UK General Election 2024

[AlterEgo]

For the avoidance of doubt, anything I say is general and not necessarily about any individual.

I would like to think that as long as everyone is respectful to each other, the bottom line is that it shouldn't overly matter.

Issues tend to arise where people haven't been respectfully which means that others similar to them are then treated with suspicion. Sometimes the general behaviour of some men (see example above of poor toileting skills) can cause significant suspicion of all men.

There was a recent trend on TikTok where the question was posed, would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods, a LOT of women said a bear as they'd feel safer! Some even suggested data backed up the reasoning behind this! (The data looked at the US, so the UK maybe different and is harder to compare as there's no wild bears).

The point of highlighting that is to highlight the mindset of at least some women (and potentially a greater number than we may think) when it comes to potentially sharing space with people they feel that way towards. With that potentially (and unfortunately) because of their personal experience, not least 1 in 5 being subject to some form of sexual assault (yes I'm aware that could be by women as well as men), it's not much better for men at 1 in 6 (which should be remembered can be from men, I dint know the data on the split, however I fear that I could guess that a noticeable amount it by men).

Obviously, there's a lot of complexity in this and the fact that certain people in the public sphere can say things like "grab a women by their..." without everyone condemning them certainly isn't helping matters.

Likewise I'm not suggesting that anyone reading this is personally doing those things (although if they are, they should reconsider their behaviour).

As I started by saying, it shouldn't matter if people are respectful, unfortunately too many are not and so it impacts how willing people are to share spaces.

This also means that it's far more complex to pick an answer for policy answers and why almost every politician will tangle themselves up when questioned on their views. Even when their first statement appears coherent (mostly as they'll have had time to prepare their answers).

This is the moral problem with generalisation. I've come to realise that if you replace "men" in the above text with "African people", "gay men", or "Muslims", it becomes quite fundamentally obvious bigotry. And this is before we come to the problem of deciding that trans women are "men".

We don't, as a society, call for the ghettoisation or segregation of some groups because of our "concerns" about them, even if those concerns are apparently backed up by data. This is because it's quite obviously morally wrong and the founding principle of two tier societies.

Of the above example, gay men might be the easiest to start with. Often, this is an invisible minority; you will often not know someone is gay unless they explicitly reveal this to you. I am sure if you gathered data about incidents where men were made to feel uncomfortable, or propositioned, or even assaulted, in men's toilets, you would find that gay or queer male perpetrators accounted for an outsize number of those incidents. Yet, we do not propose to ban gay men from toilets as collective punishment for the actions of some gay people. We might even say they should use the women's toilets, because you know, they're gay, and wouldn't assault a woman, right? This would be grossly unfair, undignified and humiliating. It would be rightly seen as an attack on gay people's rights to exist in public spaces and live full lives.

However, some people, like the Conservative Party in their manifesto, are proposing as a policy that trans women should be banned, as a class, from accessing the women's toilets - a space where, in fact, women only reveal their genitals in complete privacy, unlike the men's toilets. This includes "passing" trans women where I would need to actually tell you that person was trans - the solution, apparently, is for those people to use the men's toilets instead. But they don't belong there, and they certainly wouldn't be safer there.

Thankfully that policy will never be enacted, let alone be enforced, but the fact it is in there and was communicated to applause at the launch is just gross.

Trans women are already using women's toilets. They have been for a very long time. And a lot of them are doing so invisibly. (And trans men have been using the gents loos too!)

Time for a Self-ID law and to knock this on the head once and for all.

 

[nw1]

Sky news is commenting on latest YouGov poll taken Monday and Tuesday morning
Lib Dem, Reform, Greens all up
Labour & Conservatives both down

Politics latest: 'Just fill up as normal,' minister says - but she won't rule out fuel tax rise plan

The education secretary has insisted people should continue to "just fill up as normal", despite concerns that the Iran war may lead to fuel shortages. Follow the latest.

news.sky.com

So I guess the swing there is Lab to Lib Dem and Con to Reform.

I'd like the Lib Dems to do as well as possible, firstly they are the party which most closely aligns to my own beliefs and secondly it might convince Labour that we aren't all pro-Brexit anti-immigrationists and there are other political tendencies within the electorate.

