## [Click here to discuss Nick Robinson's interview with Rishi Sunak on BBC One at 8pm](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dct3f1/match_thread_the_panorama_interviews_with_nick/)
...[and here to discuss the Lib Dem's manifesto](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dchtsp/liberal_democrats_2024_general_election_manifesto/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. FunkyDialectic with 56 comments
1. KennedyFishersGhost with 50 comments
1. Ill-Distribution-330 with 50 comments
1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 47 comments
1. subSparky with 45 comments
1. YsoL8 with 43 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 42 comments
1. bowak with 38 comments
1. JavaTheCaveman with 38 comments
1. thejackalreborn with 38 comments
There were 744 unique users within this count.
Question for the voting systems nerds - Is there a reason why MMP/AMS traditionally doesn't use AV/Instant Runoff in its constituency elections?
My understanding is the main benefit of AV/IR is reducing the spoiler effect from minor parties, so it clearly has benefit within constituency elections. Reducing the spoiler effect would be a straight improvement in terms of happiness with local representatives.
There's also no downside with regards to proportionality with this under MMP/AMS, since the party choice vote will keep the overall makeup of the legislature proportional regardless of who wins the constituencies.
Is there a specific reason why, or is it just one of those weird historic things?
I would guess it's simply a computational issue. With MMP you already have to run 2 counts, adding an IRV count would make it more complicated and time consuming.
That count would be done by the constituency though, so it would be no harder locally than any other ranked system and no harder nationally than MMP already is
For the last week I've been thinking "there's no way they can dig the hole any deeper" and yet they do. Now I reckon it's almost impossible for them not to, can't wait to see how they drop another point tomorrow.
Sunak's buddy jason kenney will make a surprise appearance via video and support him.
Edit: Not sure if he can do this because his current commitments might restrict what he can do.
They have a tech glitch during their manifesto launch, they forget to edit their manifesto document and someone finds weird things in it. Also different parts of the conservative party create their own manifesto's in response.
After the christmas party video fiasco, I would not be surprised to see a joke manifesto with a policy on homeless genocide being uploaded instead of the real one. Truly led by donkeys.
This is going to come as a shock - but I think that Sunak made a strategic error by implementing the NI cuts earlier in the year. He should have banked them and announced much bigger cuts now. Not only would saying to the public "We're going to cut your NI in half if re-elected" be an actually appealing bribe - Labour would be in trouble because they would have already costed their manifesto and so wouldn't be able to match any of the tax cuts without dropping spending commitments.
I was literally just thinking this. People have already had two 2% tax cuts and wont have felt any significant difference, so a further 2% won’t appeal.
That and we wouldn't already know what a 2p cut on NI actually looks like on our payslips from last time. It sounded fine as a concept but in terms of actual numbers in a bank account it was insulting, and even more insulting that he's offering more of the same now.
That’s an interesting idea… but just coming out of the blue would have probably looked like bullshit. Much better to say we will carry on cutting taxes than taxes are the highest ever - votes us and we’ll cut them!
I was driving home a few months ago and got a Prime at the petrol station to see what the fuss was about
Very tasty, but clearly didn't taste natural at all, full of sugar and fuck knows what else
Only learned about it from the South Park special, who the fuck is giving this to their kids?
> Only learned about it from the South Park special, who the fuck is giving this to their kids?
Simply put, people that don't want their kids being bullied.
These youtubers target kids, get them hooked on their merch and whatever else, then when it comes to the playground you better have everything they're selling you, or you are a loser.
I remember seeing my old school friends, now parents giving their kids this prime for their BIRTHDAY because it cost so much, and I'm not shitting you the kids went nuts for it. Probably got more enjoyment out of it than I did from the Argos catalogue.
Problem is parenting. But I've been speaking to other parents and it's so much bigger than just that. It's a communal thing. You can remove Prime from your kids pathway, not let them watch KSI, but the other 29 kids in their class are.
Another refused to let their kid on social media, and as a result refuses to let her have her picture taken and posted on the schools social media, because that's fucking weird obviously. She's the only one and is purposefully left out. It's such a shame.
I hate it all.
My friends took the extreme option. Their kid is homeschooled - spends most of his time in the Australian bush, and his summers being ‘socialised’ in a small bucolic Mediterranean village (kinda place where people don’t lock their doors and there’s nonna CCTV).
….the kid’s awesome, like seriously one of the happiest, funniest, coolest kids I’ve ever met…
*BUT* he’ll still do anything for 15 minutes of access to YouTube.
There’s no escaping it.
For fans of local government maps we now have a [1971 one for England](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/England_Administrative_Map_1971.png) as a good comparison to what the [1972 act replaced](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/England_Administrative_1974.png) ( even if we know it should have been [Redcliffe-Maud](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/RedcliffeMaudReportMap1969.png))
Is tomorrow's Daily Express headline satire or are they really that clueless?
Edit: link
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1800271877417611429?t=p7DQv4A4PUYHMklG-jXNZA&s=19
I'd be pissed off if they did to be honest, whilst understanding why it's something people want to see.
A 2p cut is quite literally a failure to nickel and dime your way to a good headline, and the last cut they made was noticed by precisely no one. The obsession with tax cuts at the expense of spending is so extreme we're literally at the stage of parties promising to give us 2p of unfunded cuts in exchange for watching public services implode.
Labour, please keep my 2p and work on the whole child poverty thing instead, will you? I'm a frivolous cow and would only spend it on shite anyway x
Wow a 2p cut I'm so happy. I'm too young to be paying tax (apart from in January where I paid 27p in national insurance the bastards) but I'm so glad that's going to give my hard working mum in the NHS an extra **checks notes** £4 a month extra!
It's fuckin bleak isn't it 🙄 as the fellow child (adult child but you know) of an NHS worker, make your mum a brew and for gods sake don't tell her about what Rishi's offering.
The photo of Farage [on the cover of the Telegraph](https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1800279276073140513) is hilarious
Edit: just remembered [what it reminds me of](https://filmschoolrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Phantom-reveal.jpg)
I was trying to think what it reminded me of. Then I remembered this [https://i0.wp.com/musicaficionado.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/In-The-Court-of-the-Crimson-King-Front-Cover.jpg?fit=1622%2C1600&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/musicaficionado.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/In-The-Court-of-the-Crimson-King-Front-Cover.jpg?fit=1622%2C1600&ssl=1)
Watching Caroline Lucas's statement on newsnight about anti-semitism in the Green party, it really highlights how weak Corbyn's statements were on anti-semitism when he was leading Labour
Did corbyn himself have antisemitic views? No probably not really. Was there antisemites in the labour party? Yes undoubtedly. Was the level of antisemitism in the labour party overblown by the media? 100%. Was corbyns statements idiotic and his absolute refusal to investigate or address it as an issue antisemitic? Yes by default in my opinion.
He was such a weak leader and his whole "let's all hug it out" philosophy is what cost him 2 elections ffs.
Corbyn's problem was that he associated with antisemites. He saw the West as exploitative and Israel as a Western foothold in the middle east. Thus anyone who is against Israel was a natural ally. The fact that some of them were motivated by antisemitism was less important.
