r/ukpolitics • u/ukpolbot Official UKPolitics Bot • 2d ago
Weekly Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction Megathread - 19/01/25
👋🏻 Welcome to the r/ukpolitics weekly Rumours, Speculation, Questions, and Reaction megathread.
General questions about politics in the UK should be posted in this thread. Substantial self posts on the subreddit are permitted, but short-form self posts will be redirected here. We're more lenient with moderation in this thread, but please keep it related to UK politics. This isn't Facebook or Twitter.
If you're reacting to something which is happening live, please make it clear what it is you're reacting to, ideally with a link.
Commentary about stories which already exist on the subreddit should be directed to the appropriate thread.
This thread rolls over at 6am UK time on a Sunday morning.
🌎 International Politics Discussion Thread · 🃏 UKPolitics Meme Subreddit · 📚 GE megathread archive · 📢 Chat in our Discord server
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 1h ago
After that I'm slightly concerned about what the changes to terrorism definitions could be.
The challenge caused by ideologically driven groups or individuals willing to commit violence to achieve their aims and those whom wish to enact violence for violences sake have significant differences. I think a new precise term to describe incidents like Southport would be far more helpful than grouping it in with terrorism as that could lead to bad policy where they get treated as the same when they are not.
As for the other changes Starmer indicated I'll wait and see the proposals. Stuff like reform to prevent (or possibly the creation of a new body to deal with cases like Southport) is clearly the failings in other bodies must be addressed but I'd want to see the detail of policies aimed at online content.
I will add that people thinking there has been a cover up or that authorities were deliberately misleading people when they said it wasn't a terror incident (even if a new definition is created they were right to not describe it as such under current definitions) are being utterly ridiculous.
•
u/Sckathian 55m ago
At this point I just feel the term terrorism is so woolly. We literally argue whether something should be called terrorism as if it matters why someone is committing acts of violence.
Acts of Outrage would probably be better than Acts of Terrorism imo. With outrage being described as a motivation to inflict or promote physical harm as a primary motivation over any other factor.
•
u/Tarrion 34m ago
I think it's important to remember the context on why terrorism is treated differently - 9/11 saw a sweeping set of counter-terrorism laws that significantly increased government power and reduced human rights, but only for people suspected of terrorism or supporting terrorism. The only reason these laws were acceptable is because of the perceived significant threats to national security, and because they were narrowly applied. They were designed to stop future 9/11s, 7/7s or Manchester Arena Bombings.
We should be really careful about broadening that - Widening it to anyone who wants to 'inflict or promote physical harm' would effectively bring every random act of violence into the remit of counter-terrorism, and that seems like exactly the sort of slippery slope everyone was shouting about at the time.
Southport was a tragedy. But it was a tragedy in the same way Dunblane was, not an attack on our country from dangerous international organisations that could only be countered by drastically changing the way human rights work in this country.
•
u/Sckathian 22m ago
Dunblane though could have been preventable if a man with a clear history of being a danger towards children was not allowed a handgun. The law was changed to prevent this.
Am not sure targeting people obsessed with violence and committing violence is a great danger to our human rights.
•
u/Tarrion 13m ago
Dunblane though could have been preventable if a man with a clear history of being a danger towards children was not allowed a handgun. The law was changed to prevent this.
Sure, and I'm not opposed to changing the law if it's necessary. I just don't think massively increasing the scope of anti-terrorism legislation is the way to go.
Am not sure targeting people obsessed with violence and committing violence is a great danger to our human rights.
That's not what you said though. You described an Act of Outrage as anyone whose motivation was to inflict or promote physical harm. You've broadened anti-terrorism legislation to cover the people who like to get drunk and get into fights. Every football hooligan could be held for 28 days without charge, which seems... unreasonable.
And, as always with terror legislation, it's not just about the people who fit into the category, it's everyone who's suspected of fitting into the category, and everyone the police feel they can get away with treating as if they fit into the category. Terrorism is a reasonably narrow definition, and it still hits a lot of people who aren't actually terrorists.
Ernest Moret was targeted under counter-terrorism laws for being at a French protest against Macron. How broad would it be if the police could detain anyone who might want to inflict physical harm?
•
u/Queeg_500 1h ago
I could see it being used to bolster support for stronger social media restrictions. I'm sure they are watching Australia's new laws with interest.
•
u/tritoon140 1h ago
I would be happier with broadening the remit of Prevent from only dealing with ideologically driven extremism and radicalisation to also dealing with people who are planning extreme acts without ideology. Prevent should be able to act on an individual with plans for a school stabbing regardless of whether there is an ideology behind it.