I did notice a "funny" (?) defacement of a Lib Dem poster outside someone's house yesterday. A small paper note stuck on with sellotape below the "Winning here" strapline, reading "maybe... but losing everywhere else". Boom. Boom. Boom. Move over Ben Elton and John Cleese.

 

[DarloRich]

More stuff thrown at Farage today. Why? It plays right into Farage's hands...

Poor show. he didn't catch it. Straight at him as well.

( OBVIOUSLY: odious as Farage and his ilk are people shouldn't chuck stuff at them)

 

[dangie]

The problem with unisex facilities is that this usually means a lack of urinals, and the result is that every cubicle is splattered by gents who have a poor aim, which doesn't help to maintain hygiene.

We have a small Micro Pub near to us. It is our local. It’s been open 5/6 years. It is open 5 days a week and we go in on Wednesday & Saturday.

Due to its size it has only one toilet, to be used by both male & female customers.

In the years it has been open I’ve never once heard complaints about the cleanliness or ‘state of the toilet’. Whether this is because the clientele are mainly regulars who treat the facilities with respect, or maybe it’s because being a small Micro Micro pub which doesn’t sell lager it doesn’t attract the Wetherspoons brigade.

Keeping toilets clean isn’t difficult, it’s people who are the problem.

Note: I’m not complaining at all about Wetherspoons, just some of its customers.

 

[AlterEgo]

So I guess the swing there is Lab to Lib Dem and Con to Reform.

I'd like the Lib Dems to do as well as possible, firstly they are the party which most closely aligns to my own beliefs and secondly it might convince Labour that we aren't all pro-Brexit anti-immigrationists and there are other political tendencies within the electorate.

The Lib Dems have proposed re-entry to the Single Market, which at least makes them a compelling alternative to Boring Labour who have decided the status quo is broadly fine and the regime just needs different management.

 

[jfollows]

Grant Shapps is making utterly odious comments his morning; it's indicative of how desperate the Conservatives have moved to wanting to reduce the size of the Labour majority rather than trying to win the election, which we kind of knew all along.

Odious because if you change the context of his comments to refer to the huge majority the Conservatives got in 2019 it's hypocritical. He's trying to make out that a "really big" majority bigger than this would in some way be bad for the country, whereas a "little bit big" majority along the lines of the Conservative one is in some way OK.

There's no difference. The Conservative majority in 2019 allowed them to do what they wanted. And now they can be judged on that. The country probably wants a huge majority against them; I know some people here are wary of this but as far as I'm concerned, the bigger the majority that Labour gets, the better.

He's reported at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ries-labour-green-party-manifesto-uk-politics:

In this case, of course, the concern would be that if Keir Starmer were to go into No 10 – it will either be Rishi Sunak, or Keir Starmer there’s no other outcomes to this election – and that power was in some way unchecked, it would be very bad news for people in this country.
A blank cheque approach allowing someone to do anything they wanted, particularly when their particular set of plans are so vague, and they say ‘change’, but you have no idea what they actually want to change to, other than the fact that they’ve outlined plans which would cost £2,094 to every working family in this country.
It’s perfectly legitimate to say the country doesn’t function well when you get majorities the size of Blair’s or even bigger and we would say there are a lot of very good, hardworking MPs who can hold the government of the day to account and we’d say those are Conservative MPs.

The blank cheque of "get Brexit done" turned into a disaster of a "hard Brexit" because they could do it with impunity.

 

[skyhigh]

Grant Shapps is making utterly odious comments his morning; it's indicative of how desperate the Conservatives have moved to wanting to reduce the size of the Labour majority rather than trying to win the election, which we kind of knew all along.

I think he's just trying to save his own seat, which is now predicted to be pretty close run.

 

[jfollows]

I think he's just trying to save his own seat, which is now predicted to be pretty close run.

Of course he is, most of them are.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think he's just trying to save his own seat, which is now predicted to be pretty close run.

That’s about it I think. Watching the squabbling and scrambling has been entertaining. They’ve deserved this.

