Politics in General

[Elliott Mellor]

All the brouhaha about fake stamps at the moment seems like yet another instance of the Royal Mail failing to address the root cause of a problem.

If they really wanted to crackdown on this, instead of trying to fine the receiver £5, they could put a letter through asking them to contact the sender and ask where they got the stamp. Have an online portal where people can submit establishments that have sold fake stamps, and then target those establishments. Any place selling fake stamps then has to purchase all stamps directly from the Royal Mail.

Ideally everywhere would have to anyway, but implementing that would be logistically difficult at least in the short term.

[Mark James]

https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1783807825182884270

You know what to do.

[Gavin Chipper]

Looks good.

[Ian Volante]

https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1783807825182884270

You know what to do.

And here's his presence in a less toxic environment. https://mastodon.online/@CountBinface@mastodon.world

[Tal Lessner]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 024-04-26/

Don't think this recent ICC development will help much, but hopefully will get some international (mostly American) pressure on this weak, crazy, easily pressured excuse of a leader to end the massacre in Gaza, reach a ceasefire agreement and return the hostages.

[Gavin Chipper]

There's an article on the BBC about falling birth rates and the problems it can cause. I wouldn't be surprised if next week there was an article about overpopulation. It's strange that these articles never seem to reference each other. Also there's the thing about AI taking over all our jobs. I think some joined up thinking in these articles could go a long way.

[Philip A]

4th of July - General Election

[Marc Meakin]

4th of July - General Election

Isn't Wimbledon on then ?

[Paul Worsley]

4th of July - General Election

Isn't Wimbledon on then ?

Rishi has got more chance of winning that,

[Noel Mc]

Summer holidays where I am start on the 1st of July. I (and many many people, will be out of the country then.

Seems like no thought has been put in to the people of NI (shock horror!).

Obviously I can apply for a postal vote, but it's a bit annoying.


(in saying that, the last 8 MPs for my constituency have all been from the same party, with a mean % of about 63% of the vote. I normally like to exercise my right to vote in some way, but I feel I mightn't bother this time.

[Marc Meakin]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

I think Sunak chose this date as it can't get any better for him
If he went to December I could see the biggest landslide in history
I still think it could be a 150 plus majority

[Marc Meakin]

Serious question
When do we get to see the manifestos?

[Martin Hurst]

Serious question
When do we get to see the manifestos?

Usually a couple of weeks after parliament dissolves, so would expect them around 3 weeks from now.

[Graeme Cole]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

[Marc Meakin]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

Oops , should have used pronouns.
Though I could have got out of it by saying World Cup

[Martin Hurst]

It bodes well for England's chances in the football.
England last won a trophy during a Labour government.

*England women's team has left the chat*

Oops , should have used pronouns.
Though I could have got out of it by saying World Cup

Ahhh, but then others might get offended on behalf of the England blow football, table football, underwater football and under 9s teams!

[Marc Meakin]

Watched Question time last night (live on Iplayer at 8pm)
Usual shite but one panelist did talk sense about War Criminals and how Netenyahoo (now you know why I say Benni ) being singled out without Putin the recently deceased leader of Iran being previously charged

[Gavin Chipper]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

[Marc Meakin]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

Will The Tories have less than two hundred seats.
That's my prediction
Edit , oh sorry I thought it was going to be a poll on seats.
It might be loaded though as I can't see many admitting they are voting tory

[Martin Hurst]

In 2015 we had a poll for the general election, so it might be worth doing that again. I won't start a poll on whether to do a poll though. There was a separate thread as well but I think one thread with a poll should cover it.

Will The Tories have less than two hundred seats.
That's my prediction
Edit , oh sorry I thought it was going to be a poll on seats.
It might be loaded though as I can't see many admitting they are voting tory

The spread markets have the Tories on 169 seats at the moment (Labour on 396, though this is slightly down from 414 when the election was announced)

[Mark James]

I used to hate everyone who said we're living in the movie Idiocracy but then you see Hulk Hogan at the RNC and well...

[Marc Meakin]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

[Gavin Chipper]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

Well Cleverly is my MP, so that would be interesting for me.