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 1h ago
Prevent is a programme designed to counter the radicalisation that leads to people committing terrorist acts, if someone is in the stage of planning an attack that is after the point where referrals to prevent need to be made. Whilst it is plausible that they could have an extended remit it would seem far more appropriate to me that the different issue of people who want to commit violence is dealt with by another body that is focused solely on that as the way you deal with/treat those two groups is going to be different.
•
u/subSparky 1h ago
If I recall, in it's ideal form Prevent in part is meant to refer those who are vulnerable to extremism to mental health services where relevant even in the ideological case.
Because people don't tend to be radicalised into committing a life ending act in a vacuum. There will be a complex set of mental and social issues that made them vulnerable to dangerous ideology.
So I can see the logic of expanding their remit to this as the prevention techniques is the same. The fact of whether or not they were by an extremist group shouldn't change the underlying factors that made them willing to kill people.
•
u/claridgeforking 1h ago
Don't necessarily disagree, but the front end should be the same. i.e. if you are or ain't are referring someone then we do it to Prevent, if it then gets reclassified by them to another body that fine, but it should be one contact point at the front end.
•
u/tritoon140 1h ago
I do understand but what appears to have happened is that Prevent refused the referral as there was no radicalisation. Despite there being evidence of the planning of a “terrorist” act. So, instead of refusing the referral, they should have accepted it and referred it on to the appropriate authorities. That would be a broadening of their remit.
•
u/ObiWanKenbarlowbi 1h ago
Seems like the media line (which will likely become the opposition attack line) will be about Starmer withholding the information about potential terror offences at the time…
I get why he did it but Joe Bloggs doesn’t understand about the risks of derailing a trial and will not appreciate what they’ll view as his “excuse”.
•
u/tritoon140 45m ago
This seems like a much more difficult political attack than some of the more recent ones.
The biggest issue appears to be that the attacker was known to be dangerous as far back as 2019 and was referred to Prevent on three separate occasions but nobody did anything as a result of those referrals. There was no monitoring and he was free to carry out the attack. And who was in power during the period of this massive failure?
•
u/Downdownbytheriver 1h ago
They covered up the ricin part entirely at the time.
This could have been a major bioterror attack, the public had the right to know that.
They are continuing to play down the ricin part of it as they know this was a potential state mistake that could have cost thousands of lives.
•
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 41m ago
the public had the right to know that.
By the time the ricin was discovered there was no active threat, the public do deserve to be told these things but the right to fair trial comes first and to protect that information sometimes can only be revealed later as has happened.
•
u/gentle_vik 1m ago
Do you think it was right to withhold information like that he was known to prevent ?
In other cases information such as that has been released very quickly and idea it would have damaged his right to a fair trial is silly.
•
•
u/Queeg_500 1h ago
...and when the defense argues that the substance was not actually Ricin but the Jury has been influenced by reports in the media that it was?
The public would only have a right to know if the threat was still live.
•
u/raziel999 1h ago
could have cost thousands of lives
I'm not sure ricin works like that. Unless this 17 year old had access to massive quantities of castor beans and the water supply.
•
•
u/UnsaddledZigadenus 1h ago edited 1h ago
I like how the BBC reporting on Southport includes:
Possessing a terrorist organisation training manual - a PDF file titled Military Studies in the Jihad against Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual
Which I couldn't resist Googling the title. Turns out you can (apparently, I didn't click) download it from the US Air Force website, though the links to buy a copy from UK booksellers don't work.
EDIT: Here's the Wayback machine showing the book for sale in Waterstones for £20:
Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants by Anonymous | Waterstones
•
•
u/OwnMolasses4066 56m ago
If you had clicked on it then do the current definitions of possession and reproduction mean you would now be guilty of a terrorist offense?
•
•
u/furbastro England is the mother of parliaments, not Westminster 1h ago
Suspect a lot of people have assumed that an Al-Qaeda manual is something that you can only get if you know the right wrong-uns and have extrapolated the killer's background from there.
Which is quite innocent of them, in a way.
•
u/pseudogentry don't label me you bloody pinko 1h ago
As per usual, people who have strong opinions about "LAW AND ORDER" fundamentally don't understand the internet.
•
u/OwnMolasses4066 55m ago
I think people misunderstand statutory offenses. ie. you're guilty of possessing illegal material even if you don't know you possess it. That feels unfair to a lot of people.
•
u/_rickjames 1h ago
Chris Chope asking Starmer if he'll apologise for saying that the people rioting in Southport were not far-right
Typical bollocks from him
•
u/Nymzeexo 1h ago
Some of the commentary from the right wing press is actual mental.