[Though some of the ones who aren't motivated by antisemitism are just as bad.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/anti-zionists-a-more-precise-term-for-pro-palestinian-protesters-who-want-israel-gone/0000018f-63b5-d284-adaf-77fda2890000)
Look I'm not answering your question because you will take each one and scrutinize me on the ins and outs of their comments and whether or not what they said there could be classed as anti semitic or not. I've already explained that the issue wasn't with specific individuals. That's not saying that there weren't individuals, like Abbott for example. It was a fundamental issue.
So there were undoubtedly anti-semites in the Labour party but you can't name any except for Diane Abbott, who Keir Starmer has confirmed is standing for Labour in the 2024 election?
you've not addressed my point that the fundamental issue within the labour party was it's handling of accusations of antisemitism paired with the policy of an enemy of Israel is my friend irregardless of who they were
I was specifically responding to your point "Was there antisemites in the labour party? Yes undoubtedly." If you're going to say undoubtedly at least name a couple, why is this so hard.
Whilst Corbyn may not have held antisemitic views, he sure was thick about what he shared and where he went. The adjacency of 'global elite' conspiracies, poor optics of visiting terrorist graves, and antisemitism is too close for a prominent politician to court, especially publicly. Remove the geopolitics and he'd have been a decent PM. Being PM is inherently geopolitical.
One of the only things I'm glad we had a conservative government through was the invasion of Ukraine because corbyns foreign policy of citizens of countries being invaded just letting it happen was scary
His refusal to properly address it was just infuriating. John McDonnell came to him with a plan to shut down the entire issue in a reasonable way and Corbyn just said no. Not because he wanted the anti-semitism to continue but because his ideological stance was that it would require unacceptably 'tough' restrictions on freedom of speech/protest.
Am I the only one who's starting to find the Ed Davey antics a bit tiring?
When the campaign first started it was a nice break to see Davey riding a bike or doing some paddle boarding as a break from the more serious conversations. It sort of seemed like an affable bloke just being himself whilst making his case for the election.
Now it seems like the Lib Dems have seen it as *the only selling point* of their platform, and it doesn't feel authentic or natural. It's just coming across as a bit cringe to me, now.
It gets them attention for their candidates and manifesto. If Ed Davey plays the man in a suit at a lectern, they run the risk of being thought of as an also-ran
I understood it in the first place. The LDs we're getting almost no coverage on their campaign and him doing what he did got them the coverage however to now continue it like he is is just a bit weird tbf
Why though? It's positive, wholesome and a breath a fresh air form of campaigning in contrast to the cyniscm and mud slinging we come to expect from the parties.
The lib dems were not on my political radar AT ALL before the election and my impression of Ed now is he seems like a normal dude whose passionate about his policies. I don't know if I'll even vote for them tbh, I'm still undecided, but my estimation of him and the Lib Dems has certainly improved.
Yeah me too but the lib dems need to step up and be a serious 3rd choice and address the issues of brexit which the main two aren't doing.
It is worth remembering that up to 9/01/23 since the 2019 election ed davey took over £400k in earnings outside of parliament
What makes so little sense is, on the one hand they want to save hard up working families £2k, but on the other they want to punish them for being ill and taking a week off work.
Balls
They also want the group they're going to help by saving £2k to vote for and enjoy the punishment being doled out to the sick note folks.
I wonder if the hardworking families will realise those two groups are comprised of *the same people*.
Their campaign and on the BBC is hilarious... It basically just says "Labour has 27 policies that will increase taxes... But you don't want to read all that"
But when you zoom into the policies they actually look pretty decent
They also divide the expected cost by the number of households, not tax payers. Income tax only accounts for 25% of government income. If you took the £2,094 figure and divide it by 4 so the rise in spending is split across all income it's £523.50 if you then go on the number of tax payers rather than households it goes down to £469. When you account for the economic benefit it would give to the treasury it would likely go down even further. It doesn't account for different tax bands either and assumes all of the policies will be implemented immediately and that all of it will be funded through taxation rather than borrowing.
I worked that out as soon as they said it. It's frankly an unbelievably flimsy campaign point but one which they're choosing to die on
Thanks for breaking it down ...
You shouldn't have to... It's exhausting and mind numbing.
But that's where we're at. Literally the early stages of idiocracy style ads
Guardian reporting that Tory right plan to offer alternative pledges next week if tory manifesto falls back.
Tory manifesto - if you dont like these solemn pledges, we have others....
How does that work? If Rishi wins then he'll be the messiah and they'll have fuck all leverage to achieve any of their agenda. If Rishi loses then they're out of government?
I remember being in the audience of a show on MTV in the '90s and I was sent a list of guidelines for what not to wear. Fine stripes or checks were explicitly banned, precisely for this reason.
I was worried a week ago about the possibility that a silent majority of boomers might rear their ugly heads and vote them back in somehow, but now I feel they've went too far. They lost this election last week, might as well have the vote now before it gets any worse for them.
The polling is abominable and there’s not much chance it will get much better. Even the worst case scenario for Labour on election night still would see them given a huge majority
So the tories are touting if a first time buyer finds 5% for a deposit, they'll bump it up to 25%? That's going to cost a fucking fortune! (Source, newsnight). Call it c. 300k for average first time buyer house now, that make it 60k they'll be giving. That surely has to have a load of caveats and or just patent bullshit, fag packet policy.
Not quite.
It’s actually a scheme that already exists but was due to expire next year.
If you can find a 5% deposit then you have a 5% deposit and a 95% mortgage. Nothing special there.
Except, 95% mortgages are pretty risky for the bank and so the bank might not be willing to offer them. The plan is that the government will guarantee the extra 20%, so if you default on the mortgage then the government will reimburse the bank for up to 20%.
The cost to the government depends on how many people default on the mortgages.
That's one hell of a way to avoid building council houses, I've got to hand it to them.
"Here's £60k, just don't ask us where we put the people who can't save a fiver let alone 5% of a fuckin house"
Ok, disclaimer... No rishi fan here... But why such an uproar about DDay? Yah I get it, it's an important day and all, and he left early, but people are making our like he ate a puppy live on TV. Is it just a case of everyone is sick of him/them and this is a great excuse to pile in and sacrifice him at the alter to wipe the slate on the past few shitty years, or am I missing something?
People have stated the obvious but what got me was the lack off payoff he got from it. He viewed an ITV interview which wouldn't have taken him anywhere in the polls or gained him support over venerating those who gave everything for this country
The D-Day commemoration is essentially a mass-funeral of some of the bravest people who have served our country. Our freedom as a nation is largely in part due to these veterans. This will be the last time alive together for most of these people, and getting a bunch of 90 yo’s to a different country is no joke considering the mobility challenges - yet they still made the effort.
The Prime Minister chose to leave early over spending his full time and attention paying his respects, to record a TV interview that he scheduled. Even Biden made it from the US at his age. The King stayed who has cancer. It’s so obviously insulting to our collective history in so many ways.
I do not like Sunak but I can 100% say I’d mad if Starmer skipped the International event.
He ditched honouring veterans who (with their comrades) risked hell to bring freedom throughout Europe, causing some of them to physically burst into tears. Veterans who will not make it to the next milestone commemoration. And he did it for a prerecorded TV interview in order to repeat a lie about taxes. In doing so, it has shined a spotlight on his lack of morals, character, and competence.
