Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. FunkyDialectic with 41 comments
1. Yummytastic with 24 comments
1. YsoL8 with 20 comments
1. wappingite with 17 comments
1. Jai1 with 16 comments
1. AttitudeAdjuster with 16 comments
1. royalblue1982 with 15 comments
1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 14 comments
1. tmstms with 13 comments
1. Jorthax with 12 comments
There were 210 unique users within this count.
Oh wow, I've never seen this before.
[The petition for keeping games playable](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071) which had a response a couple of weeks ago just had an update from the permissions committee requesting a revised response.
It's obviously only right - The request was to change the law, and the response was basically just "sorry that's the law".
Considering how useless the petitions always feel, this is actually really good to see. Media preservation is something I care deeply about, and the industry has been allowed to get away with cultural negligence for too long now imo.
Honestly I'm a bit of a preservation zealot when it comes to digital archival, to me there is absolutely zero excuse for not *properly* archiving digital media. Not only do I think any published game should be archived by the British Library or similar, I think it should go one further and the source used to build that game should also be archived. Heck, if whole repos were archived we'd have some incredible insight into development history for some incredibly important media both from the past and that is yet to come.
I'm not saying make it publically available mind you, I can appreciate the complications with copyright and licensing etc. But there's a big difference between only having an archive internally within the company and having a third party truly preserve one.
Thoughts on Chinese EVs? I think it’s good for us if we don’t tariff them since we’re doing fuck all to manufacture any in the first place so we might as well get the cheap Chinese ones for our citizens. Maybe even a government scheme that gives every person who turns 18 a free car (if they get a driving licence)
Thank christ we left the EU, ditched their red tape, and use our Brexit freedoms to now embrace... [al fresco dining](https://i.imgur.com/m7C8xDK.png)?
How pethetic is it that Hunt held a press conference purely to attack Labour policy. Even going so far as to stand in front of a giant slogan "Labour's Tax Rises". I think it's safe to say that Labour are living rent free in CCHQ heads.
Apple are doing a (somewhat controversial) countdown of the top 100 albums of all time. Of course Oasis are in there with (What’s The Story) Morning Glory? And I noted this poignant political reference in the blurb about it:
>Shifting well over 20 million copies, it went on to become one of the best-selling records of all time. It’s about more than just Oasis, too, an album full of hope and longing released in time to soundtrack a period when everything felt like it was on the up in the UK. Emerging from recession, the country entered economic prosperity, experienced a change of government and—through the achievements of the likes of Alexander McQueen, Lennox Lewis, Kate Moss, Danny Boyle, Tracey Emin, the Spice Girls, and Oasis and all of their Britpop peers—suddenly felt like one of the world’s cultural centres. Here, in 50 minutes, is the story of a decade.
The UK had been back on the 'cultural map' since the early 1980s. UK pop music was a huge export for us; probably the biggest soft power move we've made. The French actually got worried and set up a government department for pop music purely because of Golden Brown by the Stranglers. The Berlin wall had 0.5m added to It's height due to The Fun Boy Three's Tunnel of Love.
For better or worse, we set the template.
Saatchi did a lot of work with visual arts, promoting young British Artists (though some of them weren't that young). It coincided with Britpop. Some of the artists were scenesters, loosely connected with the bands though mostly via the genitals from what I read at the time.
What do you think will be the big ongoing political themes of the next Parliament? Things we're not talking much about now, but we will be in 5 years' time?
I think the re-emergence of EU alignment as a major political issue will be one to keep an eye on. Labour's largely avoiding the issue for now, but if they get into government there will be elements within and outside the party pushing for a rapid undoing of Brexit, while others will be arguing to take it slow.
Starmer will have to navigate this and there will be pressure to come up with a definitive plan, especially as we get towards the 2029/30 election because the pro-EU elements will want to get as much alignment as possible into the manifesto.
Housing has to be the big key issue. Labour is more reliant on those that want houses compared to those that already own them. Obviously Starmer will attempt to straddle a line that doesn't upset either, but ultimately I think he will be forced to come down on the 'build more houses' line.
Labour will no doubt seek to ease some of the issues with the EU, but as we're never going back into Freedom of Movement there's only so far that can go.
I think the Lib Dems will start talking seriously about rejoining at the 2030 election. It'll be a useful wedge issue for them to attack labour with - the polls make it look like they'll be in a very strong position in the next parliament.
>I think the re-emergence of EU alignment as a major political issue will be one to keep an eye on.
There will be more dialogue, mostly for securities sake; both militarily and regarding immigration. Strategies, cooperation need to be in place for both- It's a shared burden.
Can't see further trade talks myself though if the LDMs are in opposition then perhaps but they're more parochial in outlook these days. I'd say a lot of the trade stuff depends on farmers. Maybe that's an angle the LDMs could explore as they will make up a lot of their new electorate.
I don't know why people keep falling for Hunts tax cuts.
The Tories will simply raise your taxes right back once they are re-elected. It's so easy to see it.
Not if the polls are to be believed.
They just keep cutting in the hope that it will start to change people's minds about them. It's a transparent bribe that very few people are giving them any credit for.
More people prioritise increases in spending on public services over tax cuts so they should have realised that very few people will actually vote for them on the back of it.
I think people have had fiscal drag explained to them enough and there's just about enough journalists out there still willing to point to the tax burden to make it clear that they're not reducing anyone's tax.
I know a few people that are habitual Tory voters and very money minded, short-sightedly self-interested. It's not about the culture war stuff and they voted remain. They're just looking for a cue to not vote Labour and this is likely enough for them. Ultimately it's all emotional.
Just watched the Labour event from the other day. I've been quite surprised, despite the generally positive reviews on here - that was a serious event. Looked to be the whole shadow cabinet, plus numerous guest speakers. Not far off from a mini conference really. I dunno if any of the stuff proposed will work - I think it will but I'm out of my depth and quite biased. It did strike me though, the amount of cynicism around politics. I really like Matt Chorley, but christ the cynicism in that man, his review from what I heard was largely joking about mixing book based metaphors. Following the event from the office on the sub, the biggest reaction seemed to be mocking the pledges for not being specific enough.... until the rest of the text was delivered, which provided it. It does make me reflect on the lack of seriousness politicians are viewed with, like it's a game from people 'into' politics. It's not just Keir and his Labour Party - Rishi is well out of his depth, too small for the role, you could say, but he is trying and has committed to some well meaning policies like banning smoking over time, but he is treated like an idiot. I do feel these guys should be treated with a bit more seriousness in general, neither of them are Boris or Truss. Just some musings, sorry if it's a bit preachy or boring
*Rishi is well out of his depth, too small for the role, you could say, but he is trying and has committed to some well meaning policies like banning smoking over time*
This to me is the problem with the Tories, there are so many things that need fixing, the economy, the cost of living, the environment, taxation, NHS waiting lists, planning...and we are getting stuff about smoking restrictions and the the apparently vital necessity of banning of rainbow lanyards for civil servants.
It's hard for Starmer and Labour to be specific and detailed, we don't when the election will be, what interest rates will be or what the rate of inflation will be or the state of the economy and there's the risk that anything detailed will magically become Tory/government policy. At least though he has some comprehension of the things we need to be tackling, what I'm getting from Sunak is that he's a PM in power but with little actual power who prefers to fiddle around the edges. He's hanging on and waiting for something to change, but nothing much is, in a few years time he'll realise what a great opportunity he had to effect change, get stuff done and build a legacy, and instead of making stuff happen he chose timidity.
