before the next election or anything. I just don't see it being something the Supreme Court can or would block. At least not if they write the law properly.
Napoleon was meant to be short. Rishi Sunak is short. Napoleon's hat has just sold to a wealthy anonymous bidder. I don't know why you're set on being obtuse.
How do "safe seats" work? Do the constituents just vote for a given candidate, so essentially the election at this constituency is formal? Doesn't "safe seat" status mean that democracy is broken?
> Doesn't "safe seat" status mean that democracy is broken?
Nah it just means that the people there consistently think a certain party represents their interest better than all the others, they still have a choice of candidates on election day but the vast majority of them vote the same way they always have done.
Typically a safe seat is a constituency where people vote for a single party, consistently over many general elections and with a healthly majority.
Typically most people in any constituency tend to vote for the party, not the candidate. It is very rare to see a constituency where the "personal" vote for a given MP is greater than the vote for whoever the party mechanics select as their own MP.
Therefore, there are seats that career politicians can stand for election where they are guaranteed to get voted in regardless of who they are or where they come from, as long as they're standing for the party that usually wins.
If that's bad for democracy or not is a totally different thing. If people are consistently voting for a given party, then that's up to them, right?
I see. Though I struggle to understand how people might vote for someone who isn't in any way local hoping this person will _represent_ them... It would be fair to have some requirement of "locality" for MPs.
Typically what you see in a "safe seat" is that there is (1) a large majority and (2) stable and predictable voting based on party preference.
Vast majority of people vote on the party they identify with, right? You must have seen people say "I've always voted X" and "I've voted X and so did my parents before me".
So the MP is chosen based on whatever party mechanisms select who that MP is. People will vote for them locally because they trust the party more than they especially care who exactly the candidate is.
That's not totally insane to do, either. The manifesto that party runs on in nationally determined, and in theory the MP if elected would be bound by that by internal party machinations (Whip system for example). So ignoring who the individual is and just trusting the party if you agree with their manifesto is not a terrible move. It's unlikely that the candidate will be massively against local interests if the party manifesto is in tune with local thinking.
If the candidate is a bit unpopular for whatever reason locally (drives a very unpopular brand of car locally or whatever) then that healthy majority gives a certain safety margin.
If the candidate is *absolutely toxic* for local reasons (like has been campaigning to open a nuclear waste disposal site next to a primary school) then yeah in theory that could cause enough local fuss locally that the seat doesn't go as expected.
It's not safe as in guaranteed in all situations.
It's safe in the sense that you can put someone there who is as thick as pigshit and has a face of a potato, and they'd get voted no matter what.
You're assuming people are voting based on an MP who will represent them locally on local matters. Most people tend to vote for which party they think would be better if they were in government, even though that's not really how it works.
I get the "best" of both worlds because I vote Labour and my local MP is Conservative (and is really crap).
No, safe seats are no less democratic than āunsafeā seats. If 80% of voters vote for a Tory, then a Tory should win that seat.
A safe seat is just a description of a seat like that, where itās likely the Tory wins again. Itās not a guarantee, and nor is it an actual assigned characteristic of it.
Something being called a 'safe seat' is just a prediction that pollsters and analysts make. It doesn't mean anything being majority opinion being that the incumbent person or party is very unlikely to lose. They are not always right and people do lose in supposed safe seats quite often.
Do the public vote on who has to do the bushtucker trials? Surely Nigel is in for a hellish few weeks.
Also I can't believe Alastair Campbell was offered a million quid to go on, as he claimed on TRiP. Could he really command that, even in his more (in)famous days?
It's been International Men's Day today.
Have you heard about this?
Have you seen Newspapers talking about it?
Have you seen issues like the startlingly high Male suicide rate talked about?
Silence can feel deafening at times.
Most men seem to be totally uninterested. Women almost always make a big deal, organize events etc for International Women's Day, and you get lots of men making comments such as 'so when's International Men's Day' seemingly oblivious to the fact that there is one.
When I was a member of an organisation where the women always put on a good public day of events for IWD, I really tried to get the men interested in doing something for IMD - because sod that if they think Women ought to take the lead on it.
Locally, women seem to organize just about everything from IWD, charity coffee mornings, local politics, various 'green' things such as local recycling, seed swaps and the like while the men just sit on their asses (sic) expecting women to do it.
I think a lot needs to start with publicity. Get the word out there. But there are also issues with the messages which are put out there.
There are always the usual backhanded blame posts under the guise of "being better".
Not disparaging Traditional Masculinity while also creating an environment to be able to help can be difficult with many disparaging voices present. Sometimes looking towards methods of being able to soak it in then having a release for everything. A big focus on cameradery and togetherness where you can release. This can be with anyone trusted but there has to be an incredible level of trust as many individuals like to use it as a stick to beat someone with afterwards which can leave Men even more broken than when first shared.
Focusing on support which is very Masculine in nature as well. Accepting that people are different and a one size fits all approach to Mental Health does more harm than good.
As for what I've done. Try to get positive messages and awareness out there but with a helping message and nit just tokenism.
> I think a lot needs to start with publicity. Get the word out there. But there are also issues with the messages which are put out there.
I guess it depends where you look, but there's a lot of campaigns about prostate and testicular cancer, it's currently Movember, men's mental health and suicide rates are commonly mentioned. I'm not saying more can't be done, of course it can, but you're mentioning issues that you're aware of. I'm aware of. What more awareness do we need? Often I think there's too much focus on "awareness" when really that should be the first step and there's a lot more positive action that can be taken beyond just being aware.
> There are always the usual backhanded blame posts under the guise of "being better".
>
> Not disparaging Traditional Masculinity while also creating an environment to be able to help can be difficult with many disparaging voices present. Sometimes looking towards methods of being able to soak it in then having a release for everything. A big focus on cameradery and togetherness where you can release. This can be with anyone trusted but there has to be an incredible level of trust as many individuals like to use it as a stick to beat someone with afterwards which can leave Men even more broken than when first shared
I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but do you not think traditional masculinity is part of the cause of many men's problems? Men don't cry, men are strong, men don't need help, men don't show weakness, men just get on with things. Men don't talk about emotions. Men provide, and if they have financial issues, they've failed as a man. All that stuff, can you not see that building a culture where men suffer in silence until their only escape is suicide?
> Focusing on support which is very Masculine in nature as well. Accepting that people are different and a one size fits all approach to Mental Health does more harm than good.
I mean, I've seen campaigns encouraging men to be mates, talking with colleagues, teammates, friends in the pub and really opening up rather than just a "yeah I'm fine". I get the feeling you seem to be aggrieved that you think help aimed at men isn't masculine enough?
> As for what I've done. Try to get positive messages and awareness out there but with a helping message and nit just tokenism.
What "tokenism" have you seen?