 

[skyhigh]

In other news, the first clips of Sunak's ITV interview have surfaced, and he appears to apologise for being late to the interview as the D-Day celebrations "ran over".

x.com

x.com

‘It was incredible, but it just ran over. Apologies for keeping you’
@RishiSunak
sits down for an interview with
@PaulBrandITV
last week after leaving D-Day events in France early Watch full interview on the Tonight programme on ITV at 7pm

 

[DarloRich]

it's indicative of how desperate the Conservatives have moved to wanting to reduce the size of the Labour majority rather than trying to win the election,

Ther ehas been a less than subtle change in messaging since the D-Day fiasco. It is now about the "damage" Labour will do with a big majority.

Damage like changing the voting system to keep the Tories out for ever.

Nope - not seeing a problem

I think he's just trying to save his own seat, which is now predicted to be pretty close run.

They all are. Rats fighting in a sack.

That’s about it I think. Watching the squabbling and scrambling has been entertaining. They’ve deserved this.

For the first time normal people are openly mocking the Tories. It is great to see.

 

[dangie]

The Labour manifesto is published tomorrow

How’s this for an idea?

When General Elections are upcoming, only the opposition parties publish a manifesto outlining their intentions should they get into government.

The existing government has had the previous five years (or more) to carry out their previous manifesto. Did they carry it out or not? That is what they should be judged on, not the promises of what they may or may not do in the future. After all, if they didn’t satisfy the last one, will they satisfy the next one?

 

[AlterEgo]

How’s this for an idea?

When General Elections are upcoming, only the opposition parties publish a manifesto outlining their intentions should they get into government.

So an incumbent party cannot actually tell voters what they plan on doing if re-elected?

 

[jfollows]

How’s this for an idea?

When General Elections are upcoming, only the opposition parties publish a manifesto

No, because we need the fun of seeing the party in power promising all sorts of bribes which - until the election was called - it refused to do on the grounds of ideology or affordability or something else. And I think most voters know this.

 

[dangie]

So an incumbent party cannot actually tell voters what they plan on doing if re-elected?

Yes I see that, so let me change it slightly.
They publish a manifesto for the next five years, along with the manifesto they gave five years ago.
The public can then judge them on their promises.

 

[dosxuk]

That’s about it I think. Watching the squabbling and scrambling has been entertaining. They’ve deserved this.

It feels like the party is now trying to work out how to survive rather than win.

The best bit is the desperation setting in meaning they're attempting to cosy up to Farage and him just out right rejecting their advances.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's no difference. The Conservative majority in 2019 allowed them to do what they wanted. And now they can be judged on that. The country probably wants a huge majority against them; I know some people here are wary of this but as far as I'm concerned, the bigger the majority that Labour gets, the better.

Of course if Grant Shapps and the Tories were really concerned about single parties getting huge majorities in Parliament, they could always support the obvious remedy... proportional representation

 

[WesternLancer]

So I guess the swing there is Lab to Lib Dem and Con to Reform.

I'd like the Lib Dems to do as well as possible, firstly they are the party which most closely aligns to my own beliefs and secondly it might convince Labour that we aren't all pro-Brexit anti-immigrationists and there are other political tendencies within the electorate.

I did notice a "funny" (?) defacement of a Lib Dem poster outside someone's house yesterday. A small paper note stuck on with sellotape below the "Winning here" strapline, reading "maybe... but losing everywhere else". Boom. Boom. Boom. Move over Ben Elton and John Cleese.

I’m afraid that as far as I’m concerned the Lib Dem’s have their fingerprints on many of the problems we now face as a direct result of their naive decision to go into formal coalition with Cameron’s conservatives in 2010.

Almost certainly the reason for their electoral drubbing in 2015.

The Tories were in a good position to bring about the destruction of the Lib Dem’s and did so. The Lib Dem’s walked straight into the trap it seems to me.

 

[jfollows]

Labour says it will "urgently consider" stripping Avanti West Coast of its operating contract if it wins the election.

I don't believe it will, or at least the consideration won't come to anything, it's just electioneering noise. But I can always hope.

Louise Haigh reported at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ries-labour-green-party-manifesto-uk-politics:

Our commitment is to bring in those contracts as they expire or when they are breached.
I anticipate I will be seeking advice early on whether Avanti has been in breach of its contract given the woeful service that it’s been providing to passengers down the West Coast Main Line.
No ifs, no buts, October 2026 will be the last date Avanti will have notice of that contract [ending] but I will ask for early advice about whether they have already breached their contract and whether it can be brought in any earlier.