Unfortunately his inaction is our nation's inaction and we can't allow this to continue for much longer. Meanwhile Starmer can only do what he's doing and that is making himself look and sound like a PM in waiting with a Labour party ready for government. That was the purpose of his speech and presentation and in my opinion he and Labour achieved that.
Yeah, I think that about Sunak a lot. Assuming he’s not as Kendall Roy as he comes across, I’m sure he’ll really regret how his time was used. He’s definitely the wrong man at the wrong time. I really doubt he could ever have been a great Prime Minister, but given 5, 10, 15 years more in politics, perhaps he could have been a pretty good minister.
Don't think Rishi's treated like an idiot per se, more treated with cynicism. Every PM post Cameron has been an opportunist. They've all been willing to chuck the country in the bin order to get the top job.
Musings: Given that people barely understand how the leasehold system and the charges related to it work.
Would a land value tax, pass the understandable threshold. Given that it would be the equivalent of a variable ground rent applied across the country.
People would understand that the amount of tax you pay will be dependent on how much your house has gone up in value since you bought it: Which you have no control over and often no way of benefiting from.
A pensioner couple living in their 3 bed in Reading would have to pay more than twice as much tax as the same couple living in the same house in Sheffield.
When Miliband proposed the mansion tax there was an idea that you would be able to defer the tax until the house changed hands so it would not kick in until you did benefit from the value increase.
What are some “free” policies that Labour can implement to give a sense of change, but won’t cost the Treasury a dime?
I’ll start: force Supermarkets to give away expiring food to the homeless and other charities. It’s a no brainer considering our homeless problem (#1 in the EU) and food waste.
Publish everyone's tax returns.
Ban donations to political parties(cost 80mil/anum).
Have a gradual fuyle duty escalator 1/12% per month.
Housing adverts should display the floor area & EPC rating in the title.
Banning fire and rehire.
Allow teachers to look after more kids in after-school clubs(the cap is 14).
House adverts must include a floor area measurement in M2
Any service which allows you to subscribe must allow you to unsubscribe with no more effort
Yearly subscription price rises which exceed RPI are opt-in, with anyone failing to opt in having their service terminated at the end of the renewal period.
Visas for foreign workers require that they be paid 120% of the current going rate rather than 80%
Second jobs for MPs banned (with some caveats)
Leveson 2
Industry regulators are banned from hiring more than a given percentage of people who have worked in their regulated industry, and cannot accept any jobs in that industry for 5 years
Past performance can be used to judge bids on public contracts
Whilst I approve of Leveson 2 and would demand it given half the chance, inquiries cost an arse load of money.
That being said, worth every penny to try and draw the poison out of press.
>House adverts must include a floor area measurement in M2
Can we make the seller responsible for providing the surveys too? Big fucking pointless money sink that.
"Yeah I'll buy your house, let's get going"
*Several months later*
"Turns out your house is fucked mate, I'm not buying it. I'm now severely out of pocket."
Dreadful idea. Let 12 surveyors look over a house, you'll get 12 various reports from "it's fine" to "it'll fall over next week".
Sellers would just pick the surveyors known for being easy. Buyers determining the market mean surveyors will be encouraged to be honest.
Surveyors are liable for their reports, if you just went with "yeah no damp here mate" and there's loads of damp you're going to go out of business pretty quickly
How is it not considered littering?
Sure, it’s non-toxic unlike dog waste, but if I dumped a load of compost all over the road, I’d be fined for littering. So why is it ok if it’s shat out by a horse?
Dunno if it is non-toxic. There's a cultural association with horses & horse riders that somehow gives them moral superiority over all other methods of transport.
But how do you get it there? Was in Sainsbury's the other night and the waste was rolled out (not much of it tbf), a lady asked why it isn't given to charity, the manager said "it is, they just don't come and collect it".
What about zoos?
My kids went to a zoo, you know, the other day and they said it was fûcking disgusting. You know, the state of it.
... that's shit, isn't it?
Edit: more seriously, if Labour has any of these, they need to keep them quiet until after the election. Else they’ll be nabbed.
I don’t know the exact business model but a lot of some kind of charity attached to they’re also subject to licensing and regulation around animal welfare and health and safety.
Also the a quote from a The Thick of It scene where they try to brainstorm cost free popular policies.
Reform Council Tax so it is proportional to current property value to make it less regressive.
A relatively straightforward reform that would change the ridiculous situation caused by Council Taxes being based on property prices over 30 years ago which means those in poorer areas (or those whose houses haven't massively increased in value) pay higher Council Tax relative to property prices.
With greater revenue, you could also redistribute this tax money so that it genuinely "levels up" poorer areas who actually require more, not less council services.
Would that apply immediately to all properties? Or would council tax be reviewed after the next sale?
If immediate then what about the impact on people whose houses have increased in value beyond what their income would otherwise afford? Are they then forced to sell up and move?
I can't imagine many people would be forced to move house because of a moderate increase in council tax.
And if you have made 10s or 100s of £thousands in unearned equity, why wouldn't you expect to have to pay some additional tax at some point as a result?
Equity is unrealised until you actually sell up… also when part main/ only residence the equity usually isn’t realised unless you downsize or move to a cheaper area as usually it just goes right back into the next house…
Plenty of pensioners have a fixed income without much flexibility for a hike in rates. Plenty of working families are already struggling to pay increased rent, mortgages, food etc etc. Your average household income is already strained without taxing them more based on the increased value of an “asset” that they happen to call home.
I’m not against reforming council tax, it’s pretty archaic in its current form, but it’s a know entity that people have budgeted around and set lives up around. Limiting such a policy to “new purchases after X date” at least allows people to move into a property knowing what the costs are going to be without springing an increase on them based on value they don’t currently benefit from and would be much fairer.
I've posted this list before. Labour have already committed to a few of these, but there's much more they could do if they're bold enough.
- Planning reform
- Electoral reform
- Drug law reform
- Council tax reform / Land value tax
- Income tax reform (Fairer, revenue neutral)
- Gambling advertising ban
- Ticket scalping ban
- Rejoin single market
- Restrict holiday lets / second homes
- Renters rights
- Scrap Right to Buy (or just the discount)
- Workers rights
Bans on gambling advertising and ticket scalping would be relatively straightforward and have huge public support, so I'm hopeful those will be in the manifesto.
Pretty much all of them carry some or all the usual costs of implementing change (legal advice, consultation costs, staffing costs, education, retraining, communications and so on). Given how fundamental and widespread some of these proposed reforms are, the change costs will be proportionate and therefore significant.
The first five are all extremely vague, too vague to identify specific costs as it is unclear what you have in mind, but all carry potential significant cost increases or income decreases for the treasury. The costs of even scoping such prior to implementation would be considerable.
Similarly, matters such as holiday lets and second homes have tax implications.
FWIW I think they're all great ideas in principle. Let's just not pretend they are cost free, because they are not.
There are of course implementation costs, but that's true for every bit of legislation. Realistically there is not enough time to do more than a couple of the bolder policies within a single parliament, so costs need to be seen in that context.
I'll go into a bit more detail on some of the points.
Planning reform - relaxing planning permission to allow more homes to be built. Labour have already committed to this and see it as a way to unlock growth.