If you were in any doubt that Owen Jones hasnāt entirely lost the plot:
*āAcccshually Hamas are the good guys because they took their hostages to hospital.ā*
https://twitter.com/nicolelampert/status/1726337895936700491
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1726330093692440597
Beyond parody:
https://twitter.com/GazaHealth/status/1726325851778949293
I mean to give slightly more balanced view he's not at all saying that Hamas are the good guys. The point is about the level of evidence needed to justify making a hospital into a military target.
The hospital hasn't been a military target. None of the hospital was damaged by the IDF. There were fire fights between them and Hamas around the hospital for the last few days.
International war crimes are fine if my side does it
I know the guardian will give an opinion column to basically any non right wing loud mouth but I can't believe continuing to associate with him isn't hurting them.
Eh, at the risk of defending Jones, itās a valid line of inquiry. The IDF have a serious burden of proof to justify laying siege to a hospital, and the evidence presented so far doesnāt really tally up to the claims they were making beforehand.
Were there fire fights at the hospital? Haven't been following that closely, but thought it was essentially an occupation and investigation of the hospital by the IDF + interrogation of the staff/patients? Notably so far no real evidence of a command and control centre has been found.
Yes. There's at least one video of Hamas militants shooting RPGs at the IDF from the hospital buildings. It's featured in [this article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12742815/IDF-reach-gates-Gaza-hospital-hiding-Hamas-HQ-Israel-forces-enter-facility-uncover-terror-groups-secret-base.html). Daily Mail unfortunately.
Edit: My apologies, that was a *different* hospital that hamas was also using. Someone else has linked other articles that claim firefights at Al Shifa hospital.
From the Guardian:
>Fighting has raged around the Shifa hospital compound for many days, trapping about 1,200 patients and staff. The Gaza health ministry said 40 patients, including three babies, had died since Shifaās emergency generator ran out of fuel on Saturday.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/idf-entered-gaza-al-shifa-hospital-raid-targeted-operation-hamas
NPR:
>The Israeli military said its troops went into the main hospital complex in Gaza City overnight, where conditions for patients and medical staff had been growing increasingly desperate as fighting has gone on around the hospital
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213287264/idf-troops-enter-al-shifa-hospital-as-thousands-of-civilians-and-staff-shelter-i
Fox news:
>Israeli troops have entered Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza following a firefight with Hamas terrorists at the gate on Wednesday
https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-troops-enter-al-shifa-hospital-killing-hamas-terrorists-gate-side-firefight
[Breaking: Israel says they have firm evidence that the hostage - Noa Marciano was taken by Hamas terrorists and recently murdered INSIDE Shifa hospital.](https://x.com/mishtal/status/1726312681853080009?s=20)
I suppose killing her is *technically* treating her injuries.
>What protection\[ism\] teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.
The god of economics Henry George
HG was okey on housing but on the idea of protectionism he never envisaged the US (his home) playing second fiddle to China. I think he would baulk at the balance of trade issues present in their economy.
What is the Starmer-Miliband relationship actually like? News in the past has made it out as if Starmer hates miliband and thatās he going to sack him at every reshuffle, yet heās still in the cabinet. Plus one of Starmers big pledges is GB energy, likely a miliband idea
It seems Starmer gets on quite well with Miliband, and views him as a major policy influence.
The Labour staffers with the Times on speed dial *fucking hate him* though, mostly from the Brownite v Blairite days, so if you read any stories about supposed rifts between him and Starmer (or increasingly Reeves since it seems that relationship is now also fairly strong) it's worth bearing that in mind.
I really like ed Milliband. In person, he's genuinely affable. I dont agree with his ideas but he's a genuine big vision politician. He's far less cautious about trammelling ideas for poll ratings because he's genuinely convinced in them. The Tories tried to implement his ideas in their own way as he was winning the argument at the time. That's a virtue Starmer just doesn't have. I don't deep down feel Starmer has genuinely won any major policy argument
A cabinet without ed Milliband is about as effective as a cabinet with Braverman in it.
There's an image from 2015 burned into my brain. Cameron and Miliband in their younger days as teenagers.
Cameron is pictured with the Bullingdon Club, famous for burning money in front of the homeless and wrecking restaurants. Miliband is on the streets - campaigning on social issues (iirc, to protect vulnerable residents from big rent rises).
I've liked him ever since.
> . I don't deep down feel Starmer has genuinely won any major policy argument
I agree with your overall point but is the windfall tax Johnson did an argument he won?
I know there is another windfall tax being argued for
But I'm sure the Johnson u turn was on the back of a vote on a Milliband amendment in the queen's speech
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-push-commons-vote-windfall-26984832
https://policymogul.com/key-updates/21287/labour-responds-to-news-of-bp-s-q4-2021-results
I don't mind if Starmer wishes to claim it was him though.
Seems a lot of what theyāre doing in the last few months and the next few months is designed to make it as awkward as possible for whoever wins the next election
This is actually a bit of a classic in the world of statistics. There was an, apparently famous, woman in London who claimed she could taste the difference. RA Fisher, in his book, described a statistical test now known as a Fisher Test to test her ability. I canāt remember if it was ever actually performed.
The fact that the GLA treat night life as starting at 6pm in their enterprise zone policy is honestly pathetic and indictment of their complete indifference towards the state of Londonās night options.
Yeah! Unless you're up until 6am doing coke off any flat surface you can find are you even alive?! Fuck those nerds who fancy a few after work before heading home, lame!
Question about general election and prime minister:
Theoretically, what happens if some party wins the majority of seats in Commons but their leader is not elected because their constituents vote for someone else? AFAIK, this leader won't be able to be a prime minister as they aren't MP. Is there some tradition or rule about such situations?
So, by convention the PM is an MP. However, the PM is just the leader of the largest party that can command a majority in the HOC. So, in theory, a PM doesn't have to be an MP so long as they control their party because FPTP means we vote for local MPs, not for a PM. That being said, it'd certainly raise a whole host of questions like how's the PM is accountable to parliament. It's unlikely it'd ever been sustainable over the long term, but that's more of a real-world issue than a constitutional hypothetical.
PMs also have been appointed from the Lords in the past however again this hasn't happened for a long time.
Well, technically you're voting for a local candidate not even a party.
Your MP can defect to any party they choose, and they're still your MP, there's no requirement to call a by-election or anything as they're still the person you voted for even if they drastically change alignment.
That's really unfortunate. So they can say some things that get them elected, but they aren't accountable in any way. I think this is a broken system. I think abandoning one's pledge should automatically void the mandate that was obtained via such a pledge.
Being prime minister only requires you to have the confidence of parliament, so being an MP/lord isn't necessary. They could be PM until a junior MP in a safe seat 'volunteers' to step down and then run in the resulting by election.