 

[nw1]

I’m afraid that as far as I’m concerned the Lib Dem’s have their fingerprints on many of the problems we now face as a direct result of their naive decision to go into formal coalition with Cameron’s conservatives in 2010.

Almost certainly the reason for their electoral drubbing in 2015.

The Tories were in a good position to bring about the destruction of the Lib Dem’s and did so. The Lib Dem’s walked straight into the trap it seems to me.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure whether one should judge the Lib Dems by their actions from 2010-15 (and I was also disappointed by this). That is now the past, and the chief architect Clegg is now long gone.

Labour also have a bad mark against them in the form of the Iraq war, so essentially both main alternatives to the Tories have a blemished record within the 21st century.

 

[WesternLancer]

Perhaps, but I'm not sure whether one should judge the Lib Dems by their actions from 2010-15 (and I was also disappointed by this). That is now the past.

Labour also have a bad mark against them in the form of the Iraq war, so essentially both main alternatives to the Tories have a blemished record within the 21st century.

Yes, I see your point about that - and it's a reasonable point to make.

It just seems to me now (as it did then) that the Lib Dems then leadership must have known that the majority of their vote was from progressive minded people - yet they went into formal co-alition with a party that embraced austerity without any consideration of the long term impact, and also stitched the lib dems up on the referendum about PR. This sowed the seeds for their own demise. Their vote then evaporated.

The lib dems would have been well advised to have avoided coalition but perhaps engaged in a minority government supporting what they felt was supportable, but voting against where appropriate. I think we would have been in a better position today had they done so.

IMHO many of our problems also stem from Cameron's decision to promise a referendum on the EU for no other reason than to assuage a faction within his own party. The lib dem collapse in 2015 allowed that to happen more easily.

The Iraq war is / was an issue for Labour. But it was not the reason they lost the election in 2010.

 

[JamesT]

Yes, I see your point about that - and it's a reasonable point to make.

It just seems to me now (as it did then) that the Lib Dems then leadership must have known that the majority of their vote was from progressive minded people - yet they went into formal co-alition with a party that embraced austerity without any consideration of the long term impact, and also stitched the lib dems up on the referendum about PR. This sowed the seeds for their own demise. Their vote then evaporated.

The lib dems would have been well advised to have avoided coalition but perhaps engaged in a minority government supporting what they felt was supportable, but voting against where appropriate. I think we would have been in a better position today had they done so.

IMHO many of our problems also stem from Cameron's decision to promise a referendum on the EU for no other reason than to assuage a faction within his own party. The lib dem collapse in 2015 allowed that to happen more easily.

The Iraq war is / was an issue for Labour. But it was not the reason they lost the election in 2010.

One thing people seem to forget is that in 2010, _all_ the major parties were offering austerity. The LibDem manifesto ( https://www.markpack.org.uk/files/2015/01/Liberal-Democrat-manifesto-2010.pdf ) had this bit:

The health of the economy depends on the health of the country’s finances.
Public borrowing has reached unsustainable levels, and needs to be brought
under control to protect the country’s economic future.
A Liberal Democrat government will be straight with people about the tough
choices ahead. Not only must waste be eliminated, but we must also be bold
about finding big areas of spending that can be cut completely. That way we
can control borrowing, protect the services people rely on most and still fi nd
some money to invest in building a fair future for everyone.
We have already identified over £15 billion of savings in government spending
per year, vastly in excess of the £5 billion per year that we have set aside
for additional spending commitments. All our spending commitments will be
funded from this pool of identified savings, with all remaining savings used to
reduce the deficit.

Labour were also talking about cutting spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said hefty tax rises and Whitehall spending cuts of 25% were in prospect during the six-year squeeze lasting until 2017 that would follow the chancellor's "treading water" budget yesterday.

The LibDems may be generally more progressive than the Tories, but that doesn't mean there aren't areas of agreement. Both parties campaigned on abolishing Labour's ID Cards scheme for example.