In other news, Starmer has gone on a suspension rampage over the two-child benefit cap.

[Marc Meakin]

Who should be leader of the opposition?
Cleverly or Tugenhat ?
Surely not Suella !!

Well Cleverly is my MP, so that would be interesting for me.

In other news, Starmer has gone on a suspension rampage over the two-child benefit cap.

That's what you can do with a large majority.
It will eventually dawn on people that the Labour Party are not in anyway a socialist party but are like an 80sTory party with Ken Clarke in charge instead of Thatcher

[Rhys Benjamin]

This is what we call a three-line whip.

Rebel on the King's Speech and you will lose it.

Simple.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's the fact that he's chosen this specific thing for the "three-line whip". Showing his true colours. And they seem more blue than red.

[Gavin Chipper]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

[Elliott Mellor]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

This is the bit that makes Edwards very dodgy. He clearly didn't consider it reportable, whatever he said in the messages, and continued associating with a paedophile. Whether he was actively interested in it or not, he clearly has some rather skewed morals.

As for erasing from history, I do think it's a bit odd to just pretend someone never existed like this - the announcement of the Queen's death especially was a historic moment that they're effectively now pretending never happened. There's an argument to be had for the separation of individuals and events, and it's difficult to really imagine where to draw the line.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm sure (Sir) Clive Myrie can do a retrospective voice over for posterity

[Matt Rutherford]

Apparently Huw Edwards's crime was just someone else sending him unsolicited illegal images.

The court was earlier told that, on 2 February 2021, the other man asked whether what he was sending was too young, to which Edwards asked him not to send any underage images.

The final indecent image was sent in August 2021 - a category A film featuring a young boy.

The man told Edwards the boy was quite young looking, and that he had more images which were illegal, the court was told.

Edwards told him not to send any illegal images.

No more were sent, and the pair continued to exchange legal pornographic images until April 2022.

"Making" indecent images can have a wide legal definition, and covers more than simply taking or filming the original picture or clip.

The Crown Prosecution Service says, external it can include opening an email attachment containing an image; downloading an image from a website to a screen; storing an image on a computer; accessing a pornographic website in which an images appears in an automatic "pop-up" window; receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group; or live-streaming images of children.

So if someone just sent you an illegal image you'd be breaking the law?

Though it does seem possible that Edwards was happy to receive the images and just said what he said as a disclaimer when explicitly asked. And he carried on communications with this very dodgy character.

I do think it's slightly weird that the BBC are going through the process of erasing him from history, including the Dr Who episode featuring him.

This is not legal advice, but comes from someone with a bodged Law A-level who enjoys courtroom drama

There are methods to report such things. If on social media, they have their own (albeit often fucking useless) systems. For those outside, there exists these (among others) that he could have used if he had concerns, which obviously weren't far enough to escalate.

https://fostercarecharity.org.uk/nspcc- ... ne-images/
https://www.iwf.org.uk/

To be found guilty of most crimes you must have the 'guilty act' and 'guilty mind' (actus reus and mens rea if you wanna get all Latin). Guilty act is 'receiving', in the broad terms outlined. The guilty mind (this is where the lawyers would have had their debate if he'd done differently) is another thing. Reporting it, making it clear that you do not wish to use it for gratification would (I imagine) negate a guilty mind Edwards expressed concerns that they seemed young, but did not take any other such action, and continued association.

If you received an indecent image and then went about reporting it by any proper means, I would imagine that would negate the guilty mind. Edwards did not do that

[Marc Meakin]

Looks like Starmer is taking sides in the conflict.
On the Day that old adversary Jeremy Corbin has formed a pro Gaza alliance

[Gavin Chipper]

Looks like Starmer is taking sides in the conflict.
On the Day that old adversary Jeremy Corbin has formed a pro Gaza alliance

Indeed he is. Labour have announced they're continuing with over 90% of their arms sales to Israel. I'm not sure what difference this makes over 100%, but it will still do for a good few Palestinians, and that's what it's all about, right?

I haven't really bothered posting about Israel recently, but if anyone is still remotely thinking that their actions are reasonable after everything we've seen, I'm not sure what could happen to change their mind.