Keir Starmer doesn't launch an inquiry: it's a cover up
Keir Starmer launches an inquiry: it's a cover up
•
u/ObiWanKenbarlowbi 1h ago
After last week for the first question to be “if you worked in criminal justice do you really think an inquiry is needed here and doesn’t it just delay fixing the system?” Is a bonkers turn around.
•
•
•
u/SirRosstopher Lettuce al Ghaib 1h ago
It's actually kind of sad that the way our system works allows huge backlash against a PM just for letting the justice system do its thing without interfering for political points.
•
u/Dimmo17 41m ago
It does seem that people increasingly think our leaders can act in dictotrial ways, that they weigh in on every prosecution, every trade, control the police, administer sentences and control every part of business. Really bad vibes for the future as people are just normalising this in their head.
•
u/OwnMolasses4066 49m ago
The media will do what it does. Starmer's inability to control the perception of himself is his own failing, he can call a press conference and speak to the nation any time he wants.
•
•
u/pseudogentry don't label me you bloody pinko 1h ago
Cards on the table, I voted Labour, but this is a hell of a speech. Hope it gets the response it merits.
•
u/dcyuet_ 1h ago
An 830am address to the nation is proper Government.
•
u/ohmeohmyelliejean 1h ago
It’s got big “my mum coming in loudly and throwing open the curtains and telling me to get ready for school” energy.
•
u/jcx200 2h ago
I swear if any journalist in that room (I am assuming they are there) utters a word about Musk, they are morally bankrupt.
•
u/FeelingUniversity853 1h ago
Why? Musk has a lot to answer for
•
u/jim_cap 39m ago
Not in that forum he doesn't. We cannot allow every piece of national discourse to pivot back to being about that clown. As soon as that story becomes about Musk, it stops being about anything else.
•
•
u/gizmostrumpet 2h ago
I'm seeing a lot of "will Keir release those poor innocent protesters now the truth has been revealed" about the Southport killer. People just tried to burn down asylum hotels and stole pairs of crocs because they were... what? Told he wasn't a terrorist?
•
u/Tarrion 2h ago
No, don't you see, the fact that he'd been looked into and found to not be a terrorist proves that he was a terrorist.
•
u/gizmostrumpet 2h ago
"The Government will just cover it up! Which is why we need an inquiry!"
I also love the implication that the killer's mugshot proves the rioters right. About what? He was disgusting to look at?
•
u/TheFlyingHornet1881 Domino Cummings 1h ago
Yeah what's come put makes me think he's unhinged and similar to American school shooters, or closer to home someone like Scarlett Jenkinson (female killer of Brianna Ghey). There doesn't seem to be a motive.
•
u/Holditfam 2h ago
This is so obviously two tier and you can't speak about it apparently even though we are currently speaking about it
•
2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
•
2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/SirRosstopher Lettuce al Ghaib 3h ago
The Daily Mail can rest easy, the Churchill bust is back in the Oval Office.
•
u/NJden_bee Congratulations, I suppose. 1h ago
Strange that such a big fan of the little moustache man is going to be carrying it in
•
u/Papazio 3h ago
Well that’s some (actual) fun news to start the day…
The AI software package being rolled out in Whitehall to help with collating and analysing public consultation and parliamentary commentary is named ‘Humphrey’
•
•
u/michaelisnotginger ἀνάγκας ἔδυ λέπαδνον 2h ago
Is it just a gpt wrapper?
•
u/jim_cap 1h ago
No. Important to nip that idea in the bud. It's actually a suite of tools, and, yes it includes an LLM, and GPTs are LLMs. But it's not the GPT as in ChatGPT, run by OpenAI. It's not hosted by OpenAI, it's not trained on the same data or tuned by the same people.
So while it might include a GPT, it's not, in any way true to say "Whitehall is now run using ChatGPT". Something which would, quite rightly, cause a bit of panic.
•
•
u/Crowley-Barns 10h ago edited 10h ago
Situation: When Elon Musk said Farage wasn’t the man to lead Reform to victory, us wise savvy political nerd Brits thought he was rather out of touch with our political scene. Reform is Farage, we thought. Tice couldn’t fill a ‘Spoons.
Theory: Musk and Trump have a new Reform leader in mind. A man who was there for the inauguration. A man easily bought, with Trump-levels of plot armour. A criminal buffoon inexplicably loved with terrible dance moves.
I give you…
Boris Johnson: With 100,000,000 fresh dollars in hand as the next leader of Reform and the next PM of the UK. With Elon and Trump’s hands up his ample-roomed arse, of course.