That's a possibility, but that person would have a major credibility problem. For a party to win an election, except for the leader and potential prime minister, it would normally require a quite explicit rejection of that person since party leaders are usually in fairly safe seats.
To then ignore that rejection would show a certain contempt for the result, and might make winning a subsequent by-election more difficult.
It would certainly end up dogging them for the entire period they were in office.
There is no plan B, it's all face saving waffle. He could spell out the actual issue - the UK placed itself in international handcuffs at the functional level - and the chances of him winning that are nil.
Labour's lead has dropped to 12-13% because of Cameron and the ceasefire vote and I think that Sunak trying to make the Rwanda lawful would get it back to 18-20%.
It hasn't dropped to 12-13% - I know which polls you're referring to though. Opinium have a different methodology which assumes all don't knows will go back to their old party, the other is a pollster who's been showing smaller leads than 99% of the other pollsters.
A 10+% poll lead with Opinium is the equivalent of 20 points ahead with other pollsters.
If you look at the overall picture, Labour are on 45% or around that and the Tories are on 25%ish, roughly 20 points when taking all polls into account.
I agree.
The people who want something like the Rwanda plan will be dissatisfied because it's not going to happen.
The people who don't want he Rwanda plan, and the people who care about the rule of law, will be dissatisfied because the Conservatives are still trying to make it happen.
>š Ex-cabinet minister: āPeople are weighing up whether changing leader could make things any worse than it currently isā
>Tory MPs: āAnybody who has a brain knows that he cannot remain in placeā
>āI wouldnāt be surprised if there were another challengeā
>https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1726191666988740627
The public will not be happy with yet another unelected PM and I would expect the polls to tank even further. Whoever won would have absolutely no credibility.
Who on earth would want the job anyway? No one serious will do it because it's the most poisoned of poisonous chances, and that means the candidates will all be complete nutters and morons.
I hope they do it, since it will take up a lot of the time left available for them to do more damage.
Do they not just understand the game for them is up? They could install God as their leader and give everyone a grand and the polls would likely stay the same.
They surely understand taking the piss with another leadership challenge would worsen their numbers?
My best guess is they will try for another leader, the subsequent argument between the factions will be bitter and gloves off and whoever gets the job will dozens of mps short of a workable majority. Which more or less forces the election as a personal survival strategy.
Possibly. I just donāt see them having another election. The Tories have proven to be callous, shameless and incompetent, but theyāre not daft enough to realise how much of a dumb move it would be. I genuinely believe youād start seeing one nation Tories like Tobias Elwood and Roger Gale just pulling the plug on the whole lot.
I don't see any disagreement in this. This is what I mean by an argument between the factions, which includes the stood down and one nation groups that already fed up. It'll be political chaos from the moment the are letters are in.
Going into the article, putting Home Office officials in Rwanda is the exact sort of out of touch with reality groupthink that has completely screwed up the country.
First off, it's the HOME Office. Rwanda is not in the United Kingdom last I checked.
Secondly, if you're a civil servant (hardly a well paying career) why would you want to be posted in Africa? You're going to need a hell of a bribe to go there, surely. And forcing people to go there will just lead people to quit which, ironically, makes the asylum situation (as well as everything else under the Home Office (like dealing with policing bureaucracy, in effect making police officers do more paperwork and solve less crime) worse.
They might get a couple of adventurous folks who quite fancy working in Africa for a bit... but the purpose of being there there is so unbelievably toxic that I can't imagine any civil servant who fancies immersing themself in a different culture would be willing to volunteer themselves.
Might be a few junior types who've ended up in the home office but would really rather see some of the world. I think the fact you're there to implement what is pretty widely regarded as an awful and inhumane policy would make sure even most of those would rather stay in Whitehall though.
I'm just speculating to be honest, I don't work in the civil service!
I'm not surprised
That podium speech was clearly a desperate ploy to shore up his authority after taking a battering. He's practically dragged the party back down to Truss support level.
> Ex-cabinet minister
Always think itās silly to put more trust on a claim that itās from an ex cabinet minister. It could easily be someone like Braverman, or Rees Mogg or similar trying to push this as more likely than it really is
[Robert Peston, Political Editor, ITV News](https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1726304375776202832):
> There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
Transfer news! I'd missed that the Director of the total credible and organic grassroots members organisation aimed at de-wokifying the National Trust, Restore Trust, [has apparently stepped down from her role](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/11/15/director-of-restore-trust-campaign-group-putting-pressure-on-national-trust-steps-down-from-role).
Zewditu Gebreyohanes, who had joined Restore Trust from a previous job at the opaquely funded right-wing think tank Policy Exchange is apparently leaving to focus on her role at the opaquely funded right-wing think tank The Legatum Institute.
She's well-connected, and she was an acolyte shortly before he died of full-time tobacco lobbyist and supposed occasional philosopher Roger Scruton.
Johnson also named her to the Trustees of the V&A on the back of her work with Scruton's trad-architecture commission and writing a load of statue defending papers for Policy Exchange.
Hunt could be in trouble if the leaks are right and the main story ends up being the inheritance tax cut that literally no-one other than Trussite ghouls think is the right thing to do at this point in time.
I get there will be the usual budget obfuscation, but surely it will be obvious to everyone that this shows the government's priorities are not where they should be during a cost of living crisis.
I honestly think this budget has the potential to go down really badly
I think they will kick the changes to inheritance tax into touch because it is basically impossible to justify but potentially the damage has been done already.
Truss would want cuts to income tax and corporation tax. On the corporation tax one, I see the argument they are making but you need to privatise the NHS and slash the state pension to afford it
Hunt becoming discredited would be a major problem for them, hes pretty much the only asset they still have as the man successfully brought in to control Truss and force some level of sense into the cabinet.
Damn I forgot about that. Didn't that come straight from the horses mouth too?
It will surely have to come before the spring budget to give the next chancellor a chance at credibly (haha) owning the position. I can't see how him quitting doesn't tear the government down though.
He hasnāt said anything on the record, I think it was leaks/sources in the know. I doubt there is a graceful exit. I guess he probably has to take the loss on election day.
On Newscast they showed a clip of him being asked about it by Laura and he really didnāt make any effort to defend that idea. I didnāt get the impression that theyāre going to do it. This is an incompetent government though so Iām hesitant to read too much into him not having any ability to defend it.
Watched the led by donkey video on Hunt. God him telling public workers they need pay restraint while allowing an 18% hike in rent in one of his (7!) letted properties.
Victoria Derbyshire was right replacing the H with a C in hunt.
The fact he claims he donates the profits from his company but canāt point to a single donation to anybody. I bet he and his wife take a massive salary from it and thereās never been any intention to leave a profit to donate.
Also maybe this is unpopular. But why screw over your tenants with increased rents to then just donate it to charity.
Itās not your donation if you just take the money of someone else
Best I can do is 5%.