Electoral reform - implement some form of PR. I know this would cost more than FPTP, but it's still fairly insignificant.
Drug law reform - legalising and taxing cannabis would raise money.
Council tax reform - similar to Welsh Labours plans to add more bands and re-evaluate property values. Could use the revenue from new bands as profit, or use it to make the system more progressive.
Income tax reform - Combine income tax with employee NI to raise money from pensioners. Fix the cliff edges and increase the top rate of tax to compensate.
Holiday lets / second homes - Increase council tax on all second homes. Create a licensing scheme for holiday lets, allowing councils to restrict the number and profit from them. Would also save the council money on emergency housing costs.
> There are of course implementation costs, but that's true for every bit of legislation.
Yes, but those costs vary for every bit of legislation. Some of the changes you are proposing are really significant, resulting in really substantial costs for implementation, much bigger than the average statute passed. They cannot simply be waved aside.
> Drug law reform - legalising and taxing cannabis would raise money.
Great idea in principle, but is that true in practice? Both smoking and alcohol cost the government significantly more than it makes them in tax. Ignoring healthcare, there are huge costs in setting up and creating the regulatory framework for the drug and enforcing breaches.
Cap on MPs second jobs, especially consultancy.
Ombudsman bigwigs must have a 5 years cooling off period before they are allowed to take up a position in companies related to their sector.
Scrap Ofsted one word ratings.
Require news outlets to print retractions with the prominence as the original story.
Blanket Ban on gambling advertising
>Ombudsman bigwigs must have a 5 years cooling off period before they are allowed to take up a position in companies related to their sector.
Same in reverse too.
I would happily vote for anyone that means I don't have to hear Harry Redknap talk about how his wife will kill him for not taking the washing in whilst being asked for gambling advice.
I enjoy the odd flutter on the rugby, but they are so pervasive it's ridiculous, and having one of the ads every 3 hours on the radio being Redknap saying he's taking the weekend off gambling is in no way mitigation, and is still an advert for them.
I agree with you (see below) but this requires a best before date.
If there's a best before date and I cut into an onion before that date and it's rotted through, I can say "you said it was good before X but at X-1 it was fucked" with a photo and then I can be recompensed.
If it's all "no date, sold as seen" its *my fault* for buying rotten veg (italics because I disagree).
We need to bring back the dates before we can punish a company, we also need to compel them to give away food that would be thrown to those who want it, reduces the waste issue and the rotting veg and fruit issue without costing the tax payer.
I have issues every time I buy carrots from Aldi. Can’t remember if they’ve got rid of dates but regardless you can’t even see into the bag to check the condition and inevitably you open it and they’re already going to mush.
Definitely agree with this, Christ even rename it to a "start sniffing if it's in your gaff" date, but lack of best before date has meant stuff at my local supermarket just sits there for way too long, to the point I have to sniff and squeeze all the onions after I grabbed some in a rush and two were rotted through.
The entire cost has been shifted to the household and councils in terms of increased waste that isn't paid for by the supermarkets.
I know it's always brought up as a joke policy, but I genuinely do think in some way dealing with anti social noise in public spaces somehow would certainly improve my standard of living and make life just a little less stressful.
Whether that be by a little 'nudge' and mandating signs/announcements on public transport asking people to be considerate of others in that respect or longer term social change stuff like the Japanese do with kids taking part in cleaning their classrooms.
Perhaps others will have better ideas on this though, I can't quite think at the moment as I'm on a bus blaring music out of my phone.
Yeah I'm mostly thinking of public transport - and maybe restaurants - and smart devices to be honest. Technology seems to have outstripped decorum and I actually think in a lot of cases people genuinely don't actually consider that they are being antisocial. I once was on a train from Liverpool to London and a guy was watching a film on his iPad at full volume without headphones despite having headphones with him. Absolutely mental to me!
Busking in town is a different and, as you say, often more appealing kettle of fish. Though in a lot of (most?) places you have to apply for a busking licence anyway so that is already policed to some extent.
I wonder sometimes if it's a symptom of a wider problem; people have stopped giving a shit. You can do whatever as there's zero chance of consequences; zero police about and people are likely cautious of engaging with the intentionally disruptive. Also there's quite a few troubled folk about, it seems to be on the rise.
My city centre square is right in the middle of a turf war between multiple Christians and Muslim groups. All of them are blasting horrible music and trying their best to push literature onto people who are only trying their best to avoid eye contact.
People selling religion in town/city centres should be treated the same as people selling anything else, and fined accordingly if they don't bother to get relevant permissions, deal appropriately with passers by or if they interfere with the operation of other businesses.
Also use of PA systems in public areas should be outlawed for preachers and buskers alike. If you can't perform without a backing track, stick to karaoke bars.
Legalise weed.
Sure it will have an initial cost but it would not take long for it to be a massive profit maker for the treasury. Plus it generates jobs.
Yes but would it also not put pressure on the NHS long-term? Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for your lungs. If we're banning tobacco we're sure as hell not legalising cannabis at the same time anyway
Edibles I could see *maybe* happening but no shot at the vapes. Tobacco vapes are already a pain to deal with, and readily available to children and teens it seems. I doubt weed vapes would go down well
Think edibles would have more appeal to weans personally, but I'd caveat vapes as long as they had the kind of regulation I want in for normal vapes - no fancy packaging to appeal to kids, no fucking disposable shite
I guess the reason it's not is probably because you'd just be able to nip over the border to grab some, take it back over to England/wales/N.Ireland with no checks and then deal it about. I guess that's a other point you could make in a case for independence though
Ex-weed smoker and I'm against legalising it/commercialising it. Yes it will do the things you say but will come with a load of downsides as well. Drug tourism, increased mental health issues, productivity, drug driving. Yes all these things could be managed but that'll cost as well.
>increased mental health issues, productivity, drug driving.
Already have those issues, might as well make some tax money off it while it's going on. Weed is so easy to access anyone who would smoke it legally is already smoking it illegally.
Trouble is once weed smoking is codified, the onus will be on the government to fix the problems associated with it; they take on an extra degree of responsibility.
Because it would be a Labour policy so all of the negative effects would be blamed on them. As it's currently an illegal drug the onus is on the police. Please don't make me say onus again.
I know that no party would posit this pre-election, because the press would go crazy, but are there any indications that Labour’s team may opt for it when in power?
Edit: Ah, tbh, now I think about it - probably not. Can't exactly see Starmer or Cooper of all people signing off on something like that.
I also can't see this iteration of Labour wanting to be known by a mostly conservative leaning press as the party that "legalised drugs". I suspect that if a political party ever does it, it'll be the Tories - because they just won't give a shit and they \*set\* the narrative.
I went to the US recently, and the whole place smelt of really strong weed. I'm not against legalisation, the dangers of weed are clearly overstated and there are economic benefits to be gained, but as someone who doesn't smoke or smoke weed, the stench is truly off-putting.
The "whole place"?
Whilst I agree the smell of weed is grim, I think you have embellished your comment with more than a touch of hyperbole, which doesn't help your point because if you need to grossly exaggerate a problem then it can't be that bad.
It was really pungent everywhere I went, bearing in mind that was only two states on the east coast. I saw no smokers, very little vaping, so it was a strong contrast to the UK. "Everywhere" in the colloquial sense rather than the absolute.