It's Corbyn by the way. Starmer's the one who should go in a bin.

What's also worrying is journalists who report on Palestine being arrested using UK terrorism laws, such as Richard Medhurst and Sarah Wilkinson. It seems very 1984.

[Tal Lessner]

I haven't really bothered posting about Israel recently, but if anyone is still remotely thinking that their actions are reasonable after everything we've seen, I'm not sure what could happen to change their mind.

It's enough to listen to Netanyahu to understand that without a shred of a reasonable government, Israeli actions will not be reasonable.
The current objective of the war from the Israeli side, is foremost to secure Netanyahu's position as PM. Everything else is secondary. And for this objective, the course of action is to appease Ben Gvir and his Nazi terrorist supporters.
The majority of Israelis want a ceasefire deal to return all hostages, but Bibi keeps making different excuses. Since the previous excuse, that only military pressure will bring the hostages safely completely collapsed due to those who recently died, now the excuse is that we must keep control of Philadelphi Corridor. Now this place is so high priority, that despite being able to conquer it after a few weeks of war, IDF didn't even bother with it for the first 8 months of the war. The heads of the military & even the (very conservative) defence minister say we don't need it, said defence minister seems to be the only single member of the coalition who actually cares more about defence and the return of the hostages (he warned that not seeking ceasefire will result in their killing) so obviously the insane members of the government want him fired. Netanyahu is just sacred of the backlash and prefers just making statements about him.
So basically in Netanyahu's eyes, everybody is the enemy, protesters, heads of the military, his own most important cabinet minister, the press etc. The guy is crazy & dangerous way beyond what is seen on the international press.

Meanwhile, the recent execution of 6 hostages has sparked again the demonstrations in favour of a ceasefire, including hundreds of thousands demonstrating the past two days and even a general strike. But there is not much hope here that it'll actually do something. Because, as said before:
1. The most important thing for Netanyahu is his position as PM.
2. To maintain this position, his "safest" way of action is continuing to do whatever the most horrible people in this country want him to.

Before ending this rant about the Nazis controlling my country, last month John Oliver made a brilliant piece about the west bank settlements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqK3_n6pdDY
For now the West Bank is talked about less because of Gaza, but since the war started, settlers lynch mobs violence has skyrocketed, burning, pillaging, and once every few days killing innocent Palestinians. They want to drag the West Bank into the war too, just to make absolutely sure there's nobody left to to govern in the occupied territories or Gaza.

Rant over, for now.

[Gavin Chipper]

That video is not available in my country.

[Tal Lessner]

That video is not available in my country.

Interesting, it's directly from the Last Week Tonight US channel, and it is broadcast on Israeli cable so expected they open it for all.
If you have somewhere to catch episodes of "Last Week Tonight" then look for it, about a month ago. And regardless, John Oliver is brilliant and I love this show.

[Marc Meakin]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykz4nr11no.
Why can't they just fine parents during important exam times.
My grandkids went to Pompeii and learned loads but my daughter still got fined.

If holiday companies didn't inflate their prices so much it wouldn't happen.
At least offer a Premier Inn style , book early and save package.

Even Ticket(tout)master are inflating prices for some aging Beatles tribute band

My Paul McCartney tix at £95 already look a bargain.
As long as he doesn't make the deadpool

[Gavin Chipper]

So Kirk Bevins is calling himself Michael Hall now.

[Callum Todd]

Even Ticket(tout)master are inflating prices for some aging Beatles tribute band

[Gavin Chipper]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

[Marc Meakin]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

Disclaimer , I haven't watched the video (I'd sooner watch Oasis) but I think means testing winter fuel allowance isn't so terrible.
I know as someone approaching pensionable age it smacks of Turkeys voting for Christmas , but Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney don't need it and those that cannot afford it surely by definition are entitled to pension credit.

Maybe I should put this in unpopular opinions thread

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's about the exact implementation. On the face of it, it might just seem like a tax on the rich, but in practice it's not.

[Marc Meakin]

I think it's about the exact implementation. On the face of it, it might just seem like a tax on the rich, but in practice it's not.