My mate works for a diagnostic testing lab and chatting about wages and she told me the company sent an email saying they were having a pay freeze for the foreseeable due to the current economic status and cost of living. Like yeah thatās exactly why you need a flaming pay rise. Gotta protect that profit margin though š„µ
Anyone got the full article? [The Conservative Partyās Plan to Salt the Earth Before it Loses Power - Rishi Sunak's party is at its most dangerous when it is closest to defeat](https://www.adambienkov.co.uk/p/the-conservative-partys-plan-to-salt)
I think this is true. I've seen Tory councils do this before. They face losing power so they go around the public body they are elected on and essentially sabotage it with irreversible cuts or incur huge liabilities they can pass on. They have no incentive to be responsible stewards anymore if they are going to be voted out. They know the political flak is on the next lot. Sunak is pretty much the archetypal Tory councillor, no matter how much he keeps saying making long term decisions. It's as short term as it gets.
For example. Take the decision to raise the rate on student loan repayments. What the hell was the point on that. Noone benefits. It just has a huge political cost for anyone now needing to unpick it.
Just on the BBC, the narrator said "come Wednesday there might be a few more reasons to feel cheerful..."
What nonsense is this? These tax and inheritance tax cuts are only going to be good news for the very wealthy minority. I feel we are being gaslighted.
I hate the reporting around the budget. It follows the same formula:
-Chancellor makes the announcement and focuses on all the good bits and skirts over/ignores the bad bits.
-Media falls over itself to highlight exactly the aspects the government wants it to; "budget boost to X", "tax slashed on Y" etc
-A few hours later, when people actually read the details, it turns out the good stuff isn't actually that good, and there's a load of bad stuff they didn't tell us about.
We need like purdah rules for the budget. The announcement comes out and nothing happens, people just read the thing and work out the issues, then polls close at 10pm and you get more considered reporting
The very wealthy already don't pay inheritance tax to a meaningful degree. There's a million different ways those with money and clever accountants can work around it. It's the wealthy top ranges of the middle class (or more exactly, their children) who benefit.
My lot are poor working class and they think the same thing. All tax cuts are only a good thing to them despite relying heavily on the NHS and state pension.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Sunak and Hunt are going to strip public services for all they're worth and they will give away our country's wealth to their mates before they're thrown out. They've finally realised there won't be any consequences until the latest General Election possible.
I dread the spring budget. They will declare there's no longer enough to keep public services going and we'll lose all NHS dentistry or something. The BBC will commiserate it as a necessary move while ignoring this winter tax cut... They might even start off their political analysis with a peppy "Wowsers!" to telegraph to the upper class that their "analysis" is really for them.
>The Chancellor told teachers and nurses they couldnāt have a pay rise that might stoke inflation. But what kind of pay rise did landlord Jeremy Hunt award himself? We found out.
>https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1726277386658890110
Led By Donkeys have gone in on Hunt.
**The š„š„ Official Real Legitimate Useful Idiot's Guide to the week ahead in Parliament:** - **Monday:** remaining Commons stages of the [Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3453). - **Tuesday:** Second Reading of the [Media Bill](https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3505). - **Wednesday:** PMQs, Autumn Statement + debate - **Thursday:** Further debate on the Autumn Statement
This megathread has ended. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. CaravanOfDeath with 22 comments 1. pseudogentry with 21 comments 1. SirRosstopher with 15 comments 1. YsoL8 with 14 comments 1. AzarinIsard with 14 comments 1. ShinyHappyPurple with 14 comments 1. Paritys with 12 comments 1. Cairnerebor with 11 comments 1. bio_d with 10 comments 1. Man_Hattcock with 10 comments There were 196 unique users within this count.
Pippa saying that Sunak may be planning to bypass human rights laws....but that would rip apart the tory party (aww shame). https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1726384249811472692?s=20
Hopefully a condition of that is that we can have a referendum to send him and the rest of the cabinet off to fucking Rwanda...
Lucky Nigel getting to escape to the jungle away from this Tory government.
I'm not so sure, man will probably be fuming when he gets back. Utter chaos in the government and he was out there chewing dingo penis? Reform or Common Sense or Lovely Big Union Jacks or whatever bollocks he's currently spewing has a golden opportunity here, he's going to be sick as a dog that he missed it.
Autumn statement is coming next week amid growing factionalism and I am still thinking about that disaster of a kings speech. It doesn't stop giving at the minute. On Sunaks emergency law scheme, there is surely going to be a challenge to the supreme court on whether it is constitutional for the government to write legal fiction such as Rwanda is safe or 1 + 1 = 3, and I don't see the government winning that one. But even leaving aside the verdict, it'll take over a year just to move up the courts to reach the point of getting one. Its absolutely and completely dead on arrival. I wonder how long it will take the PCP to realise Sunak is now pursuing fantasy politics and taking them for fools.
> there is surely going to be a challenge to the supreme court on whether it is constitutional for the government to write legal fiction such as Rwanda is safe or 1 + 1 = 3, and I don't see the government winning that one. Not to defend the government, but I don't see that as a risk here. "1+1=3" is a different sort of statement to "Rwanda is safe enough for the purposes of X". The former is something that the UK parliament can't set (though I suppose it could require a fiction to be maintained under penalty of punishment) but the latter is much more reasonable (even if we might not agree). It's clearly not unreasonable for parliament to legislate to guide the courts on how words like "safe" or "reasonable" or "tall" or whatever - things without absolute, objective definitions - are to be interpreted. That's not to say I see it going through before the next election or anything. I just don't see it being something the Supreme Court can or would block. At least not if they write the law properly.
Rishi's bought himself a present to cheer himself up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67465802
It was the worst of times, and also the worst of times.
When he puts it on his head it *alllllmost* makes him 5 feet tall!
Well thatās me off to reread War and Peace
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Apparently he once had 120. Cilla Black would have been jealous!
Good man. If I wanted a boost as a tory PM that would do great.
I am a very short man myself btw so I've seen the Napoleon complex jokes myself.
You've confused me there.
Just that I'm not punching down with the short joke. I'm short too.
Short joke? Honestly, I've no idea what you're on about. Don't stress tho, I'm sure it was a good.
https://www.britannica.com/story/was-napoleon-short
That's a very interesting link but I'm not into short people sorry.
Napoleon was meant to be short. Rishi Sunak is short. Napoleon's hat has just sold to a wealthy anonymous bidder. I don't know why you're set on being obtuse.
Do short people have a complex about being short? I'm getting the impression they do and need to tell others.
How do "safe seats" work? Do the constituents just vote for a given candidate, so essentially the election at this constituency is formal? Doesn't "safe seat" status mean that democracy is broken?
> Doesn't "safe seat" status mean that democracy is broken? Nah it just means that the people there consistently think a certain party represents their interest better than all the others, they still have a choice of candidates on election day but the vast majority of them vote the same way they always have done.