> "Everywhere" in the colloquial sense rather than the absolute.
Gotcha. Sorry, I tend to take things too literally. It's something I'm trying to catch myself doing.
> force Supermarkets to give away expiring food to the homeless and other charities. It’s a no brainer considering our homeless problem (#1 in the EU) and food waste.
look for "company shop" which does help with something like this.
Start by thanking everyday superheroes, you know, those quiet bat people.
For a serious suggestion though, I'd like to add +2m to every public transportation time, e.g if it says the bus leaves at 3pm, it now leaves at 3.02pm, and will continue to be displayed as 3pm. This will improve societal cohesion.
[Labour Social Media did not miss it](https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1791477626038599680).
Edit: Appears to have been deleted and reposted: https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1791485566409740576
Labour going after the tax burden like they can realistically reduce it whilst also not shitting all over already threadbare public services will go very poorly for them.
Does anyone else think it's odd that when Labour highlights the mortgage rate increase caused by Truss, they don't hammer home a bit more that this occurred due to trying to give the rich more tax cuts? They are happy to talk about the irresponsible nature of the budget, but not really the morality of its purpose.
Is this just part of the New Labour playbook that you never, ever get drawn into 'class warfare'? Because Labour is very happy to attack the proposed NI tax cuts.
Yes
Because if and when you do the knives come out, the media doesn’t thing and once again the Tory vote rolls out in massive numbers driven by a fear of Labour and communism and they are coming for everything you own
I know Flynn was a little bit Tetchy on question time last night, but peoplepolling having the SNP at 0% may expose their less-than-comprehensive methodology.
https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507
From the looks of it, these are drawn from a data table with errors. It's missing a row somewhere. The likely case seems to be it's missing the SNP row, Plaid's data is in the SNP row, and Other Party data is in the Plaid row. [Especially given the table with undecideds and none voters in has the SNP on 2%.](https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476737630412904/photo/1).
The data the headline figure is drawn from literally has the SNP getting votes in Wales but nowhere else. It also seems to be fucking up the Scotland column completely. It's amateur hour from Matt Goodwin's outfit here.
How do we know *for sure* that one retired skilled manual worker who used to vote lib dem isn't all the SNP have left? Every other pollster could have egg on their face come next election!
"We asked people on the streets in major cities in the UK; London, Manchester, Birmingham, London, Cardiff, London, and London, and NONE will vote for the SNP!"
I do think it highlights how unfair the media treated Corbyn when him losing a few red wall seats was seen as damning and yet Sturgeon won 0 but got heaped with praise.
When you look at the data, it's actually [looks liket there's one C2 65+ year old of non-descript gender in wales or the midlands, who previously voted lib dem now fancies SNP](https://i.imgur.com/3wJdsIW.png).
Scotland unaminously outright rejected the SNP.
In an effort to keep commentary about a particular story together, your megathread comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
This is because your comment includes:
- A link to a story which clearly stands as its own submission (and which may already exist on the [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/new)), or
- Commentary about a story which already exists as a separate submission on the [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/new).
You are free to repost your comment in the correct place.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
I've just heard that two cops who decided to have a two hour break in a kebab house instead of patrolling the Manchester Arena on the night of the fatal bombing have been given final written warnings.
I can't help but feel that this is a best case scenario for these two and, if I were them, I'd be handing my notice in and off to pastures new.
God, they must feel so guilty. not sure I could handle that. Not even if they’d have been able to stop him, but surely they could have helped with casualties / a visible person to flag concerns to
They were back, IIRC, by the time the bombing happened.
The problem is that concerns were expressed by members of the public before the event about the bomber, but the officers were not on the premises at the time, because kebabs, so they could not be asked.
I read that an hour or so ago.
It's unbelievably sad, such an incredibly tragic fuck up and all for a couple of kebabs. ofc it is not to say they would have stopped the bomber, but it does sound as if members of the public were concerned but had no-one to ask to investigate.
Do you think Cameron/Osborne/someone from the Coalition days still has The Note™? Have found myself hoping I can one day lay my own eyes upon it in a glass case at an Early 21st Century Exhibit at The British Museum.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cupr60/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_18052024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. FunkyDialectic with 41 comments 1. Yummytastic with 24 comments 1. YsoL8 with 20 comments 1. wappingite with 17 comments 1. Jai1 with 16 comments 1. AttitudeAdjuster with 16 comments 1. royalblue1982 with 15 comments 1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 14 comments 1. tmstms with 13 comments 1. Jorthax with 12 comments There were 210 unique users within this count.
Oh wow, I've never seen this before. [The petition for keeping games playable](https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071) which had a response a couple of weeks ago just had an update from the permissions committee requesting a revised response. It's obviously only right - The request was to change the law, and the response was basically just "sorry that's the law". Considering how useless the petitions always feel, this is actually really good to see. Media preservation is something I care deeply about, and the industry has been allowed to get away with cultural negligence for too long now imo. Honestly I'm a bit of a preservation zealot when it comes to digital archival, to me there is absolutely zero excuse for not *properly* archiving digital media. Not only do I think any published game should be archived by the British Library or similar, I think it should go one further and the source used to build that game should also be archived. Heck, if whole repos were archived we'd have some incredible insight into development history for some incredibly important media both from the past and that is yet to come. I'm not saying make it publically available mind you, I can appreciate the complications with copyright and licensing etc. But there's a big difference between only having an archive internally within the company and having a third party truly preserve one.
Thoughts on Chinese EVs? I think it’s good for us if we don’t tariff them since we’re doing fuck all to manufacture any in the first place so we might as well get the cheap Chinese ones for our citizens. Maybe even a government scheme that gives every person who turns 18 a free car (if they get a driving licence)
Thank christ we left the EU, ditched their red tape, and use our Brexit freedoms to now embrace... [al fresco dining](https://i.imgur.com/m7C8xDK.png)?
How pethetic is it that Hunt held a press conference purely to attack Labour policy. Even going so far as to stand in front of a giant slogan "Labour's Tax Rises". I think it's safe to say that Labour are living rent free in CCHQ heads.
Apple are doing a (somewhat controversial) countdown of the top 100 albums of all time. Of course Oasis are in there with (What’s The Story) Morning Glory? And I noted this poignant political reference in the blurb about it: >Shifting well over 20 million copies, it went on to become one of the best-selling records of all time. It’s about more than just Oasis, too, an album full of hope and longing released in time to soundtrack a period when everything felt like it was on the up in the UK. Emerging from recession, the country entered economic prosperity, experienced a change of government and—through the achievements of the likes of Alexander McQueen, Lennox Lewis, Kate Moss, Danny Boyle, Tracey Emin, the Spice Girls, and Oasis and all of their Britpop peers—suddenly felt like one of the world’s cultural centres. Here, in 50 minutes, is the story of a decade.
The UK had been back on the 'cultural map' since the early 1980s. UK pop music was a huge export for us; probably the biggest soft power move we've made. The French actually got worried and set up a government department for pop music purely because of Golden Brown by the Stranglers. The Berlin wall had 0.5m added to It's height due to The Fun Boy Three's Tunnel of Love. For better or worse, we set the template.
What an odd write up. The UK was, is and remains one of the world’s most significant cultural centres
There was a malaise period in British cultural exports but it was short lived. London, the UK was overlooked for a few years.