TLDR he has made a completely incomprehensible fuck up that makes him out to be an amoral, thick, lying, worm
Two things. Firstly, certain controversies in politics cut through because they reinforce what we already suspected about the person. In this case, it's "he's out of touch".
But also this country is crazy about world war two and all that. It's part of the national myth - that we pluckily stood alone (with the commonwealth) against the Nazis, that we won and liberated Europe etc... There are poppies all over the place in November - just a few months ago this government wanted to make climbing on a war memorial a criminal offence.
And to top it off, the people who cared most about it are his core base... And Keir Starmer ended up meeting a lot of world leaders (the kind of photo-op that politicians are desperate for). So the story has a lot of meat.
I do think it'll blow over in a week or so - I doubt it'll carry on until the election.
Being pm and leaving d day early is bad on it own.
But he left d day early, during the biggest war in europe since ww2 when security was a core part of his campaign launched with a pledge to reinstate national service but the political opposition was the one photo'd rubbing shoulders with the leader of the invaded country.
And for what? To do an interview on a day of his choosing.
And his excuse was that he always planned to do an interview on d day before even calling the GE.
Its a clusterfuck of a bad decision.
Whether or not the reaction was a bit much, what I can't believe is that he went back to campaigning rather than attend an event which would clearly be better for his campaign than anything else he had planned.
It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day during the campaign period and he's invited to an event with ample opportunity to look Prime Ministerial and he somehow thinks that leaving early to do an ITV interview that can wait until tomorrow is the best course of action. Even from a purely cynical point of view, it's a mad decision.
It's like someone awarded him a penalty kick and he somehow scored an own goal from it. Really brings his judgement in to question, completely unforced terrible decision.
Two practical reasons, one mostly political.
1. It’s disrespectful to the veterans and the active armed forces. If you put your life on the line for the country then the least you expect is for your PM to turn up and read something.
2. It’s bad diplomacy. Our security and prosperity depends on good relationships with our allies, I expect my PM to take every opportunity to meet with them, make speeches alongside them etc.
3. It shows bad judgement. Turning down an amazing opportunity to look prime ministerial during an election campaign is just a bafflingly bad decision, and if he can’t see that then I don’t trust him to make other decisions well.
1. He ignored the international ceremony which is a slap in the face to the French and Americans and all the allied soldiers that died.
2. It's the 80th anniversary which is a milestone, and it's likely the last milestone that veterans will be present at.
3. The fucking king, who has cancer, managed to stay for it despite being advised not to go. That shows him as being disinterested in the affairs of the country.
4. He missed the opportunity to get free publicity instead letting, of all people Cameron get it making David Cameron look more stately instead of the Prime Minister. Not to mention Starmer.
He then decided to do a fucking interview that doesn't air for until a week after it was filmed as one of the things he'd rather do, again feeding into the disinterested criticism.
All he had to do was stay for an afternoon, look statesmanlike and get the free publicity but what he did instead was look like an idiot which is hardly what you want when looking like an idiot is one of the criticisms of his campaign to that point and subsequently.
Yeah- 22 veterans in Normandy, 26 at Alrewas. Youngest obvs 96, mostly in 100s.
5 years time, few if any will attend, 10 yrs time, none.
This was kind of the big farewell one.
He did kind of eat a puppy on live TV. I think people forget just how much this country venerates WW2 veterans. They’re genuinely like gods amongst the people who matter to the Tories
I think the issue is that he didn't realise *why* this would be bad. He was told it was optional, and believed that it actually was.
It's like if you're going to somebody's house for dinner, and they say, *don't worry, you don't need to bring anything* and then you actually don't bring anything.
You always need to bring something! And for a PM at a D-Day event, you always need to go to the 'optional' parts, especially during an election.
It's just the ineptetude, the fact that he didn't realise, that is what is nuts.
I get it I just feel like everyone is looking for a reason to write him off completely, and here we have it.
Personally I wasn't even aware of the event despite having deep respect for it.
Trying to pick apart if it's genuine offence or just people frothing at bad optics
It clearly shows that he doesn't prioritise a day that means a lot to a lot of peaople. In particular the people he has been trying to court with a big, grasping offer on defence and also the people that he desperately wants to keep from voting for reform.
Away from any politics - imagine you're there, representing your country alongside many world leaders, in front of men who have few years left to live that fought to save your country and Europe. Big sombre occasion, lots of bugles and solemn reflection. I know I would be extremely moved by that occasion and it's pretty stunning to me that during that experience he was checking his watch and thinking about what he'd tell ITV.
It's 2 days and it's basically free campaigning to the incumbent - standing next to the other world leaders. Plus it's going to be the last one with the actual surviving veterans being alive as they're in their late 90's now.
I'm rather enjoying these balmy summer evenings of Newsnight, late-night Tory briefings and gaffes, and opinion polls. I know it's serious stuff but I reckon we'll all look back on these days fondly at some point. It will warm our hearts during the cold nuclear winter.
Hilariously an MP made the claim in the last couple of days that everyone's already moved on from it since he apologised. All right then, I'll buy that. Let's see how that goes on Wednesday night.
Lib Dem’s being the pro EU party is a good political move. They lose very little of their base in the way that Labour or the tories would but have a large section of disaffected very pro EU supporters to gain from both parties. Also in the event we do get a Lib Dem opposition, it might be a good pressure point to push Labour towards closer ties. And on top of all of that, we know it’s a sure fire way to boost growth so the economic argument works. Good politics for a party who know they won’t be in government anyway
I agree as I want us to rejoin, but will be voting Labour this time and think that Labour are right to treat any talk about Brexit as electoral kryptonite for them this election cycle.
But if the Lib Dems do well whilst being clear about being pro-rejoin then it really helps to open it up as a topic.
I think he actually did alright by rishi standards. Answered things quite clearly and for the most part kept his cool. What came out of his mouth was of course pure concentrated shit, but it was presented well. Nick Robinson was hard on him though, the questions were very accusing (and 100% right). Basically scolded him for half an hour
Iain Dale on his podcast teasing some embargoed news from Sunak's ITV interview that can't come out until midnight that is apparently awful for him
I don't think he will announce it but is something to look out for
>Iain Dale on his podcast teasing some embargoed news from Sunak's ITV interview that can't come out until midnight that is apparently awful for him
Midnight tonight or wednesday?
Unless it's something like this:
"Hello Prime Minister, glad you could sit down with us"
"No problem Paul, I had a full day today, just coming back from the D-Day event where I spent time with Macron and Scholz"
Effectively, a now clear and obvious lie.
I really do hope there is something in there now. The idea of Sunak causing one crisis by unnecessarily leaving an event early to give an interview in which he creates another is just too beautiful.
Embargoes would usually expire just past midnight (0001), I’d imagine whatever ‘it’ is, is embargoed until 0001 on Wednesday so will be the morning headlines that day.
Its going to be him flippantly dismissing the fact he left d-day early to do their interview, I bet.
It was filmed before the backlash hit.
Something like "I feel its more important right now to set the record straight" or even worse.
> Its going to be him flippantly dismissing the fact he left d-day early to do their interview, I bet.
Oh shit I think you're right. I think we're about to discover the biggest political mistake of the century was even worse than we thought.