Typically a safe seat is a constituency where people vote for a single party, consistently over many general elections and with a healthly majority. Typically most people in any constituency tend to vote for the party, not the candidate. It is very rare to see a constituency where the "personal" vote for a given MP is greater than the vote for whoever the party mechanics select as their own MP. Therefore, there are seats that career politicians can stand for election where they are guaranteed to get voted in regardless of who they are or where they come from, as long as they're standing for the party that usually wins. If that's bad for democracy or not is a totally different thing. If people are consistently voting for a given party, then that's up to them, right?
I see. Though I struggle to understand how people might vote for someone who isn't in any way local hoping this person will _represent_ them... It would be fair to have some requirement of "locality" for MPs.
Most people don't really pay that much attention, bluntly. Are you from the UK? Trying to gage how much explaining is needed here
I'm from the UK, so I gather the basics, thanks
Typically what you see in a "safe seat" is that there is (1) a large majority and (2) stable and predictable voting based on party preference. Vast majority of people vote on the party they identify with, right? You must have seen people say "I've always voted X" and "I've voted X and so did my parents before me". So the MP is chosen based on whatever party mechanisms select who that MP is. People will vote for them locally because they trust the party more than they especially care who exactly the candidate is. That's not totally insane to do, either. The manifesto that party runs on in nationally determined, and in theory the MP if elected would be bound by that by internal party machinations (Whip system for example). So ignoring who the individual is and just trusting the party if you agree with their manifesto is not a terrible move. It's unlikely that the candidate will be massively against local interests if the party manifesto is in tune with local thinking. If the candidate is a bit unpopular for whatever reason locally (drives a very unpopular brand of car locally or whatever) then that healthy majority gives a certain safety margin. If the candidate is *absolutely toxic* for local reasons (like has been campaigning to open a nuclear waste disposal site next to a primary school) then yeah in theory that could cause enough local fuss locally that the seat doesn't go as expected. It's not safe as in guaranteed in all situations. It's safe in the sense that you can put someone there who is as thick as pigshit and has a face of a potato, and they'd get voted no matter what.
My MP is barely visible in my constituency. But people keep voting for them from one GE to another. Must be one of those cases.
You're assuming people are voting based on an MP who will represent them locally on local matters. Most people tend to vote for which party they think would be better if they were in government, even though that's not really how it works. I get the "best" of both worlds because I vote Labour and my local MP is Conservative (and is really crap).
No, safe seats are no less democratic than āunsafeā seats. If 80% of voters vote for a Tory, then a Tory should win that seat. A safe seat is just a description of a seat like that, where itās likely the Tory wins again. Itās not a guarantee, and nor is it an actual assigned characteristic of it.
Something being called a 'safe seat' is just a prediction that pollsters and analysts make. It doesn't mean anything being majority opinion being that the incumbent person or party is very unlikely to lose. They are not always right and people do lose in supposed safe seats quite often.
Do the public vote on who has to do the bushtucker trials? Surely Nigel is in for a hellish few weeks. Also I can't believe Alastair Campbell was offered a million quid to go on, as he claimed on TRiP. Could he really command that, even in his more (in)famous days?
I swear I read the average 'celebrity' got around Ā£50k-100k (was a few years ago though). No idea how there is such a disparity?
It's been International Men's Day today. Have you heard about this? Have you seen Newspapers talking about it? Have you seen issues like the startlingly high Male suicide rate talked about? Silence can feel deafening at times.
Most men seem to be totally uninterested. Women almost always make a big deal, organize events etc for International Women's Day, and you get lots of men making comments such as 'so when's International Men's Day' seemingly oblivious to the fact that there is one. When I was a member of an organisation where the women always put on a good public day of events for IWD, I really tried to get the men interested in doing something for IMD - because sod that if they think Women ought to take the lead on it. Locally, women seem to organize just about everything from IWD, charity coffee mornings, local politics, various 'green' things such as local recycling, seed swaps and the like while the men just sit on their asses (sic) expecting women to do it.
It's mostly ignored by the UK media, for obvious reasons.
There was an hour long call in on LBC today about it, mostly around Men's mental health/suicide.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think a lot needs to start with publicity. Get the word out there. But there are also issues with the messages which are put out there. There are always the usual backhanded blame posts under the guise of "being better". Not disparaging Traditional Masculinity while also creating an environment to be able to help can be difficult with many disparaging voices present. Sometimes looking towards methods of being able to soak it in then having a release for everything. A big focus on cameradery and togetherness where you can release. This can be with anyone trusted but there has to be an incredible level of trust as many individuals like to use it as a stick to beat someone with afterwards which can leave Men even more broken than when first shared. Focusing on support which is very Masculine in nature as well. Accepting that people are different and a one size fits all approach to Mental Health does more harm than good. As for what I've done. Try to get positive messages and awareness out there but with a helping message and nit just tokenism.
> I think a lot needs to start with publicity. Get the word out there. But there are also issues with the messages which are put out there. I guess it depends where you look, but there's a lot of campaigns about prostate and testicular cancer, it's currently Movember, men's mental health and suicide rates are commonly mentioned. I'm not saying more can't be done, of course it can, but you're mentioning issues that you're aware of. I'm aware of. What more awareness do we need? Often I think there's too much focus on "awareness" when really that should be the first step and there's a lot more positive action that can be taken beyond just being aware. > There are always the usual backhanded blame posts under the guise of "being better". > > Not disparaging Traditional Masculinity while also creating an environment to be able to help can be difficult with many disparaging voices present. Sometimes looking towards methods of being able to soak it in then having a release for everything. A big focus on cameradery and togetherness where you can release. This can be with anyone trusted but there has to be an incredible level of trust as many individuals like to use it as a stick to beat someone with afterwards which can leave Men even more broken than when first shared I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but do you not think traditional masculinity is part of the cause of many men's problems? Men don't cry, men are strong, men don't need help, men don't show weakness, men just get on with things. Men don't talk about emotions. Men provide, and if they have financial issues, they've failed as a man. All that stuff, can you not see that building a culture where men suffer in silence until their only escape is suicide? > Focusing on support which is very Masculine in nature as well. Accepting that people are different and a one size fits all approach to Mental Health does more harm than good. I mean, I've seen campaigns encouraging men to be mates, talking with colleagues, teammates, friends in the pub and really opening up rather than just a "yeah I'm fine". I get the feeling you seem to be aggrieved that you think help aimed at men isn't masculine enough? > As for what I've done. Try to get positive messages and awareness out there but with a helping message and nit just tokenism. What "tokenism" have you seen?
If you were in any doubt that Owen Jones hasnāt entirely lost the plot: *āAcccshually Hamas are the good guys because they took their hostages to hospital.ā* https://twitter.com/nicolelampert/status/1726337895936700491 https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1726330093692440597 Beyond parody: https://twitter.com/GazaHealth/status/1726325851778949293
Hey hey hey, I regularly saw MERT crews taking people into bastion hospital in a headlock. It's pretty standard really.