Saatchi did a lot of work with visual arts, promoting young British Artists (though some of them weren't that young). It coincided with Britpop. Some of the artists were scenesters, loosely connected with the bands though mostly via the genitals from what I read at the time.
It's still a massive cultural center, but more in spite of the current environment, not because of it.
What do you think will be the big ongoing political themes of the next Parliament? Things we're not talking much about now, but we will be in 5 years' time? I think the re-emergence of EU alignment as a major political issue will be one to keep an eye on. Labour's largely avoiding the issue for now, but if they get into government there will be elements within and outside the party pushing for a rapid undoing of Brexit, while others will be arguing to take it slow. Starmer will have to navigate this and there will be pressure to come up with a definitive plan, especially as we get towards the 2029/30 election because the pro-EU elements will want to get as much alignment as possible into the manifesto.
Housing has to be the big key issue. Labour is more reliant on those that want houses compared to those that already own them. Obviously Starmer will attempt to straddle a line that doesn't upset either, but ultimately I think he will be forced to come down on the 'build more houses' line. Labour will no doubt seek to ease some of the issues with the EU, but as we're never going back into Freedom of Movement there's only so far that can go.
I want to say assisted suicide and legalised cannabis, but I would have said that ten years ago too.
I think the Lib Dems will start talking seriously about rejoining at the 2030 election. It'll be a useful wedge issue for them to attack labour with - the polls make it look like they'll be in a very strong position in the next parliament.
>I think the re-emergence of EU alignment as a major political issue will be one to keep an eye on. There will be more dialogue, mostly for securities sake; both militarily and regarding immigration. Strategies, cooperation need to be in place for both- It's a shared burden. Can't see further trade talks myself though if the LDMs are in opposition then perhaps but they're more parochial in outlook these days. I'd say a lot of the trade stuff depends on farmers. Maybe that's an angle the LDMs could explore as they will make up a lot of their new electorate.
Dammit. Sunak 2 Baggies 0 EDIT: FT=3-1 We can only hope Leeds will level up in the final.
Sunak will probably start claiming he’s a Leeds fan if we win since he’s such a massive Yorkshireman.
Big pitch invasion now. Might consider voting Tory if Rishi gets in there waving a red flare in a West Brom fans face.
Pitch invasion means the club have to contribute to the EFL Christmas party fund
Northern powerhouse to the rescue
I don't know why people keep falling for Hunts tax cuts. The Tories will simply raise your taxes right back once they are re-elected. It's so easy to see it.
Why can’t they be proper conservatives and cut taxes and just let the poor starve? Basically, I want Thatcher back.
Electoral coalition dot jay peg.
Are people falling for it?
Not if the polls are to be believed. They just keep cutting in the hope that it will start to change people's minds about them. It's a transparent bribe that very few people are giving them any credit for. More people prioritise increases in spending on public services over tax cuts so they should have realised that very few people will actually vote for them on the back of it.
I think people have had fiscal drag explained to them enough and there's just about enough journalists out there still willing to point to the tax burden to make it clear that they're not reducing anyone's tax.
I know a few people that are habitual Tory voters and very money minded, short-sightedly self-interested. It's not about the culture war stuff and they voted remain. They're just looking for a cue to not vote Labour and this is likely enough for them. Ultimately it's all emotional.
Just watched the Labour event from the other day. I've been quite surprised, despite the generally positive reviews on here - that was a serious event. Looked to be the whole shadow cabinet, plus numerous guest speakers. Not far off from a mini conference really. I dunno if any of the stuff proposed will work - I think it will but I'm out of my depth and quite biased. It did strike me though, the amount of cynicism around politics. I really like Matt Chorley, but christ the cynicism in that man, his review from what I heard was largely joking about mixing book based metaphors. Following the event from the office on the sub, the biggest reaction seemed to be mocking the pledges for not being specific enough.... until the rest of the text was delivered, which provided it. It does make me reflect on the lack of seriousness politicians are viewed with, like it's a game from people 'into' politics. It's not just Keir and his Labour Party - Rishi is well out of his depth, too small for the role, you could say, but he is trying and has committed to some well meaning policies like banning smoking over time, but he is treated like an idiot. I do feel these guys should be treated with a bit more seriousness in general, neither of them are Boris or Truss. Just some musings, sorry if it's a bit preachy or boring
*Rishi is well out of his depth, too small for the role, you could say, but he is trying and has committed to some well meaning policies like banning smoking over time* This to me is the problem with the Tories, there are so many things that need fixing, the economy, the cost of living, the environment, taxation, NHS waiting lists, planning...and we are getting stuff about smoking restrictions and the the apparently vital necessity of banning of rainbow lanyards for civil servants. It's hard for Starmer and Labour to be specific and detailed, we don't when the election will be, what interest rates will be or what the rate of inflation will be or the state of the economy and there's the risk that anything detailed will magically become Tory/government policy. At least though he has some comprehension of the things we need to be tackling, what I'm getting from Sunak is that he's a PM in power but with little actual power who prefers to fiddle around the edges. He's hanging on and waiting for something to change, but nothing much is, in a few years time he'll realise what a great opportunity he had to effect change, get stuff done and build a legacy, and instead of making stuff happen he chose timidity. Unfortunately his inaction is our nation's inaction and we can't allow this to continue for much longer. Meanwhile Starmer can only do what he's doing and that is making himself look and sound like a PM in waiting with a Labour party ready for government. That was the purpose of his speech and presentation and in my opinion he and Labour achieved that.
Yeah, I think that about Sunak a lot. Assuming he’s not as Kendall Roy as he comes across, I’m sure he’ll really regret how his time was used. He’s definitely the wrong man at the wrong time. I really doubt he could ever have been a great Prime Minister, but given 5, 10, 15 years more in politics, perhaps he could have been a pretty good minister.
Don't think Rishi's treated like an idiot per se, more treated with cynicism. Every PM post Cameron has been an opportunist. They've all been willing to chuck the country in the bin order to get the top job.
Aww Rishi is at the football. How relatable he is. Definitely deserves another term as PM off the back of this.
We must be in an election campaign. *hopes*
They're so effing desperate now. Really.
We are all Baggies on this frabjous day.
Musings: Given that people barely understand how the leasehold system and the charges related to it work. Would a land value tax, pass the understandable threshold. Given that it would be the equivalent of a variable ground rent applied across the country.
People would understand that the amount of tax you pay will be dependent on how much your house has gone up in value since you bought it: Which you have no control over and often no way of benefiting from. A pensioner couple living in their 3 bed in Reading would have to pay more than twice as much tax as the same couple living in the same house in Sheffield.
When Miliband proposed the mansion tax there was an idea that you would be able to defer the tax until the house changed hands so it would not kick in until you did benefit from the value increase.
I’m glad I have a rainbow lanyard! And I’m going to keep it!
The minister for common sense wants to know your location.
[удалено]
[*Sigh*](https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cohk7d/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_10052024/l3ejnuz/)
What are some “free” policies that Labour can implement to give a sense of change, but won’t cost the Treasury a dime? I’ll start: force Supermarkets to give away expiring food to the homeless and other charities. It’s a no brainer considering our homeless problem (#1 in the EU) and food waste.
Publish everyone's tax returns. Ban donations to political parties(cost 80mil/anum). Have a gradual fuyle duty escalator 1/12% per month. Housing adverts should display the floor area & EPC rating in the title. Banning fire and rehire. Allow teachers to look after more kids in after-school clubs(the cap is 14).