"Well, Paul, I have a huge amount of respect for all those soldiers that bravely gave their lives during D-Day. Right. Because I think that we actually share a lot of similarities. Fighting the good fight. Right. Doing my bit for the country. Up against the odds. Right. And my weapon in this fight, right, is the fact that Labour are going to be putting up the average working family's tax bill by £2,000."
I rarely feel that positively towards any politician, even ones I agree with. but I do like rayner, I like her policies, i like her sincerity, I like her attitude. She clearly has a great grasp on policy and details, but also the practicalities of what is necessary to deliver them, which is something too many politicians lack. take May, she talked a good game, but never understood words are just words, you then have to deliver the actual policy on the ground to make a difference.
I really hope she does become PM one day. I think she'd be exceedingly good in the role.
She's one of those politicians I would love to hear from outside of the Party machine. They all have to say the lines, I get that, especially during an election. But I'd love to hear her talk more normally about what she wants to do in government.
Definitely the right idea for the LDs to get their manifesto out before Labour and the Tories. It's given them a day as the secondary story which for them is very good. Reform's economic policy announcement has been a total flop - didn't even have live reporting from the BBC and massively overshadowed by the Nazi apologist. I suspect we'll see similar reform nuttery exposed whenever they try and make headlines with policy.
My rough calculations of the situation in Chingford and Woodford Green:
Electorate: 75,000
Predicted turnout: 68% (51000)
Party Predictions:
- Reform 10% - 5100 votes
- Lib Dems 5% - 2600 votes
- Green 2% - 1200 votes
- Conservatives 30% - 15300 votes
This leaves 53% (26800 votes) for Labour and Faiza Shaheen to fight over
If Faiza gets 10% (5100 votes) Labour win with a majority of 6400
If Faiza gets 23% (11730 votes) IDS retains the seat by 230 votes
If Faiza can get 30% or more then she obviously has a great chance of winning the seat.
I think it will be a complete mess like Ashfield, Clacton or Solihull
Good luck to the candidates on getting 30% votes in these area, or maybe even 30% is good enough to win!!!
Over simplified, if Faiza is going to get close to winning she will take a lot of votes from green and Lib Dem and likely some voters who would otherwise not vote.
I adjusted the Green vote down accordingly from the electoral calculus page (3.7% to 2%) but gave the Lib Dems a boost because demographically the area is getting younger and more diverse.
It’s just unrealistic to think an independent (even a former labour candidate) will take all their votes from just Labour. Young and Diverse would also be a demographic she would need to dominate to do well in the seat.
Guess the follow up question is “is she likely to get anywhere close to that?” To be blunt, will she get thousands of people to vote for her? She’s made the news during a general election, that’s true, but what was her profile like in her constituency? Admittedly, I don’t live there, but I’d never heard of her before she was deselected. When you have previously elected MPs failing to get anywhere when they stand as Independents, why should she get anywhere?
I think it will be very difficult for her to get more than 10%. My feeling from talking to people is that only politically aware women and muslims are considering voting for her. She does have a lot of posters up but her supporters are more likely to be enthusiastic because they are supporting a 'hard done by' underdog.
Even 10% would be impressive. There were former MPs standing in their own constituency at the last election who didn’t even retain their deposit. Still, I’m gonna keep an eye on the results as they might be interesting.
The big difference is that her campaign is very well supported and get a lot resources by different groups (pro-Islam/momentum etc) in the same way Nigel Farage/Reform have in Clacton-on-Sea. Only difference is hard left vs hard right, and she mainly trying campaign on local issues and complaint labour etc (well, her bar chart.....).
She is still pushing hard on her campaigns (to be completely fair， this is her political lifeline and it doesn't makes sense for her to just give up), I guess only time will tell
Ed Davey: "I will allow Alton Towers to build their cross valley RMC hybrid coaster!"
Lib Dem Majority of 650! Ed Davey knights himself supreme commander of the Second Great and Bountiful British Empire!
## [Click here to discuss Nick Robinson's interview with Rishi Sunak on BBC One at 8pm](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dct3f1/match_thread_the_panorama_interviews_with_nick/) ...[and here to discuss the Lib Dem's manifesto](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dchtsp/liberal_democrats_2024_general_election_manifesto/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1dd68k2/rukpolitics_general_election_campaign_megathread/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. FunkyDialectic with 56 comments 1. KennedyFishersGhost with 50 comments 1. Ill-Distribution-330 with 50 comments 1. Ornery_Ad_9871 with 47 comments 1. subSparky with 45 comments 1. YsoL8 with 43 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 42 comments 1. bowak with 38 comments 1. JavaTheCaveman with 38 comments 1. thejackalreborn with 38 comments There were 744 unique users within this count.
Question for the voting systems nerds - Is there a reason why MMP/AMS traditionally doesn't use AV/Instant Runoff in its constituency elections? My understanding is the main benefit of AV/IR is reducing the spoiler effect from minor parties, so it clearly has benefit within constituency elections. Reducing the spoiler effect would be a straight improvement in terms of happiness with local representatives. There's also no downside with regards to proportionality with this under MMP/AMS, since the party choice vote will keep the overall makeup of the legislature proportional regardless of who wins the constituencies. Is there a specific reason why, or is it just one of those weird historic things?
I would guess it's simply a computational issue. With MMP you already have to run 2 counts, adding an IRV count would make it more complicated and time consuming.
That count would be done by the constituency though, so it would be no harder locally than any other ranked system and no harder nationally than MMP already is
For the last week I've been thinking "there's no way they can dig the hole any deeper" and yet they do. Now I reckon it's almost impossible for them not to, can't wait to see how they drop another point tomorrow.
They're going to emerge in Australia in short order...
Sunak's buddy jason kenney will make a surprise appearance via video and support him. Edit: Not sure if he can do this because his current commitments might restrict what he can do.
They have a tech glitch during their manifesto launch, they forget to edit their manifesto document and someone finds weird things in it. Also different parts of the conservative party create their own manifesto's in response.
Accidentally publish it with some draft version and notes embedded.
After the christmas party video fiasco, I would not be surprised to see a joke manifesto with a policy on homeless genocide being uploaded instead of the real one. Truly led by donkeys.
I think a blank page or that one latin expression is more likely to appear in their manifesto.
A bit of Lorem Ipsum would be the most sense they’ve said in years.
Please god, this would make everything we've went theough over the last 10 years worth it
This is going to come as a shock - but I think that Sunak made a strategic error by implementing the NI cuts earlier in the year. He should have banked them and announced much bigger cuts now. Not only would saying to the public "We're going to cut your NI in half if re-elected" be an actually appealing bribe - Labour would be in trouble because they would have already costed their manifesto and so wouldn't be able to match any of the tax cuts without dropping spending commitments.
Agreed. A 6% cut would look far better on the manifesto than a 2% cut.
I was literally just thinking this. People have already had two 2% tax cuts and wont have felt any significant difference, so a further 2% won’t appeal.
We'll before this early election many were predicting a autumn budget swiftly followed by election
That and we wouldn't already know what a 2p cut on NI actually looks like on our payslips from last time. It sounded fine as a concept but in terms of actual numbers in a bank account it was insulting, and even more insulting that he's offering more of the same now.