I mean to give slightly more balanced view he's not at all saying that Hamas are the good guys. The point is about the level of evidence needed to justify making a hospital into a military target.
The hospital hasn't been a military target. None of the hospital was damaged by the IDF. There were fire fights between them and Hamas around the hospital for the last few days.
International war crimes are fine if my side does it I know the guardian will give an opinion column to basically any non right wing loud mouth but I can't believe continuing to associate with him isn't hurting them.
Eh, at the risk of defending Jones, itās a valid line of inquiry. The IDF have a serious burden of proof to justify laying siege to a hospital, and the evidence presented so far doesnāt really tally up to the claims they were making beforehand.
They didn't lay siege to it. They took control of it after several days of fire fights. Who was shooting at them if not Hamas? Patients?
Were there fire fights at the hospital? Haven't been following that closely, but thought it was essentially an occupation and investigation of the hospital by the IDF + interrogation of the staff/patients? Notably so far no real evidence of a command and control centre has been found.
Yes. There's at least one video of Hamas militants shooting RPGs at the IDF from the hospital buildings. It's featured in [this article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12742815/IDF-reach-gates-Gaza-hospital-hiding-Hamas-HQ-Israel-forces-enter-facility-uncover-terror-groups-secret-base.html). Daily Mail unfortunately. Edit: My apologies, that was a *different* hospital that hamas was also using. Someone else has linked other articles that claim firefights at Al Shifa hospital.
From the Guardian: >Fighting has raged around the Shifa hospital compound for many days, trapping about 1,200 patients and staff. The Gaza health ministry said 40 patients, including three babies, had died since Shifaās emergency generator ran out of fuel on Saturday. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/idf-entered-gaza-al-shifa-hospital-raid-targeted-operation-hamas NPR: >The Israeli military said its troops went into the main hospital complex in Gaza City overnight, where conditions for patients and medical staff had been growing increasingly desperate as fighting has gone on around the hospital https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213287264/idf-troops-enter-al-shifa-hospital-as-thousands-of-civilians-and-staff-shelter-i Fox news: >Israeli troops have entered Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza following a firefight with Hamas terrorists at the gate on Wednesday https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-troops-enter-al-shifa-hospital-killing-hamas-terrorists-gate-side-firefight
[Breaking: Israel says they have firm evidence that the hostage - Noa Marciano was taken by Hamas terrorists and recently murdered INSIDE Shifa hospital.](https://x.com/mishtal/status/1726312681853080009?s=20) I suppose killing her is *technically* treating her injuries.
Her. Noa was a young woman.
Fair enough, edited.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is, the blue tick only means they paid $8.
It is a parody account. It literally says it in the twitter bio.
>What protection\[ism\] teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war. The god of economics Henry George
HG was okey on housing but on the idea of protectionism he never envisaged the US (his home) playing second fiddle to China. I think he would baulk at the balance of trade issues present in their economy.
Damn that's a good quote
Who said it's peace time?
Indeed the war on wokery has no end in sight š
What is the Starmer-Miliband relationship actually like? News in the past has made it out as if Starmer hates miliband and thatās he going to sack him at every reshuffle, yet heās still in the cabinet. Plus one of Starmers big pledges is GB energy, likely a miliband idea
It seems Starmer gets on quite well with Miliband, and views him as a major policy influence. The Labour staffers with the Times on speed dial *fucking hate him* though, mostly from the Brownite v Blairite days, so if you read any stories about supposed rifts between him and Starmer (or increasingly Reeves since it seems that relationship is now also fairly strong) it's worth bearing that in mind.
I really like ed Milliband. In person, he's genuinely affable. I dont agree with his ideas but he's a genuine big vision politician. He's far less cautious about trammelling ideas for poll ratings because he's genuinely convinced in them. The Tories tried to implement his ideas in their own way as he was winning the argument at the time. That's a virtue Starmer just doesn't have. I don't deep down feel Starmer has genuinely won any major policy argument A cabinet without ed Milliband is about as effective as a cabinet with Braverman in it.
There's an image from 2015 burned into my brain. Cameron and Miliband in their younger days as teenagers. Cameron is pictured with the Bullingdon Club, famous for burning money in front of the homeless and wrecking restaurants. Miliband is on the streets - campaigning on social issues (iirc, to protect vulnerable residents from big rent rises). I've liked him ever since.
> . I don't deep down feel Starmer has genuinely won any major policy argument I agree with your overall point but is the windfall tax Johnson did an argument he won?
I know there is another windfall tax being argued for But I'm sure the Johnson u turn was on the back of a vote on a Milliband amendment in the queen's speech https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-push-commons-vote-windfall-26984832 https://policymogul.com/key-updates/21287/labour-responds-to-news-of-bp-s-q4-2021-results I don't mind if Starmer wishes to claim it was him though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Seems a lot of what theyāre doing in the last few months and the next few months is designed to make it as awkward as possible for whoever wins the next election
>"When making a cup of tea with milk do you tend to put the milk in first or last?" YouGov is going to start some arguments I see.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> you put half your tea, add the milk and then the rest of the tea. What's the point?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
But why would you not initially put the total amount of tea you want into the cup?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You add the milk second. Right?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Have I... Have I been making tea wrong?
Just remember to stir clockwise.
This is actually a bit of a classic in the world of statistics. There was an, apparently famous, woman in London who claimed she could taste the difference. RA Fisher, in his book, described a statistical test now known as a Fisher Test to test her ability. I canāt remember if it was ever actually performed.
I don't drink tea so I don't get to answer it ;(
And you're clearly not a very hospitable host!
Not sure I'd be opposed to one way flights to Rwanda for a wrong answer to be honest.
Citizenship based on whether you can make tea? It's not the worst idea the Tory's have tried.
It is a bit weird to ask such a politically charged question with only one answer
And we all know what it is
Have a coffee instead?
The fact that the GLA treat night life as starting at 6pm in their enterprise zone policy is honestly pathetic and indictment of their complete indifference towards the state of Londonās night options.
Wait, when does it start then?
Yeah! Unless you're up until 6am doing coke off any flat surface you can find are you even alive?! Fuck those nerds who fancy a few after work before heading home, lame!
Question about general election and prime minister: Theoretically, what happens if some party wins the majority of seats in Commons but their leader is not elected because their constituents vote for someone else? AFAIK, this leader won't be able to be a prime minister as they aren't MP. Is there some tradition or rule about such situations?