I personally think this winter fuel payment cap (means test)
Is the tip of a very large future iceberg whereby the retirement age will shoot up towards 70 and private pensions will be compulsory and the NHS will probably go down a means test route by the next Labour government

[Callum Todd]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

I switched off after the first sentence. I highly doubt he can satisfactorily defend that assertion and it's just a horrible way to open a video if his goal is to actually persuade people, rather than just preach to his choir. Maybe this sort of style is why "a lot of people don't like" him.

[Elliott Mellor]

I know a lot of people don't like Owen Jones, but in one of his few non-Israel videos, I think he's done a good job of exposing Starmer's Labour over the winter fuel allowance.

I switched off after the first sentence. I highly doubt he can satisfactorily defend that assertion and it's just a horrible way to open a video if his goal is to actually persuade people, rather than just preach to his choir. Maybe this sort of style is why "a lot of people don't like" him.

I never bothered switching on in the first place after seeing "Owen Jones" mentioned.

[Gavin Chipper]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

[Callum Todd]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

[Summary]

Thanks Gev. Maybe if Owen Jones has been able to keep his tone as level as yours I would have listened to him for longer

Mostly sound stuff. I think I don't quite share his apparent conceptualisation of how causation works so that makes points 3, 4, and 6 sound a bit off to me. And 9 is just a weird comparison that, like his intro, feels more like an attempt at sensationalism than actually illuminating his audience. But otherwise fair enough.

[Marc Meakin]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.


2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

At least he didn't say that the majority of pensioners are Tory Voters and a lot of them will be dead by the time Labour will have suitable oppostion

[Elliott Mellor]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. Owen Jones says Labour claiming that there is this previously-unknown-about hole in the nation's finances was something that had already been predicted that they were going to do (he'd previously talked about it), and it was really just a way to push through cuts they didn't want to be scrutinised on before the election. The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

2. Rachel Reeves (the chancellor) had called for an attack on the payments back in the Ed Miliband days, so this isn't a surprise from her.

3. Means testing in this manner doesn't work and punishes the vulnerable. Only pensioners in receipt of pension credit are eligible for the winter fuel allowance, but about 30% of those eligible for this credit don't actually receive it (some people don't claim stuff they are entitled to), so not only will they not get the credit they are entitled to, but they will lose out on the winter fuel allowance as well. So it's a double whammy.

4. If all the pensioners who were entitled to credit claimed it, it would more than wipe out the savings made from this, so the entire policy is based on the assumption that people won't claim what they are entitled to.

5. People just below the threshold for pension credit are still struggling anyway.

6. Last year it was estimated by the House of Commons Energy Committee that there were almost 5000 excess deaths last year caused by cold homes. And analysis by Labour themselves in 2017 (when Starmer was in the shadow cabinet) warned that Tory plans to cut winter fuel allowance would increase excess deaths by about 4000 that winter.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

8. In a previous election (2017) Rachel Reeves tweeted saying it was Labour who would stand up for pensioners, defending the triple lock and winter fuel payments. Angela Rayner tweeted similarly.

9. This is a rich country, but the wealth is concentrated with the richest 350 households having a combined wealth of the entire economy of Poland.

10. Some Labour MPs voting for this were apparently reported crying about it, but voted for it anyway.

I'm going to ignore points 2, 9, and 10 as they don't add anything to this discussion and are at best tangential/sensationalism (which isn't really a surprise from Owen Jones and I'm surprised anyone still takes him seriously). I don't think 1 really adds much to this discussion either, even if it's certainly very sly if true. Point 8 is a bit distorted as well - they aren't abolishing either of them, and that argument reads as though they are.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea for the allowance to be more restricted than it currently is - I don't really see why someone who is really well off needs this benefit, however if at least the substance of points 3 and 6 is correct then I can certainly get behind the idea that it's not a particularly well-planned policy and is quite thoughtless. It probably raises more questions as to whether the pension credit system needs re-evaluating (a look at what it currently is suggests that you'd struggle even if you was a fair margin above the threshold so no longer qualifying for the winter fuel payment will be impactful to these people).