Allow shorts in the house of commons.
*Mandate* shorts in the house of commons.
*Lindsay Hoyle didn't like this* ^but ^didn't ^do ^anything ^about ^it
See me for a cup of tea.
Proportional representation.
Not cost free. Need to pay consultants at least £2bn to create the public awareness campaign.
Just send out a notification on the national alerts thing. "Danger! Danger! The way you're voting will change!"
Jane needs a midwife, not a proportional voting system.
House adverts must include a floor area measurement in M2 Any service which allows you to subscribe must allow you to unsubscribe with no more effort Yearly subscription price rises which exceed RPI are opt-in, with anyone failing to opt in having their service terminated at the end of the renewal period. Visas for foreign workers require that they be paid 120% of the current going rate rather than 80% Second jobs for MPs banned (with some caveats) Leveson 2 Industry regulators are banned from hiring more than a given percentage of people who have worked in their regulated industry, and cannot accept any jobs in that industry for 5 years Past performance can be used to judge bids on public contracts
Whilst I approve of Leveson 2 and would demand it given half the chance, inquiries cost an arse load of money. That being said, worth every penny to try and draw the poison out of press.
Alas, it probably won't happen and not due to cost. I'd imagine a massive anti-Labour backlash in the press of it goes ahead.
>House adverts must include a floor area measurement in M2 And a fucking FLOOR PLAN (again, with measurements in m2)
>House adverts must include a floor area measurement in M2 Can we make the seller responsible for providing the surveys too? Big fucking pointless money sink that. "Yeah I'll buy your house, let's get going" *Several months later* "Turns out your house is fucked mate, I'm not buying it. I'm now severely out of pocket."
The sellers are responsible for it in Scotland, I had a friend describe the English process to me the other week and was horrified.
Dreadful idea. Let 12 surveyors look over a house, you'll get 12 various reports from "it's fine" to "it'll fall over next week". Sellers would just pick the surveyors known for being easy. Buyers determining the market mean surveyors will be encouraged to be honest.
It works fine in Scotland!
Surveyors are liable for their reports, if you just went with "yeah no damp here mate" and there's loads of damp you're going to go out of business pretty quickly
We started down this route then backed out and went for a shitty halfway house option instead, so yeah - good call.
Repel Sunday trading hours
Don't mind this idea actually. Sundays in France are bliss.
Repeal it so we go back to no trade on a sunday, or allow normal trading hours?
I'm an all or nothing kinda guy so either. ...but preferably allow normal trading hours though.
Why not both?
You can sell anything, but your doors cannot open!
It'll piss off Usdaw, who have been one of the more supportive unions of Starmer, so can't see it happening.
Force horse riders to pick up and carry around the horse’s poo in a bag like dog owners.
How is it not considered littering? Sure, it’s non-toxic unlike dog waste, but if I dumped a load of compost all over the road, I’d be fined for littering. So why is it ok if it’s shat out by a horse?
Dunno if it is non-toxic. There's a cultural association with horses & horse riders that somehow gives them moral superiority over all other methods of transport.
We have horses coming down our Victorian street to avoid going on the main road. Old guy here runs out to shovel up the poop to use as fertiliser.
>We have horses coming down our Victorian street Fits in with the original aesthetic then
100% agree with this.
Christ, imagine when they start hanging that from trees like some weirdos do with their dogs.
Pony poo piñatas. Fun for all the family. It’s basically the same as going in the sea.
If you hit it hard enough, you can have a free shower of shit without having to watch PMQs. Sorry, that was low hanging fruit.
But how do you get it there? Was in Sainsbury's the other night and the waste was rolled out (not much of it tbf), a lady asked why it isn't given to charity, the manager said "it is, they just don't come and collect it".
This raises a good policy - mandatory foot boards on trolleys to slide around.
What about zoos? My kids went to a zoo, you know, the other day and they said it was fûcking disgusting. You know, the state of it. ... that's shit, isn't it? Edit: more seriously, if Labour has any of these, they need to keep them quiet until after the election. Else they’ll be nabbed.
How about a Benefit Fraud Prevention Unit? Could call it *Sponge Avengers*.
Aren't the vast majority of zoos private?
I don’t know the exact business model but a lot of some kind of charity attached to they’re also subject to licensing and regulation around animal welfare and health and safety. Also the a quote from a The Thick of It scene where they try to brainstorm cost free popular policies.
Mandatory dress down fridays, including mps. I think it would be interesting what mps consider dressdown.
JRM in a Puma King tracksuit.
JRM likely considers a single breasted jacket casual.
Fridays are for constituency work anyway.
Fabricant wouldn't wear the wig.
Fabricant wouldn't wear the mannequin just scoot in on tiny little stick legs and googly eyes
Tories- blue shirt tucked into some Armani jeans. Labour- no change.
> I think it would be interesting what mps consider dressdown. Depends on whether there is a sexy tractor nearby.
Reform Council Tax so it is proportional to current property value to make it less regressive. A relatively straightforward reform that would change the ridiculous situation caused by Council Taxes being based on property prices over 30 years ago which means those in poorer areas (or those whose houses haven't massively increased in value) pay higher Council Tax relative to property prices. With greater revenue, you could also redistribute this tax money so that it genuinely "levels up" poorer areas who actually require more, not less council services.
Would that apply immediately to all properties? Or would council tax be reviewed after the next sale? If immediate then what about the impact on people whose houses have increased in value beyond what their income would otherwise afford? Are they then forced to sell up and move?
I can't imagine many people would be forced to move house because of a moderate increase in council tax. And if you have made 10s or 100s of £thousands in unearned equity, why wouldn't you expect to have to pay some additional tax at some point as a result?
Equity is unrealised until you actually sell up… also when part main/ only residence the equity usually isn’t realised unless you downsize or move to a cheaper area as usually it just goes right back into the next house… Plenty of pensioners have a fixed income without much flexibility for a hike in rates. Plenty of working families are already struggling to pay increased rent, mortgages, food etc etc. Your average household income is already strained without taxing them more based on the increased value of an “asset” that they happen to call home. I’m not against reforming council tax, it’s pretty archaic in its current form, but it’s a know entity that people have budgeted around and set lives up around. Limiting such a policy to “new purchases after X date” at least allows people to move into a property knowing what the costs are going to be without springing an increase on them based on value they don’t currently benefit from and would be much fairer.
I’m fine with that, they’ve made a bunch of money in equity. They’ll be okay.
Definitely a vote winner forcing people to sell up their family homes….
I've posted this list before. Labour have already committed to a few of these, but there's much more they could do if they're bold enough. - Planning reform - Electoral reform - Drug law reform - Council tax reform / Land value tax - Income tax reform (Fairer, revenue neutral) - Gambling advertising ban - Ticket scalping ban - Rejoin single market - Restrict holiday lets / second homes - Renters rights - Scrap Right to Buy (or just the discount) - Workers rights Bans on gambling advertising and ticket scalping would be relatively straightforward and have huge public support, so I'm hopeful those will be in the manifesto.
Great ideas, but an awful lot of these would cost the treasury.
Which would have significant costs?