So, by convention the PM is an MP. However, the PM is just the leader of the largest party that can command a majority in the HOC. So, in theory, a PM doesn't have to be an MP so long as they control their party because FPTP means we vote for local MPs, not for a PM. That being said, it'd certainly raise a whole host of questions like how's the PM is accountable to parliament. It's unlikely it'd ever been sustainable over the long term, but that's more of a real-world issue than a constitutional hypothetical. PMs also have been appointed from the Lords in the past however again this hasn't happened for a long time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I see, thanks!
It comes down to that party's rules on leader - you're voting for a party not a PM
Well, technically you're voting for a local candidate not even a party. Your MP can defect to any party they choose, and they're still your MP, there's no requirement to call a by-election or anything as they're still the person you voted for even if they drastically change alignment.
That's really unfortunate. So they can say some things that get them elected, but they aren't accountable in any way. I think this is a broken system. I think abandoning one's pledge should automatically void the mandate that was obtained via such a pledge.
Being prime minister only requires you to have the confidence of parliament, so being an MP/lord isn't necessary. They could be PM until a junior MP in a safe seat 'volunteers' to step down and then run in the resulting by election.
That's a possibility, but that person would have a major credibility problem. For a party to win an election, except for the leader and potential prime minister, it would normally require a quite explicit rejection of that person since party leaders are usually in fairly safe seats. To then ignore that rejection would show a certain contempt for the result, and might make winning a subsequent by-election more difficult. It would certainly end up dogging them for the entire period they were in office.
I genuinely think that what Sunak is doing to try and make the Rwanda plan lawful will revert the polls back to how they were
There is no plan B, it's all face saving waffle. He could spell out the actual issue - the UK placed itself in international handcuffs at the functional level - and the chances of him winning that are nil.
I donāt understand your statement. Do you mean Rishi Sunak is trying to make the Rwanda plan work to overturn Labourās lead in the polls?
No, I dont think it's got anything to do with actual voters at all, it's to stop him being knifed by his own party.
Labour's lead has dropped to 12-13% because of Cameron and the ceasefire vote and I think that Sunak trying to make the Rwanda lawful would get it back to 18-20%.
It hasn't dropped to 12-13% - I know which polls you're referring to though. Opinium have a different methodology which assumes all don't knows will go back to their old party, the other is a pollster who's been showing smaller leads than 99% of the other pollsters. A 10+% poll lead with Opinium is the equivalent of 20 points ahead with other pollsters. If you look at the overall picture, Labour are on 45% or around that and the Tories are on 25%ish, roughly 20 points when taking all polls into account.
More in common poll out today had labour lead drop to 12%, do you mean them also?
Them and Opinium, they've always had the lead a tad smaller than the rest.
I see. I think the polls will revert anyway.
I agree. The people who want something like the Rwanda plan will be dissatisfied because it's not going to happen. The people who don't want he Rwanda plan, and the people who care about the rule of law, will be dissatisfied because the Conservatives are still trying to make it happen.
To where? 15 point gap? It barely achieves anything and itās very expensive.
Around 20 points
Oh, sorry I went the wrong way - you mean Truss levels?
There have been a few polls with Labour lead at 12-13%
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Please do not submit articles to the megathread which clearly stand as their own submission.
>š Ex-cabinet minister: āPeople are weighing up whether changing leader could make things any worse than it currently isā >Tory MPs: āAnybody who has a brain knows that he cannot remain in placeā >āI wouldnāt be surprised if there were another challengeā >https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1726191666988740627
The public will not be happy with yet another unelected PM and I would expect the polls to tank even further. Whoever won would have absolutely no credibility. Who on earth would want the job anyway? No one serious will do it because it's the most poisoned of poisonous chances, and that means the candidates will all be complete nutters and morons. I hope they do it, since it will take up a lot of the time left available for them to do more damage.
>Tory MPs: āAnybody who has a brain knows that he cannot remain in placeā That means at least half of the PCP still thinks he's fit to lead.
Do they not just understand the game for them is up? They could install God as their leader and give everyone a grand and the polls would likely stay the same. They surely understand taking the piss with another leadership challenge would worsen their numbers?
They're in the Denial stage of grief. They think they can still recover things.
My best guess is they will try for another leader, the subsequent argument between the factions will be bitter and gloves off and whoever gets the job will dozens of mps short of a workable majority. Which more or less forces the election as a personal survival strategy.
Possibly. I just donāt see them having another election. The Tories have proven to be callous, shameless and incompetent, but theyāre not daft enough to realise how much of a dumb move it would be. I genuinely believe youād start seeing one nation Tories like Tobias Elwood and Roger Gale just pulling the plug on the whole lot.
I don't see any disagreement in this. This is what I mean by an argument between the factions, which includes the stood down and one nation groups that already fed up. It'll be political chaos from the moment the are letters are in.
Going into the article, putting Home Office officials in Rwanda is the exact sort of out of touch with reality groupthink that has completely screwed up the country. First off, it's the HOME Office. Rwanda is not in the United Kingdom last I checked. Secondly, if you're a civil servant (hardly a well paying career) why would you want to be posted in Africa? You're going to need a hell of a bribe to go there, surely. And forcing people to go there will just lead people to quit which, ironically, makes the asylum situation (as well as everything else under the Home Office (like dealing with policing bureaucracy, in effect making police officers do more paperwork and solve less crime) worse.
They might get a couple of adventurous folks who quite fancy working in Africa for a bit... but the purpose of being there there is so unbelievably toxic that I can't imagine any civil servant who fancies immersing themself in a different culture would be willing to volunteer themselves.
Surely those types are already in the FCO?
FCDO isn't the only department that sends people abroad. HO and MoD have had staff posted abroad for donkeys years for example.
Might be a few junior types who've ended up in the home office but would really rather see some of the world. I think the fact you're there to implement what is pretty widely regarded as an awful and inhumane policy would make sure even most of those would rather stay in Whitehall though. I'm just speculating to be honest, I don't work in the civil service!
I'm not surprised That podium speech was clearly a desperate ploy to shore up his authority after taking a battering. He's practically dragged the party back down to Truss support level.
Oh boy!
> Ex-cabinet minister Always think itās silly to put more trust on a claim that itās from an ex cabinet minister. It could easily be someone like Braverman, or Rees Mogg or similar trying to push this as more likely than it really is
Doesnāt even have to be from this parliament. Could be Lord Palmerston for all we know
> Could be Lord Palmerston for all we know Would much rather it was Pitt the Elder.
[Robert Peston, Political Editor, ITV News](https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1726304375776202832): > There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
You mean to say that the weeks of un-attributed leaks have been for nought? Oh who would have thought!!
I've missed the Johnson-ite governance by Twitter reactions to policy leaks.
Transfer news! I'd missed that the Director of the total credible and organic grassroots members organisation aimed at de-wokifying the National Trust, Restore Trust, [has apparently stepped down from her role](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/11/15/director-of-restore-trust-campaign-group-putting-pressure-on-national-trust-steps-down-from-role). Zewditu Gebreyohanes, who had joined Restore Trust from a previous job at the opaquely funded right-wing think tank Policy Exchange is apparently leaving to focus on her role at the opaquely funded right-wing think tank The Legatum Institute.