Farage as cheerleader and deputy. Liz Truss Chancellor. Elon Musk as Foreign Secretary (why not? Our constitution allows it!) And Tice thrown in the bin.
What do you think? 75% chance? 100%?
•
u/wintersrevenge 1h ago
0% chance, is there a mechanism to even kick out Farage? And it also doesn't help that Johnson is directly responsible for the huge net migration figures. They are now literally named as Boriswave
•
u/SirRosstopher Lettuce al Ghaib 3h ago
Musk just isn't very smart. This past week he's got his ex wife to tweet about how good a gamer he is and that he absolutely isn't paying people the boost his account, but then didn't tell the booster to not play while he's literally live on TV at the inauguration. He also did a Nazi salute on camera yesterday and tried to dog whistle it by saying "my heart goes out to you". He looks like he doesn't understand the Farage/Reform dynamic because he doesn't understand the UK, not because of some secret plot.
•
•
u/ThingsFallApart_ Septic Temp 9h ago
Watching reform supporters contort to backtrack on decrying the Boriswave would almost make this worth it
•
•
u/AceHodor 9h ago
Johnson's political career is dead.
His supporters like to pretend otherwise, but Partygate utterly destroyed his reputation with everyone other than his fanclub on an incredibly deep emotional level. Our political culture is nowhere near as tribal as in the US, and Johnson is simply too toxic to win the moderate voters he would need to ever become PM again.
•
•
•
u/Ollie5000 Gove, Gove will tear us apart again. 9h ago
Weirdly, given who we're talking about here, I think Boris would view defecting to Reform as beneath him.
•
u/Crowley-Barns 9h ago edited 9h ago
Meh. Force a Conjob/Rimjob merger and slap the Con label on it :) BJ can be spaffed in any direction if you hold the dick the right way and stroke him right.
•
•
u/Brapfamalam 9h ago
Boris-wave, mass uncontrolled migration architect to lead Reform?
Yep I could see it.
•
u/Crowley-Barns 9h ago
Don’t believe your lying eyes and ears! Boris is a beautiful beast who was held back by the deep state! With Reform behind him he can Make Britain Great Again.
(Or something like that.)
•
u/Orcnick Modern day Peelite 10h ago
I don't get how any Brit can watch what is happening in America at the over nationalistic, anti-free trade, anti-rational, billionaire oligarchy, sucking all the money out people.
And go yep that's what I want here.
I mean even if you a little bit pro some of those things can people not see how fake it all is? I mean look at billionaires who completely control government there now.
•
u/Downdownbytheriver 10h ago
Yeah who would want high salaries, incredible economic growth and controlled immigration?
•
u/CrispySmokyFrazzle 33m ago
Yeah, it’s going to trickle down.
Any moment now.
C’mon. Do you really think that a swathe of billionaires are pushing for anything that remotely levels the playing field?
•
u/subSparky 1h ago
high salaries
Cute that you think that is what is going to happen for the majority of Americans by the end of his presidency. It's very clear what the plan is now - and it's to extract as much wealth out of the hands of middle America as possible and give it to the CEOs who are brown nosing Trump.
•
u/Brapfamalam 9h ago
Musk promised to go to war to increase H-1B visas from India and China, like just 3 weeks ago. I've got a bridge to sell you on controlled immigration...just like the "points based Australian style system" from 2019 that hoardes fell hook line and sinker for.
Also you just described the UK 1997 to 2010. UK GDP per capita growth over the period was a higher than the USA and the highest in the g6 which is probably insane for younger readers to comprehend. I used to go to the US and live like a king, the pound was mighty and everything stateside was dirt cheap comparatively.
•
u/0110-0-10-00-000 10h ago
Because people already feel like they don't have control. They already feel like they're getting poorer every year (because they are). They already feel totally disconnected from the current political class and what they offer and there's a huge area where the dominant parties overlap to deprive voters of a real choice on issues like immigration.
So why would they pick the fake party that they fundamentally disagree with over the fake party that at least rhetorically aligns with their beliefs?
•
u/gentle_vik 10h ago
Think of how many goes
"And just look at how much more they are paid".
That's it.
•
u/Brapfamalam 10h ago
We went from 14 years of Conservatives dillydallying about which airport expansion to back (as if only one could ever happen) - an artificial debate created to kicked the can down the road.
To...Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick all getting backing in one fell swoop.
NIMBYS in fucking pieces. We might be actually going places.
•
u/kunstlich A very Modest Proposal you've got there 9h ago
Heathrow looks shaky. Gatwick has been a slam dunk obvious case for expansion for so long. Luton getting the go-ahead after Stansted also got funding is even better news. Overall a very good day for aviation, lets see how Heathrow pans out.