[Gavin Chipper]

I think 1 is actually very important, if there's anything in it. It would be a straightforward case of deceiving the electorate, and quite disgraceful.

I also don't think it's necessarily bad for it to be more restrictive than it is, but it's important how it's done.

The insistence that they won't do anything like raising income tax on the highest paid seems a bizarre red line for them.

To me it's not enough just that they're not the Tories. We should be able to have better than this lot.

[Callum Todd]

I totally understand that his style can be grating, but I will summarise some of the main points (I have not independently fact checked this):

1. [...] The cuts to the winter fuel allowance were not in the manifesto and not put to the public before the election.

7. Labour could instead have just increased taxes on the well-off but have chosen not to.

The insistence that they won't do anything like raising income tax on the highest paid seems a bizarre red line for them.

I think this is the real point here. So Labour have got in and have discovered (or had their secret expectations confirmed that) the treasury is on its arse. Given they didn't make many pledges about cutting stuff and saving money (or many pledges about anything for that matter) in the election campaign, I don't think it makes too much sense to pan them for doing stuff that was "not put to the public before the election" unless you go in for this idea that they knew how bad things were before the election.

So I think the real important question here to determine one's position on Labour's budget-related actions since taking government is:

How much did the state of public finances take them by surprise when they entered Government?

If you think the answer is something like 'not very', then the question is why did they not say so before getting into Government and be honest in the election campaign about the sort of frugal (dare I say 'austere'?) policies that might be necessary when they take office?

If you think the answer is something like 'a lot', then it doesn't make any sense to criticise them for coming up with cost-saving policies they didn't campaign on. The question is why this unpopular policy rather than something like raising taxes on high earners?

Either way, to me the next - and more important - question is: what do we do about the seeming state of perverse incentives in our politics? All large political parties now seem to be almost entirely concerned with how best to improve their chances at the next election, whether they be in the midst of a campaign or 5 years prior to one.

Why are parties are so obsessed with electioneering and the taboo of breaking an election pledge, even in the light of context-changing new information, that they would rather do something unpopular like this than cross that "bizarre red line" of raising taxes (even if only on highly paid people) - something that, in the election campaign, they repeatedly stressed they would not do if elected? Or if they did know about the financial situation beforehand, why would they lie about that and save the unpopular stuff until it was too late for it to hurt their election chances?

[Mark Deeks]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

[Marc Meakin]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

[Ian Volante]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

[Mark Deeks]

"Ok so there's a massive problem with the finances. Should we blame the people whose fault it is?"

"No no, let's take the hit for this one and ruin our own momentum."

This new Labour lot might not be too good at politicking, time will tell, but there's no way they're that bad.

[Marc Meakin]

If Labour knew how bad the finances were, and decided to NOT CAMPAIGN AROUND THAT, they're mad. It seems more likely that they genuinely didn't know.

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

Yeah they just call it council tax now
The concept of unpopular policies being passed through parliament was the point I was making

[Ian Volante]

Maybe but it smacks of a government with a large enough majority to survive at least one more GE and by the time they are at risk we would have got used to it.
Basically this parliament they can pretty much get away with any policies not in the manifesto knowing it will get through
See Thatcher and Poll Tax

Thatcher and the Poll Tax? Not sure that was particularly successful.

Yeah they just call it council tax now
The concept of unpopular policies being passed through parliament was the point I was making

Council tax is quite different to the Community Charge as was.

On your main point then, a government with a decent majority can do whatever they like in theory.

[Marc Meakin]

Well within reason.
I'm guessing even a few Labour MPs would risk losing the Whip to a killing of first born policy .

[Marc Meakin]

Do you think Israel , and in particular its leader ,
I won't name him (for no political reasons) has been going after it's enemies with impunity because Russia is at War with Ukraine ?
I'm probably stating the bleeding obvious here

[Gavin Chipper]

Israel can do what they want because countries decide what's "right" and "wrong" based on whether the act is committed by a pre-determined ally or not. Israel is an ally of America, Britain etc. so therefore they are the goodies. It's so transparently BS but it is what it is.

[Marc Meakin]

I'm liking the cut of Kemis Jib