That’s an interesting idea… but just coming out of the blue would have probably looked like bullshit. Much better to say we will carry on cutting taxes than taxes are the highest ever - votes us and we’ll cut them!
Labour banning Prime for under 16s would have been a huge story a year ago, wonder if KSI will come out against it
guess that means no more WWE big events in the UK then... what with them using Prime as a canvas sponsor for all their big PPVs now
Or they could just go back to having a plain canvas
I was driving home a few months ago and got a Prime at the petrol station to see what the fuss was about Very tasty, but clearly didn't taste natural at all, full of sugar and fuck knows what else Only learned about it from the South Park special, who the fuck is giving this to their kids?
I think prime is actually sugar free. So err, god knows where the sweetness comes from.
Sucralose - artificial sweetener, basically. And the one with coconut water will have a decent amount of sugar from that.
> Only learned about it from the South Park special, who the fuck is giving this to their kids? Simply put, people that don't want their kids being bullied. These youtubers target kids, get them hooked on their merch and whatever else, then when it comes to the playground you better have everything they're selling you, or you are a loser. I remember seeing my old school friends, now parents giving their kids this prime for their BIRTHDAY because it cost so much, and I'm not shitting you the kids went nuts for it. Probably got more enjoyment out of it than I did from the Argos catalogue. Problem is parenting. But I've been speaking to other parents and it's so much bigger than just that. It's a communal thing. You can remove Prime from your kids pathway, not let them watch KSI, but the other 29 kids in their class are. Another refused to let their kid on social media, and as a result refuses to let her have her picture taken and posted on the schools social media, because that's fucking weird obviously. She's the only one and is purposefully left out. It's such a shame. I hate it all.
My friends took the extreme option. Their kid is homeschooled - spends most of his time in the Australian bush, and his summers being ‘socialised’ in a small bucolic Mediterranean village (kinda place where people don’t lock their doors and there’s nonna CCTV). ….the kid’s awesome, like seriously one of the happiest, funniest, coolest kids I’ve ever met… *BUT* he’ll still do anything for 15 minutes of access to YouTube. There’s no escaping it.
Yeah I bet, I don't have kids so not judging, sorry!
Keir Skibidi-rizz-gyatt
Lib Dems have the best campaign https://x.com/PushTheSutton/status/1799840786785415547
He's going to meme his way to LOTO
For fans of local government maps we now have a [1971 one for England](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/England_Administrative_Map_1971.png) as a good comparison to what the [1972 act replaced](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/England_Administrative_1974.png) ( even if we know it should have been [Redcliffe-Maud](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/RedcliffeMaudReportMap1969.png))
Partition of West Riding was disgusting.
I kinda despise the 1972 Act it just lead to the destruction of local governance and power that medium sized towns had been given by previous acts.
As a Kenilworth native, I would like to point out that they've given part of Warwick Rural to Coventry that wasn't transferred until 1972.
Is tomorrow's Daily Express headline satire or are they really that clueless? Edit: link https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1800271877417611429?t=p7DQv4A4PUYHMklG-jXNZA&s=19
Sunak looks positively panicked in that headshot of him.
I'm assuming that Labour won't be matching this one?
I'd be pissed off if they did to be honest, whilst understanding why it's something people want to see. A 2p cut is quite literally a failure to nickel and dime your way to a good headline, and the last cut they made was noticed by precisely no one. The obsession with tax cuts at the expense of spending is so extreme we're literally at the stage of parties promising to give us 2p of unfunded cuts in exchange for watching public services implode. Labour, please keep my 2p and work on the whole child poverty thing instead, will you? I'm a frivolous cow and would only spend it on shite anyway x
In his desperate attempt to not lose his seat he's channeling his inner Truss with the unfunded tax cuts.
That's... That's not how you slash welfare. Whut.
The welfare slash is the stuff they've already announced about making it harder to claim long term sickness
The whole 'we'll help you AND punish them' thing is especially gross when you consider 'you' and 'them' are the exact same people.
I think that will be in the manifesto then - 2p off NI will do nothing for them
Ah look, I spy an unfunded tax cut!
What is it?
I biffed up adding a link didn't I 😔 I'll try again
Wow a 2p cut I'm so happy. I'm too young to be paying tax (apart from in January where I paid 27p in national insurance the bastards) but I'm so glad that's going to give my hard working mum in the NHS an extra **checks notes** £4 a month extra!
It's fuckin bleak isn't it 🙄 as the fellow child (adult child but you know) of an NHS worker, make your mum a brew and for gods sake don't tell her about what Rishi's offering.
The Lib Dem on Newsnight is contradicting their manifesto on banning domestic short flights. Not great.
The photo of Farage [on the cover of the Telegraph](https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1800279276073140513) is hilarious Edit: just remembered [what it reminds me of](https://filmschoolrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Phantom-reveal.jpg)
I was trying to think what it reminded me of. Then I remembered this [https://i0.wp.com/musicaficionado.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/In-The-Court-of-the-Crimson-King-Front-Cover.jpg?fit=1622%2C1600&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/musicaficionado.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/In-The-Court-of-the-Crimson-King-Front-Cover.jpg?fit=1622%2C1600&ssl=1)
It almost looks like pop art
Thanks for tomorrow's lyric, and the paranoid insomnia for the night 👀🥲
New sleep paralysis demon unlocked
Babe, don't wake up
Tried to throw my phone in self preservation when your first link loaded.
Watching Caroline Lucas's statement on newsnight about anti-semitism in the Green party, it really highlights how weak Corbyn's statements were on anti-semitism when he was leading Labour
Did they tell who they have kicked out for antisemitism ?
Did corbyn himself have antisemitic views? No probably not really. Was there antisemites in the labour party? Yes undoubtedly. Was the level of antisemitism in the labour party overblown by the media? 100%. Was corbyns statements idiotic and his absolute refusal to investigate or address it as an issue antisemitic? Yes by default in my opinion. He was such a weak leader and his whole "let's all hug it out" philosophy is what cost him 2 elections ffs.
Corbyn's problem was that he associated with antisemites. He saw the West as exploitative and Israel as a Western foothold in the middle east. Thus anyone who is against Israel was a natural ally. The fact that some of them were motivated by antisemitism was less important. [Though some of the ones who aren't motivated by antisemitism are just as bad.](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/anti-zionists-a-more-precise-term-for-pro-palestinian-protesters-who-want-israel-gone/0000018f-63b5-d284-adaf-77fda2890000)
He didn't refuse to investigate it, the party was putting people through disciplinary procedures.
>Was there antisemites in the labour party? Yes undoubtedly. Who specifically? Not asking for a full list obvs but give me your top five.
I'm not saying he's an antisemite, because that would be libel. But just want to point out that Luke Akehurst was in the party at that time.
I'm not going to rank my top five antisemites. The problem was widespread across the party with few specifically being outspokenly antisemitic
Of course they were too clever to be outspokenly antisemitic but which ones are you saying were anti-semites, whether they hid it well or not?
Look I'm not answering your question because you will take each one and scrutinize me on the ins and outs of their comments and whether or not what they said there could be classed as anti semitic or not. I've already explained that the issue wasn't with specific individuals. That's not saying that there weren't individuals, like Abbott for example. It was a fundamental issue.