A confidence and supply agreement rather than a coalition may have avoided the subsequent electoral meltdown, but being in coalition did allow the LibDems to implement some of their policies, which they almost certainly couldn't have done in opposition. The coalition was also the only likely stable government available, I doubt anything else would have lasted the full five years.

 

[nw1]

The lib dems would have been well advised to have avoided coalition but perhaps engaged in a minority government supporting what they felt was supportable, but voting against where appropriate. I think we would have been in a better position today had they done so.

IMHO many of our problems also stem from Cameron's decision to promise a referendum on the EU for no other reason than to assuage a faction within his own party. The lib dem collapse in 2015 allowed that to happen more easily.

I completely agree with both points - but I think we should judge the current Lib Dems by their actions since Clegg was replaced, which have generally been a lot better.

The coalition was a mistake, though I put this down mostly to the blind ambition and lack of principles of Clegg, one of the worst Lib Dem leaders I can remember. A minority Cameron government with the Lib Dems being given a free reign to oppose where appropriate would have been very much better. Ironically such a minority government would have probably ended up being less economically right-wing than the coalition, as many of its less palatable bills would have been defeated - while less controversial ones would have gone through.

 

[JonathanH]

I think he's just trying to save his own seat, which is now predicted to be pretty close run.

Welwyn Hatfield very much went red in 1997 against a long standing incumbent and I think would be expected to do so again.

 

[nw1]

Welwyn Hatfield very much went red in 1997 against a long standing incumbent and I think would be expected to do so again.

So the "Shapps moment" could be this year's Portillo moment, I guess.

 

[Sorcerer]

Just had a quick gander (so not in full detail) at some of the Green Party manifesto. Some decent ideas such as introducing proportional representation:

Elected Greens will also push for:

• Replacing the first past the post system for parliamentary elections with a fair and proportional voting system.

And I'm glad to see that they've dropped their opposition to NATO, but many are also still rooted in idealism rather than reality such as cancelling Trident and other anti-nuclear weapon policies.

Nuclear weapons and NATO

Most of the world’s countries do not possess weapons of mass destruction and are safer as a result.

Elected Greens will:

• Push for the UK to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and following this to immediately begin the process of dismantling our nuclear weapons, cancelling the Trident programme and removing all foreign nuclear weapons from UK soil.
• Work with international partners to enlarge membership of the TPNW and ensure that all states meet their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Green Party recognises that NATO has an important role in ensuring the ability of its member states to respond to threats to their security. We would work within NATO to achieve:

• A greater focus on global peacebuilding.
• A commitment to a ‘No First Use’ of nuclear weapons.

Along with the typical misinformation about nuclear energy such as calling it dangerous (it's not) which leads to levels of waste that are unmanageable (it doesn't) and is inextricably linked with production of nuclear weapons (maybe? Still not a good reason to be against it regardless).

Nuclear power

We want to see the phase-out of nuclear energy, which is unsafe and much more expensive than renewables. The development of nuclear power stations is too slow given the pace of action we need on climate. They also create unmanageable quantities of radioactive waste and are inextricably linked with the production of nuclear weapons.

No mention of HS2 in the transport policy.

 

[Howardh]

Poor little Rishi
Didn‘t have a dishy
Poor little Rishi
Won’t have his wishy
When the vote comes in

He had OnDigital.


Like me! Actually it was a great system, making Sky Sports available without a dish and engineers coming to set it all up. Pity they overstretched themselves by buying football rights for too high a price, which sent them under if I recall.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2024 ==

Poor show. he didn't catch it. Straight at him as well.

( OBVIOUSLY: odious as Farage and his ilk are people shouldn't chuck stuff at them)

People seem to be quite happy to throw £25 at him!! Obvs I'm not condoning any assault on anyone, MP or otherwise. But he does seem to attract it, wonder why?

 

[JonathanH]

Some decent ideas

Yes, one of the most eye-catching on tax from the Greens is the removal of the upper earnings limit for National Insurance, along with a wide ranging carbon tax. Getting a dialogue going on ways to bring in more revenue would be a good contribution from the Green Party.

 

[Gloster]

So the "Shapps moment" could be this year's Portillo moment, I guess.

Oh, let’s hope for some bigger scalps than that.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Oh, let’s hope for some bigger scalps than that.

And more!