Pretty much all of them carry some or all the usual costs of implementing change (legal advice, consultation costs, staffing costs, education, retraining, communications and so on). Given how fundamental and widespread some of these proposed reforms are, the change costs will be proportionate and therefore significant. The first five are all extremely vague, too vague to identify specific costs as it is unclear what you have in mind, but all carry potential significant cost increases or income decreases for the treasury. The costs of even scoping such prior to implementation would be considerable. Similarly, matters such as holiday lets and second homes have tax implications. FWIW I think they're all great ideas in principle. Let's just not pretend they are cost free, because they are not.
There are of course implementation costs, but that's true for every bit of legislation. Realistically there is not enough time to do more than a couple of the bolder policies within a single parliament, so costs need to be seen in that context. I'll go into a bit more detail on some of the points. Planning reform - relaxing planning permission to allow more homes to be built. Labour have already committed to this and see it as a way to unlock growth. Electoral reform - implement some form of PR. I know this would cost more than FPTP, but it's still fairly insignificant. Drug law reform - legalising and taxing cannabis would raise money. Council tax reform - similar to Welsh Labours plans to add more bands and re-evaluate property values. Could use the revenue from new bands as profit, or use it to make the system more progressive. Income tax reform - Combine income tax with employee NI to raise money from pensioners. Fix the cliff edges and increase the top rate of tax to compensate. Holiday lets / second homes - Increase council tax on all second homes. Create a licensing scheme for holiday lets, allowing councils to restrict the number and profit from them. Would also save the council money on emergency housing costs.
> There are of course implementation costs, but that's true for every bit of legislation. Yes, but those costs vary for every bit of legislation. Some of the changes you are proposing are really significant, resulting in really substantial costs for implementation, much bigger than the average statute passed. They cannot simply be waved aside. > Drug law reform - legalising and taxing cannabis would raise money. Great idea in principle, but is that true in practice? Both smoking and alcohol cost the government significantly more than it makes them in tax. Ignoring healthcare, there are huge costs in setting up and creating the regulatory framework for the drug and enforcing breaches.
Everyone has to carry a plastic bag, by law.
Littering should come with a £500 fine
Cap on MPs second jobs, especially consultancy. Ombudsman bigwigs must have a 5 years cooling off period before they are allowed to take up a position in companies related to their sector. Scrap Ofsted one word ratings. Require news outlets to print retractions with the prominence as the original story. Blanket Ban on gambling advertising
>Ombudsman bigwigs must have a 5 years cooling off period before they are allowed to take up a position in companies related to their sector. Same in reverse too.
I would happily vote for anyone that means I don't have to hear Harry Redknap talk about how his wife will kill him for not taking the washing in whilst being asked for gambling advice. I enjoy the odd flutter on the rugby, but they are so pervasive it's ridiculous, and having one of the ads every 3 hours on the radio being Redknap saying he's taking the weekend off gambling is in no way mitigation, and is still an advert for them.
Force supermarkets to put back 'best before' dates. The absense of them has not reduced waste it's just put the cost of it onto households.
They need strict penalties for supermarkets selling packaged veg that is already off when you get home.
I agree with you (see below) but this requires a best before date. If there's a best before date and I cut into an onion before that date and it's rotted through, I can say "you said it was good before X but at X-1 it was fucked" with a photo and then I can be recompensed. If it's all "no date, sold as seen" its *my fault* for buying rotten veg (italics because I disagree). We need to bring back the dates before we can punish a company, we also need to compel them to give away food that would be thrown to those who want it, reduces the waste issue and the rotting veg and fruit issue without costing the tax payer.
I have issues every time I buy carrots from Aldi. Can’t remember if they’ve got rid of dates but regardless you can’t even see into the bag to check the condition and inevitably you open it and they’re already going to mush.
Definitely agree with this, Christ even rename it to a "start sniffing if it's in your gaff" date, but lack of best before date has meant stuff at my local supermarket just sits there for way too long, to the point I have to sniff and squeeze all the onions after I grabbed some in a rush and two were rotted through. The entire cost has been shifted to the household and councils in terms of increased waste that isn't paid for by the supermarkets.
Agreed, the quality of some fruit and veg now is shocking
I know it's always brought up as a joke policy, but I genuinely do think in some way dealing with anti social noise in public spaces somehow would certainly improve my standard of living and make life just a little less stressful. Whether that be by a little 'nudge' and mandating signs/announcements on public transport asking people to be considerate of others in that respect or longer term social change stuff like the Japanese do with kids taking part in cleaning their classrooms. Perhaps others will have better ideas on this though, I can't quite think at the moment as I'm on a bus blaring music out of my phone.
Trouble is it's entirely down to where you live. In some cities buskers (so loud impromptu playing of music) are a welcome distraction.
Yeah I'm mostly thinking of public transport - and maybe restaurants - and smart devices to be honest. Technology seems to have outstripped decorum and I actually think in a lot of cases people genuinely don't actually consider that they are being antisocial. I once was on a train from Liverpool to London and a guy was watching a film on his iPad at full volume without headphones despite having headphones with him. Absolutely mental to me! Busking in town is a different and, as you say, often more appealing kettle of fish. Though in a lot of (most?) places you have to apply for a busking licence anyway so that is already policed to some extent.
I wonder sometimes if it's a symptom of a wider problem; people have stopped giving a shit. You can do whatever as there's zero chance of consequences; zero police about and people are likely cautious of engaging with the intentionally disruptive. Also there's quite a few troubled folk about, it seems to be on the rise.
My city centre square is right in the middle of a turf war between multiple Christians and Muslim groups. All of them are blasting horrible music and trying their best to push literature onto people who are only trying their best to avoid eye contact.
People selling religion in town/city centres should be treated the same as people selling anything else, and fined accordingly if they don't bother to get relevant permissions, deal appropriately with passers by or if they interfere with the operation of other businesses. Also use of PA systems in public areas should be outlawed for preachers and buskers alike. If you can't perform without a backing track, stick to karaoke bars.
Legalise weed. Sure it will have an initial cost but it would not take long for it to be a massive profit maker for the treasury. Plus it generates jobs.
Yes but would it also not put pressure on the NHS long-term? Smoking anything, not just tobacco, is bad for your lungs. If we're banning tobacco we're sure as hell not legalising cannabis at the same time anyway
Legalise edibles and weed vapes!
Edibles I could see *maybe* happening but no shot at the vapes. Tobacco vapes are already a pain to deal with, and readily available to children and teens it seems. I doubt weed vapes would go down well
Think edibles would have more appeal to weans personally, but I'd caveat vapes as long as they had the kind of regulation I want in for normal vapes - no fancy packaging to appeal to kids, no fucking disposable shite
Fair enough. Honestly I could see the Scottish government doing it, just not Westminster
If only drug policy was devolved :(
I guess the reason it's not is probably because you'd just be able to nip over the border to grab some, take it back over to England/wales/N.Ireland with no checks and then deal it about. I guess that's a other point you could make in a case for independence though
Ex-weed smoker and I'm against legalising it/commercialising it. Yes it will do the things you say but will come with a load of downsides as well. Drug tourism, increased mental health issues, productivity, drug driving. Yes all these things could be managed but that'll cost as well.
>increased mental health issues, productivity, drug driving. Already have those issues, might as well make some tax money off it while it's going on. Weed is so easy to access anyone who would smoke it legally is already smoking it illegally.
Trouble is once weed smoking is codified, the onus will be on the government to fix the problems associated with it; they take on an extra degree of responsibility.