So there were undoubtedly anti-semites in the Labour party but you can't name any except for Diane Abbott, who Keir Starmer has confirmed is standing for Labour in the 2024 election?
Asking someone to name an antisemite is, of course, antisemitic. Do better.
you've not addressed my point that the fundamental issue within the labour party was it's handling of accusations of antisemitism paired with the policy of an enemy of Israel is my friend irregardless of who they were
I was specifically responding to your point "Was there antisemites in the labour party? Yes undoubtedly." If you're going to say undoubtedly at least name a couple, why is this so hard.
Whilst Corbyn may not have held antisemitic views, he sure was thick about what he shared and where he went. The adjacency of 'global elite' conspiracies, poor optics of visiting terrorist graves, and antisemitism is too close for a prominent politician to court, especially publicly. Remove the geopolitics and he'd have been a decent PM. Being PM is inherently geopolitical.
One of the only things I'm glad we had a conservative government through was the invasion of Ukraine because corbyns foreign policy of citizens of countries being invaded just letting it happen was scary
His refusal to properly address it was just infuriating. John McDonnell came to him with a plan to shut down the entire issue in a reasonable way and Corbyn just said no. Not because he wanted the anti-semitism to continue but because his ideological stance was that it would require unacceptably 'tough' restrictions on freedom of speech/protest.
Lucas is a very rare light in the sea of nutters in the Greens to be fair
Am I the only one who's starting to find the Ed Davey antics a bit tiring? When the campaign first started it was a nice break to see Davey riding a bike or doing some paddle boarding as a break from the more serious conversations. It sort of seemed like an affable bloke just being himself whilst making his case for the election. Now it seems like the Lib Dems have seen it as *the only selling point* of their platform, and it doesn't feel authentic or natural. It's just coming across as a bit cringe to me, now.
It gets them attention for their candidates and manifesto. If Ed Davey plays the man in a suit at a lectern, they run the risk of being thought of as an also-ran
I understood it in the first place. The LDs we're getting almost no coverage on their campaign and him doing what he did got them the coverage however to now continue it like he is is just a bit weird tbf
Why though? It's positive, wholesome and a breath a fresh air form of campaigning in contrast to the cyniscm and mud slinging we come to expect from the parties. The lib dems were not on my political radar AT ALL before the election and my impression of Ed now is he seems like a normal dude whose passionate about his policies. I don't know if I'll even vote for them tbh, I'm still undecided, but my estimation of him and the Lib Dems has certainly improved.
Yeah me too but the lib dems need to step up and be a serious 3rd choice and address the issues of brexit which the main two aren't doing. It is worth remembering that up to 9/01/23 since the 2019 election ed davey took over £400k in earnings outside of parliament
They discussed it in their manifesto launch earlier today.
Yes
What makes so little sense is, on the one hand they want to save hard up working families £2k, but on the other they want to punish them for being ill and taking a week off work. Balls
They also want the group they're going to help by saving £2k to vote for and enjoy the punishment being doled out to the sick note folks. I wonder if the hardworking families will realise those two groups are comprised of *the same people*.
Their campaign and on the BBC is hilarious... It basically just says "Labour has 27 policies that will increase taxes... But you don't want to read all that" But when you zoom into the policies they actually look pretty decent
Right, if we can have ambulances and dentists and teachers I’m sold, take my two grand Labour.
They also divide the expected cost by the number of households, not tax payers. Income tax only accounts for 25% of government income. If you took the £2,094 figure and divide it by 4 so the rise in spending is split across all income it's £523.50 if you then go on the number of tax payers rather than households it goes down to £469. When you account for the economic benefit it would give to the treasury it would likely go down even further. It doesn't account for different tax bands either and assumes all of the policies will be implemented immediately and that all of it will be funded through taxation rather than borrowing. I worked that out as soon as they said it. It's frankly an unbelievably flimsy campaign point but one which they're choosing to die on
Thanks for breaking it down ... You shouldn't have to... It's exhausting and mind numbing. But that's where we're at. Literally the early stages of idiocracy style ads
Guardian reporting that Tory right plan to offer alternative pledges next week if tory manifesto falls back. Tory manifesto - if you dont like these solemn pledges, we have others....
How does that work? If Rishi wins then he'll be the messiah and they'll have fuck all leverage to achieve any of their agenda. If Rishi loses then they're out of government?
I could see the right of the party more explicitly embracing Farage and Reform if they don't get their way
But remember we have a plan...
WAKAWOW - That skirt is strobing like hell, Kirsty.
I wonder if it breaks Harding epilepsy guidelines.
I remember being in the audience of a show on MTV in the '90s and I was sent a list of guidelines for what not to wear. Fine stripes or checks were explicitly banned, precisely for this reason.
I mean keep on catching myself tempering my expectations but my god the Tories are getting battered aren’t they
I was worried a week ago about the possibility that a silent majority of boomers might rear their ugly heads and vote them back in somehow, but now I feel they've went too far. They lost this election last week, might as well have the vote now before it gets any worse for them.
The polling is abominable and there’s not much chance it will get much better. Even the worst case scenario for Labour on election night still would see them given a huge majority
So the tories are touting if a first time buyer finds 5% for a deposit, they'll bump it up to 25%? That's going to cost a fucking fortune! (Source, newsnight). Call it c. 300k for average first time buyer house now, that make it 60k they'll be giving. That surely has to have a load of caveats and or just patent bullshit, fag packet policy.
Not the 5% deposit the Tories need to be worrying about right now...
Not quite. It’s actually a scheme that already exists but was due to expire next year. If you can find a 5% deposit then you have a 5% deposit and a 95% mortgage. Nothing special there. Except, 95% mortgages are pretty risky for the bank and so the bank might not be willing to offer them. The plan is that the government will guarantee the extra 20%, so if you default on the mortgage then the government will reimburse the bank for up to 20%. The cost to the government depends on how many people default on the mortgages.
Which essentially, even more ties the government into not doing anything to actually lower the cost
Ah the government backing billions of pounds of mortgages so there's less risk to the banks. That's always worked before hasn't it?
That makes more sense, wasn't explained that way by Nick
That's one hell of a way to avoid building council houses, I've got to hand it to them. "Here's £60k, just don't ask us where we put the people who can't save a fiver let alone 5% of a fuckin house"
Ok, disclaimer... No rishi fan here... But why such an uproar about DDay? Yah I get it, it's an important day and all, and he left early, but people are making our like he ate a puppy live on TV. Is it just a case of everyone is sick of him/them and this is a great excuse to pile in and sacrifice him at the alter to wipe the slate on the past few shitty years, or am I missing something?
People have stated the obvious but what got me was the lack off payoff he got from it. He viewed an ITV interview which wouldn't have taken him anywhere in the polls or gained him support over venerating those who gave everything for this country
The D-Day commemoration is essentially a mass-funeral of some of the bravest people who have served our country. Our freedom as a nation is largely in part due to these veterans. This will be the last time alive together for most of these people, and getting a bunch of 90 yo’s to a different country is no joke considering the mobility challenges - yet they still made the effort. The Prime Minister chose to leave early over spending his full time and attention paying his respects, to record a TV interview that he scheduled. Even Biden made it from the US at his age. The King stayed who has cancer. It’s so obviously insulting to our collective history in so many ways. I do not like Sunak but I can 100% say I’d mad if Starmer skipped the International event.