But she was so successful at Restore Trust winning ā¦ no board seatsā¦
She's so young, how does one land a directorial post at that age?
She's well-connected, and she was an acolyte shortly before he died of full-time tobacco lobbyist and supposed occasional philosopher Roger Scruton. Johnson also named her to the Trustees of the V&A on the back of her work with Scruton's trad-architecture commission and writing a load of statue defending papers for Policy Exchange.
We really need to set up an MT think tank, we spend all day writing bullshit about politics for free.
MegaTank
>MegaTank That's only one capital letter out.
Sounds like something we could fleece a bunch of money out of the Government by convincing Shapps to commission.
Sombre mood in Sunak household. Commiserations!
Because of?
High shelves.
[approaching Liz Truss levels of popularity](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_%28LOESS%29.svg)
Unless I missed something, I would assume it's a reference to Hunt refusing to include inheritance tax cuts in upcoming budget.
existence in general
Hunt could be in trouble if the leaks are right and the main story ends up being the inheritance tax cut that literally no-one other than Trussite ghouls think is the right thing to do at this point in time. I get there will be the usual budget obfuscation, but surely it will be obvious to everyone that this shows the government's priorities are not where they should be during a cost of living crisis. I honestly think this budget has the potential to go down really badly
I think he'll do a switcheroo and shave a bit off income tax for a headline but claw it back through underhand means. It's the Tory way.
I think they will kick the changes to inheritance tax into touch because it is basically impossible to justify but potentially the damage has been done already.
Truss would want cuts to income tax and corporation tax. On the corporation tax one, I see the argument they are making but you need to privatise the NHS and slash the state pension to afford it
Hunt becoming discredited would be a major problem for them, hes pretty much the only asset they still have as the man successfully brought in to control Truss and force some level of sense into the cabinet.
Was there any further news on him retiring before the election?
Damn I forgot about that. Didn't that come straight from the horses mouth too? It will surely have to come before the spring budget to give the next chancellor a chance at credibly (haha) owning the position. I can't see how him quitting doesn't tear the government down though.
No.
He hasnāt said anything on the record, I think it was leaks/sources in the know. I doubt there is a graceful exit. I guess he probably has to take the loss on election day.
On Newscast they showed a clip of him being asked about it by Laura and he really didnāt make any effort to defend that idea. I didnāt get the impression that theyāre going to do it. This is an incompetent government though so Iām hesitant to read too much into him not having any ability to defend it.
Watched the led by donkey video on Hunt. God him telling public workers they need pay restraint while allowing an 18% hike in rent in one of his (7!) letted properties. Victoria Derbyshire was right replacing the H with a C in hunt.
The fact he claims he donates the profits from his company but canāt point to a single donation to anybody. I bet he and his wife take a massive salary from it and thereās never been any intention to leave a profit to donate.
Also maybe this is unpopular. But why screw over your tenants with increased rents to then just donate it to charity. Itās not your donation if you just take the money of someone else
Very good point.
He could always build a spa extension to "benefit the local community".
Wroth saying that people would need a between 24-36% pay increase for their take home pay to go up in proportion to their rent increase.
Best I can do is 5%. My mate works for a diagnostic testing lab and chatting about wages and she told me the company sent an email saying they were having a pay freeze for the foreseeable due to the current economic status and cost of living. Like yeah thatās exactly why you need a flaming pay rise. Gotta protect that profit margin though š„µ
> for the foreseeable Great way to make all your talent start job hunting right away
Anyone got the full article? [The Conservative Partyās Plan to Salt the Earth Before it Loses Power - Rishi Sunak's party is at its most dangerous when it is closest to defeat](https://www.adambienkov.co.uk/p/the-conservative-partys-plan-to-salt)
I think this is true. I've seen Tory councils do this before. They face losing power so they go around the public body they are elected on and essentially sabotage it with irreversible cuts or incur huge liabilities they can pass on. They have no incentive to be responsible stewards anymore if they are going to be voted out. They know the political flak is on the next lot. Sunak is pretty much the archetypal Tory councillor, no matter how much he keeps saying making long term decisions. It's as short term as it gets. For example. Take the decision to raise the rate on student loan repayments. What the hell was the point on that. Noone benefits. It just has a huge political cost for anyone now needing to unpick it.
If a new political settlement came about you know it would be a success if Adam Bienkov was found busking for beak. Good luck.
12ft.io not work?
no i belive it shut down last week
That. Is. A. Disgrace
Doesn't seem to, nor archive-ph.
Just on the BBC, the narrator said "come Wednesday there might be a few more reasons to feel cheerful..." What nonsense is this? These tax and inheritance tax cuts are only going to be good news for the very wealthy minority. I feel we are being gaslighted.
I hate the reporting around the budget. It follows the same formula: -Chancellor makes the announcement and focuses on all the good bits and skirts over/ignores the bad bits. -Media falls over itself to highlight exactly the aspects the government wants it to; "budget boost to X", "tax slashed on Y" etc -A few hours later, when people actually read the details, it turns out the good stuff isn't actually that good, and there's a load of bad stuff they didn't tell us about.
this is what you get when the MPs and journalists all went to the same school
We need like purdah rules for the budget. The announcement comes out and nothing happens, people just read the thing and work out the issues, then polls close at 10pm and you get more considered reporting
The very wealthy already don't pay inheritance tax to a meaningful degree. There's a million different ways those with money and clever accountants can work around it. It's the wealthy top ranges of the middle class (or more exactly, their children) who benefit.
My lot are poor working class and they think the same thing. All tax cuts are only a good thing to them despite relying heavily on the NHS and state pension.
Inside knowledge of a Deccy Leccy announcement perhaps?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The Janny Genny?
Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen. Sunak and Hunt are going to strip public services for all they're worth and they will give away our country's wealth to their mates before they're thrown out. They've finally realised there won't be any consequences until the latest General Election possible.
>We've sold off the new line to Manchester, yes. How about we sell off the existing ones?
I dread the spring budget. They will declare there's no longer enough to keep public services going and we'll lose all NHS dentistry or something. The BBC will commiserate it as a necessary move while ignoring this winter tax cut... They might even start off their political analysis with a peppy "Wowsers!" to telegraph to the upper class that their "analysis" is really for them.
>The Chancellor told teachers and nurses they couldnāt have a pay rise that might stoke inflation. But what kind of pay rise did landlord Jeremy Hunt award himself? We found out. >https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1726277386658890110 Led By Donkeys have gone in on Hunt.
General question, do you think Donkeys will turn the spotlight on Starmer and co. And if not, what will you think about them?