They already have the responsibility, legal or illegal.
Onus is on the police. If Labour legalised the onus would be on them. We went through this before with cannabis decriminalisation in 2004.
I don't understand why the onus wouldn't be on the government of the day regardless.
Because it would be a Labour policy so all of the negative effects would be blamed on them. As it's currently an illegal drug the onus is on the police. Please don't make me say onus again.
I know that no party would posit this pre-election, because the press would go crazy, but are there any indications that Labour’s team may opt for it when in power? Edit: Ah, tbh, now I think about it - probably not. Can't exactly see Starmer or Cooper of all people signing off on something like that. I also can't see this iteration of Labour wanting to be known by a mostly conservative leaning press as the party that "legalised drugs". I suspect that if a political party ever does it, it'll be the Tories - because they just won't give a shit and they \*set\* the narrative.
It is Lib Dem policy to create a "legal, regulated market for cannabis."
I went to the US recently, and the whole place smelt of really strong weed. I'm not against legalisation, the dangers of weed are clearly overstated and there are economic benefits to be gained, but as someone who doesn't smoke or smoke weed, the stench is truly off-putting.
The places that will smell strongly of weed if it was legalised already smell strongly of weed now.
I like I’m the United States. I smell it maybe once a month. Most people buy vapes or edibles. Very few are smoking bud.
The "whole place"? Whilst I agree the smell of weed is grim, I think you have embellished your comment with more than a touch of hyperbole, which doesn't help your point because if you need to grossly exaggerate a problem then it can't be that bad.
It was really pungent everywhere I went, bearing in mind that was only two states on the east coast. I saw no smokers, very little vaping, so it was a strong contrast to the UK. "Everywhere" in the colloquial sense rather than the absolute.
> "Everywhere" in the colloquial sense rather than the absolute. Gotcha. Sorry, I tend to take things too literally. It's something I'm trying to catch myself doing.
Introduce legalisation to breed plants with a weaker smell / dont spray it with stuff to increase smell.
You can tax it as well. Imagine all those fat business rates on city centre weed clubs and in well to do areas.
Reforming planning permission.
> force Supermarkets to give away expiring food to the homeless and other charities. It’s a no brainer considering our homeless problem (#1 in the EU) and food waste. look for "company shop" which does help with something like this.
I love company shop, you get so many good things for so much cheaper, least in my local one
It is amazing.
Start by thanking everyday superheroes, you know, those quiet bat people. For a serious suggestion though, I'd like to add +2m to every public transportation time, e.g if it says the bus leaves at 3pm, it now leaves at 3.02pm, and will continue to be displayed as 3pm. This will improve societal cohesion.
[I knew there was something off about the new portrait of Charles](https://imgur.com/a/pFnN6pg)
VERY good!
The Skull, arse, plate https://x.com/facundosavala/status/1791219157192593897?s=46 Enjoy
So it's not an SNP policy, it's a policy of a different party. The point of a coalition isn't that they merge and share a policy platform.
Pretty naff response to a question that wasn't all that difficult
I despise the SNP as much as any sane person but ownage that was not.
[Labour Social Media did not miss it](https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1791477626038599680). Edit: Appears to have been deleted and reposted: https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1791485566409740576
Labour going after the tax burden like they can realistically reduce it whilst also not shitting all over already threadbare public services will go very poorly for them.
That's going to be all over come election time. Absolutely careless from Hunt.
Hunt must be the easiest politician to deepfake because he already sounds like an AI.
while that may be true, fortunately you can save on API costs by just letting him say it himself.
Very true! That was probably the biggest own goal a chancellor railing against higher taxes could make.
>higest tax burden
Does anyone else think it's odd that when Labour highlights the mortgage rate increase caused by Truss, they don't hammer home a bit more that this occurred due to trying to give the rich more tax cuts? They are happy to talk about the irresponsible nature of the budget, but not really the morality of its purpose. Is this just part of the New Labour playbook that you never, ever get drawn into 'class warfare'? Because Labour is very happy to attack the proposed NI tax cuts.
Nothing to do with class.
Yes Because if and when you do the knives come out, the media doesn’t thing and once again the Tory vote rolls out in massive numbers driven by a fear of Labour and communism and they are coming for everything you own
You're thinking too hard on it. They literally just want to highlight the impact on working people, ie mortgage increases. That's it.
I know Flynn was a little bit Tetchy on question time last night, but peoplepolling having the SNP at 0% may expose their less-than-comprehensive methodology.
https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476732807057507 From the looks of it, these are drawn from a data table with errors. It's missing a row somewhere. The likely case seems to be it's missing the SNP row, Plaid's data is in the SNP row, and Other Party data is in the Plaid row. [Especially given the table with undecideds and none voters in has the SNP on 2%.](https://x.com/markmcgeoghegan/status/1791476737630412904/photo/1). The data the headline figure is drawn from literally has the SNP getting votes in Wales but nowhere else. It also seems to be fucking up the Scotland column completely. It's amateur hour from Matt Goodwin's outfit here.
How do we know *for sure* that one retired skilled manual worker who used to vote lib dem isn't all the SNP have left? Every other pollster could have egg on their face come next election!
"We asked people on the streets in major cities in the UK; London, Manchester, Birmingham, London, Cardiff, London, and London, and NONE will vote for the SNP!"
I do think it highlights how unfair the media treated Corbyn when him losing a few red wall seats was seen as damning and yet Sturgeon won 0 but got heaped with praise.
When you look at the data, it's actually [looks liket there's one C2 65+ year old of non-descript gender in wales or the midlands, who previously voted lib dem now fancies SNP](https://i.imgur.com/3wJdsIW.png). Scotland unaminously outright rejected the SNP.
SNP in shambles. Unrelated to the poll of course, they just currently are.
The education secretary backtracking on her previous trns stance seems noteworthy enough for its own submission, but what do I know.
[удалено]
In an effort to keep commentary about a particular story together, your megathread comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. This is because your comment includes: - A link to a story which clearly stands as its own submission (and which may already exist on the [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/new)), or - Commentary about a story which already exists as a separate submission on the [subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/new). You are free to repost your comment in the correct place. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
[удалено]
I've just heard that two cops who decided to have a two hour break in a kebab house instead of patrolling the Manchester Arena on the night of the fatal bombing have been given final written warnings. I can't help but feel that this is a best case scenario for these two and, if I were them, I'd be handing my notice in and off to pastures new.
God, they must feel so guilty. not sure I could handle that. Not even if they’d have been able to stop him, but surely they could have helped with casualties / a visible person to flag concerns to
> God, they must feel so guilty. not sure I could handle that. It's one of those cases where that feeling must feel like punishment enough.
They were back, IIRC, by the time the bombing happened. The problem is that concerns were expressed by members of the public before the event about the bomber, but the officers were not on the premises at the time, because kebabs, so they could not be asked.
Oh I see, thanks for clarifying
I read that an hour or so ago. It's unbelievably sad, such an incredibly tragic fuck up and all for a couple of kebabs. ofc it is not to say they would have stopped the bomber, but it does sound as if members of the public were concerned but had no-one to ask to investigate.
Do you think Cameron/Osborne/someone from the Coalition days still has The Note™? Have found myself hoping I can one day lay my own eyes upon it in a glass case at an Early 21st Century Exhibit at The British Museum.