He ditched honouring veterans who (with their comrades) risked hell to bring freedom throughout Europe, causing some of them to physically burst into tears. Veterans who will not make it to the next milestone commemoration. And he did it for a prerecorded TV interview in order to repeat a lie about taxes. In doing so, it has shined a spotlight on his lack of morals, character, and competence. TLDR he has made a completely incomprehensible fuck up that makes him out to be an amoral, thick, lying, worm
Two things. Firstly, certain controversies in politics cut through because they reinforce what we already suspected about the person. In this case, it's "he's out of touch". But also this country is crazy about world war two and all that. It's part of the national myth - that we pluckily stood alone (with the commonwealth) against the Nazis, that we won and liberated Europe etc... There are poppies all over the place in November - just a few months ago this government wanted to make climbing on a war memorial a criminal offence. And to top it off, the people who cared most about it are his core base... And Keir Starmer ended up meeting a lot of world leaders (the kind of photo-op that politicians are desperate for). So the story has a lot of meat. I do think it'll blow over in a week or so - I doubt it'll carry on until the election.
The story won't carry on, but the fact that he did what he did will.
Being pm and leaving d day early is bad on it own. But he left d day early, during the biggest war in europe since ww2 when security was a core part of his campaign launched with a pledge to reinstate national service but the political opposition was the one photo'd rubbing shoulders with the leader of the invaded country. And for what? To do an interview on a day of his choosing. And his excuse was that he always planned to do an interview on d day before even calling the GE. Its a clusterfuck of a bad decision.
Yeah it's a terrible excuse haha... "But I already planned this gaffe in advance" Lmao
Whether or not the reaction was a bit much, what I can't believe is that he went back to campaigning rather than attend an event which would clearly be better for his campaign than anything else he had planned. It's the 80th anniversary of D-Day during the campaign period and he's invited to an event with ample opportunity to look Prime Ministerial and he somehow thinks that leaving early to do an ITV interview that can wait until tomorrow is the best course of action. Even from a purely cynical point of view, it's a mad decision. It's like someone awarded him a penalty kick and he somehow scored an own goal from it. Really brings his judgement in to question, completely unforced terrible decision.
Fantastic penalty > own goal analogy, lovely stuff
Two practical reasons, one mostly political. 1. It’s disrespectful to the veterans and the active armed forces. If you put your life on the line for the country then the least you expect is for your PM to turn up and read something. 2. It’s bad diplomacy. Our security and prosperity depends on good relationships with our allies, I expect my PM to take every opportunity to meet with them, make speeches alongside them etc. 3. It shows bad judgement. Turning down an amazing opportunity to look prime ministerial during an election campaign is just a bafflingly bad decision, and if he can’t see that then I don’t trust him to make other decisions well.
Yeah I guess it makes him look a little juvenile
1. He ignored the international ceremony which is a slap in the face to the French and Americans and all the allied soldiers that died. 2. It's the 80th anniversary which is a milestone, and it's likely the last milestone that veterans will be present at. 3. The fucking king, who has cancer, managed to stay for it despite being advised not to go. That shows him as being disinterested in the affairs of the country. 4. He missed the opportunity to get free publicity instead letting, of all people Cameron get it making David Cameron look more stately instead of the Prime Minister. Not to mention Starmer. He then decided to do a fucking interview that doesn't air for until a week after it was filmed as one of the things he'd rather do, again feeding into the disinterested criticism. All he had to do was stay for an afternoon, look statesmanlike and get the free publicity but what he did instead was look like an idiot which is hardly what you want when looking like an idiot is one of the criticisms of his campaign to that point and subsequently.
Didn't realise was 80th anniversary shit.
Yeah- 22 veterans in Normandy, 26 at Alrewas. Youngest obvs 96, mostly in 100s. 5 years time, few if any will attend, 10 yrs time, none. This was kind of the big farewell one.
He did kind of eat a puppy on live TV. I think people forget just how much this country venerates WW2 veterans. They’re genuinely like gods amongst the people who matter to the Tories
I think the issue is that he didn't realise *why* this would be bad. He was told it was optional, and believed that it actually was. It's like if you're going to somebody's house for dinner, and they say, *don't worry, you don't need to bring anything* and then you actually don't bring anything. You always need to bring something! And for a PM at a D-Day event, you always need to go to the 'optional' parts, especially during an election. It's just the ineptetude, the fact that he didn't realise, that is what is nuts.
Yeah I guess it plays into the vibe he's a bit of an internationalist with stronger ties to silicon valley etc
Or just that he's a dork
There’s two of you who don’t get it then
I get it I just feel like everyone is looking for a reason to write him off completely, and here we have it. Personally I wasn't even aware of the event despite having deep respect for it. Trying to pick apart if it's genuine offence or just people frothing at bad optics
It clearly shows that he doesn't prioritise a day that means a lot to a lot of peaople. In particular the people he has been trying to court with a big, grasping offer on defence and also the people that he desperately wants to keep from voting for reform. Away from any politics - imagine you're there, representing your country alongside many world leaders, in front of men who have few years left to live that fought to save your country and Europe. Big sombre occasion, lots of bugles and solemn reflection. I know I would be extremely moved by that occasion and it's pretty stunning to me that during that experience he was checking his watch and thinking about what he'd tell ITV.
Well when you put it like that someone like him should have clocked on
It's 2 days and it's basically free campaigning to the incumbent - standing next to the other world leaders. Plus it's going to be the last one with the actual surviving veterans being alive as they're in their late 90's now.
I think it's a lethal combination of bafflement and disappointment that has lead to it being such a large thing.
Imagine if Keir left early instead.
if skipping an event remembering one of the most significant events in modern European history is no big deal to you that is.
I'm rather enjoying these balmy summer evenings of Newsnight, late-night Tory briefings and gaffes, and opinion polls. I know it's serious stuff but I reckon we'll all look back on these days fondly at some point. It will warm our hearts during the cold nuclear winter.
Ooo’s avin a balmy evening? It’s chilly
I do love the fact there's an interview out that that'll come out soon and reignite the D-Day gaffe. So so so delicious.
Hilariously an MP made the claim in the last couple of days that everyone's already moved on from it since he apologised. All right then, I'll buy that. Let's see how that goes on Wednesday night.
What is it?
The ITV interview where he left them on the beach
The interview rishi dunkirked himself to go do with itv.
The ITV interview he did when he came back from the beaches airing on Wednesday.
Lib Dem’s being the pro EU party is a good political move. They lose very little of their base in the way that Labour or the tories would but have a large section of disaffected very pro EU supporters to gain from both parties. Also in the event we do get a Lib Dem opposition, it might be a good pressure point to push Labour towards closer ties. And on top of all of that, we know it’s a sure fire way to boost growth so the economic argument works. Good politics for a party who know they won’t be in government anyway
I agree as I want us to rejoin, but will be voting Labour this time and think that Labour are right to treat any talk about Brexit as electoral kryptonite for them this election cycle. But if the Lib Dems do well whilst being clear about being pro-rejoin then it really helps to open it up as a topic.
Missed the interview. How was it?
I think he actually did alright by rishi standards. Answered things quite clearly and for the most part kept his cool. What came out of his mouth was of course pure concentrated shit, but it was presented well. Nick Robinson was hard on him though, the questions were very accusing (and 100% right). Basically scolded him for half an hour
We have the best readers in the western world
Not just in the UK!
> We have the best readers in the western world Unfortunate for the Tories really - they’ll be able to read through their lies
Excellent from Nick. Rishi was flustered, repetitive and robotic. Very unconvincing. Not a total car crash though, just not good.
Tetchy
No change from normal then
The housing thing is all that's going to be remembered about that interview.
Iain Dale on his podcast teasing some embargoed news from Sunak's ITV interview that can't come out until midnight that is apparently awful for him I don't think he will announce it but is something to look out for
>Iain Dale on his podcast teasing some embargoed news from Sunak's ITV interview that can't come out until midnight that is apparently awful for him Midnight tonight or wednesday?
Beth Rigby presumably interviewing him about it 5 minutes after it airs as well. Wednesday evening is shaping up to be a cracking night of TV.
That Times story on Sunday said they were worried about the interview because he was challenged about his personal wealth
I read that too but what can that really be? We all know he's rich. Maybe he guessed a loaf of bread cost £5 or something
Unless it's something like this: "Hello Prime Minister, glad you could sit down with us" "No problem Paul, I had a full day today, just coming back from the D-Day event where I spent time with Macron and Scholz" Effectively, a now clear and obvious lie.
"Sunak re-enacting that Arrested Development bit" is a wonderful little capstone for his performance in the election.
RemindMe! 24 hours
Is this the interview that he left the d-day remembrance event early for?
Yup.
I really do hope there is something in there now. The idea of Sunak causing one crisis by unnecessarily leaving an event early to give an interview in which he creates another is just too beautiful.
It is more convincing an argument for intelligent design (not Rishi’s) than I ever have.
Midnight tonight?
I think so, he just said midnight, but that does seem late to release something so they might wait until later?
Embargoes would usually expire just past midnight (0001), I’d imagine whatever ‘it’ is, is embargoed until 0001 on Wednesday so will be the morning headlines that day.
Random stab in the dark. He storms out early
He has a bogie hanging out one nostril for the whole interview.
Its going to be him flippantly dismissing the fact he left d-day early to do their interview, I bet. It was filmed before the backlash hit. Something like "I feel its more important right now to set the record straight" or even worse.
> Its going to be him flippantly dismissing the fact he left d-day early to do their interview, I bet. Oh shit I think you're right. I think we're about to discover the biggest political mistake of the century was even worse than we thought.
That or he says a complete lie - such as being there with Macron & Scholz.
"Well, Paul, I have a huge amount of respect for all those soldiers that bravely gave their lives during D-Day. Right. Because I think that we actually share a lot of similarities. Fighting the good fight. Right. Doing my bit for the country. Up against the odds. Right. And my weapon in this fight, right, is the fact that Labour are going to be putting up the average working family's tax bill by £2,000."
"Hitler didn't get everything wrong"
So he's defecting to Reform?
He's definitely been sheepish since that interview, I've been wondering if there's something not so great in there
Watching the News Agents interview with Angela Rayner Fair to say we disagree a lot politically, but I can't help but like her as a person
I rarely feel that positively towards any politician, even ones I agree with. but I do like rayner, I like her policies, i like her sincerity, I like her attitude. She clearly has a great grasp on policy and details, but also the practicalities of what is necessary to deliver them, which is something too many politicians lack. take May, she talked a good game, but never understood words are just words, you then have to deliver the actual policy on the ground to make a difference. I really hope she does become PM one day. I think she'd be exceedingly good in the role.
She's one of those politicians I would love to hear from outside of the Party machine. They all have to say the lines, I get that, especially during an election. But I'd love to hear her talk more normally about what she wants to do in government.
Definitely the right idea for the LDs to get their manifesto out before Labour and the Tories. It's given them a day as the secondary story which for them is very good. Reform's economic policy announcement has been a total flop - didn't even have live reporting from the BBC and massively overshadowed by the Nazi apologist. I suspect we'll see similar reform nuttery exposed whenever they try and make headlines with policy.
My rough calculations of the situation in Chingford and Woodford Green: Electorate: 75,000 Predicted turnout: 68% (51000) Party Predictions: - Reform 10% - 5100 votes - Lib Dems 5% - 2600 votes - Green 2% - 1200 votes - Conservatives 30% - 15300 votes This leaves 53% (26800 votes) for Labour and Faiza Shaheen to fight over If Faiza gets 10% (5100 votes) Labour win with a majority of 6400 If Faiza gets 23% (11730 votes) IDS retains the seat by 230 votes If Faiza can get 30% or more then she obviously has a great chance of winning the seat.
I think it will be a complete mess like Ashfield, Clacton or Solihull Good luck to the candidates on getting 30% votes in these area, or maybe even 30% is good enough to win!!!
Over simplified, if Faiza is going to get close to winning she will take a lot of votes from green and Lib Dem and likely some voters who would otherwise not vote.
I adjusted the Green vote down accordingly from the electoral calculus page (3.7% to 2%) but gave the Lib Dems a boost because demographically the area is getting younger and more diverse.
It’s just unrealistic to think an independent (even a former labour candidate) will take all their votes from just Labour. Young and Diverse would also be a demographic she would need to dominate to do well in the seat.
Maybe, as I said, it is a rough calculation. The Lib Dems got 3138 votes here last time (5.7%) so I have them down from there.
Guess the follow up question is “is she likely to get anywhere close to that?” To be blunt, will she get thousands of people to vote for her? She’s made the news during a general election, that’s true, but what was her profile like in her constituency? Admittedly, I don’t live there, but I’d never heard of her before she was deselected. When you have previously elected MPs failing to get anywhere when they stand as Independents, why should she get anywhere?
I think it will be very difficult for her to get more than 10%. My feeling from talking to people is that only politically aware women and muslims are considering voting for her. She does have a lot of posters up but her supporters are more likely to be enthusiastic because they are supporting a 'hard done by' underdog.
Even 10% would be impressive. There were former MPs standing in their own constituency at the last election who didn’t even retain their deposit. Still, I’m gonna keep an eye on the results as they might be interesting.
The big difference is that her campaign is very well supported and get a lot resources by different groups (pro-Islam/momentum etc) in the same way Nigel Farage/Reform have in Clacton-on-Sea. Only difference is hard left vs hard right, and she mainly trying campaign on local issues and complaint labour etc (well, her bar chart.....). She is still pushing hard on her campaigns (to be completely fair， this is her political lifeline and it doesn't makes sense for her to just give up), I guess only time will tell
Voting for the Lib Dems for going after the theme park enthusiast vote
I am in ps megathread should replace the sentence from Alton Tower to Thorpe Park. It just literally happened 🤣🤣🤣
thoosies 4 ed single issue voting bloc entirely based around raising height restrictions in UK theme parks so we can have a B&M giga
Ed Davey: "I will allow Alton Towers to build their cross valley RMC hybrid coaster!" Lib Dem Majority of 650! Ed Davey knights himself supreme commander of the Second Great and Bountiful British Empire!
Legislation to ensure all new rollercoasters have a minimum of 10 seconds of air time.