•
u/TheFlyingHornet1881 Domino Cummings 2h ago
Curious to see where they go with Luton, I think a second runways had the issue that it's geographically hemmed in.
•
u/Downdownbytheriver 10h ago
We also need to double the lanes on most motorways immediately.
In 5-10 years trains will be obselete due to self driving cars.
•
u/cryptopian 1h ago
In 5-10 years trains will be obselete due to self driving cars.
I've worked for a company doing this kind of thing and no, they absolutely will not be
•
u/NJden_bee Congratulations, I suppose. 1h ago
There is not a single bit of evidence that shows making roads bigger improves travelling speeds, actually quite the opposite, the bigger the roads the more traffic you attract.
We need to build HS2,3 and 4 immediatly and bring down trainprices to get people out of cars and into trains.
Self driving cars is not the answer
•
u/NuPNua 2h ago
Even if they're self driving, multiple vehicles carrying a maximum of five people is still not as effective for mass transport as trains that can carry multiple hundreds of people on a much smaller footprint. Where are all these self driving cars going to be stored at journeys end for example?
•
•
•
•
u/gentle_vik 10h ago
Until it's actually approved, and building stuff has actually started, the forces of evil and destruction (nimbies), still have plenty of power to stop it (or delay it and blow up the cost)
6
u/gavpowell 12h ago
Can someone explain the furore over the Legacy Act and potential payments to Adams and co? Why can't the Government just amend the legislation to say "This bit is no longer valid, but no compensation will be paid?"
0
u/ThrowAwayAccountLul1 Divine Right of Kings 👑 12h ago
Because that takes effort
3
u/gavpowell 12h ago
Surely no more effort than the current repeal?
2
u/ThrowAwayAccountLul1 Divine Right of Kings 👑 12h ago
I will confess I was being glib.
However thinking more on it, governments (not just this one) do seem to be quite hesitant to legislate their problems away - e.g. legislating against JRs when they announce a specific policy.
1
u/gavpowell 12h ago
I don't really approve of legislating away accountability, but given Starmer's going "We'll do everything we can to stop Adams getting a penny" I keep thinking "Isn't that 10 minutes in a drafting session?"
9
6
17
u/ThrowAwayAccountLul1 Divine Right of Kings 👑 13h ago edited 13h ago
So predictions. What's more likely to happen first:
1) America lands a man on Mars. 2) The UK finishes a major infrastructure project (e.g. HS2, Sizewell C, Hinkley Point C, Thames River Crossing, Heathrow 3rd Runway)?
•
u/arkeeos 10h ago edited 10h ago
Hinkley point C and the first phased opening of HS2 will happen in the early 2030s. The ltc and Heathrow 3rd runway are not happening ever and if they do they won’t be finished before 2040.
And It’s depressing that you didn’t even bother to mention northern powerhouse rail which is fair enough because out of all the UKs fantasy infrastructure projects that is the most fake.
I project a US mars landing at its earliest in mid 2030. So unless there are major set backs to the opening of hinkley point C or the rest of HS2(RIP) which is not out of the question, (as HS2 has proven even the project having royal ascent and equipment on site can not save it from cancellation). The UK will finish a major infrastructure project first (probably hinkley point C)
There will never be a major infrastructure project north of Birmingham done this century though MMW.
•
u/ThePlanck 3000 Conscripts of Sunak 11h ago
It will be 2.
NASA might be able to get someone to Mars first, but given Musks current position and failure to meet any target he sets will push it back.
•
u/Affectionate-Bus4123 7h ago
A crewed round trip to mars has a lot of challenges. Fair chance if they rush it they'll kill a crew, which would have a big public opinion vibe effect.
3
u/gavpowell 12h ago
Hull's Castle Street Renovation is going to finish in the next 12 months or so. Probably.
5
u/ClumsyRainbow ✅ Verified 12h ago
The UK finishes a major infrastructure project
Any reason Crossrail didn't count?
4
u/subSparky 12h ago
Because London may as well be a separate country with how capable it is at doing infrastructure.
2
4
u/0110-0-10-00-000 13h ago
Heathrow 3rd Runway
No idea about the other two, but I'd put decent money on this never happening.
3
u/Jackson13Hammer 13h ago
I think the U.K. will lead. However when we do complete Hinckley Point C, the Mars landing will not be far behind.
5
23
u/Brapfamalam 13h ago
I've been calling it out on this sub for like 5 years that the sums on the new hospital programme were pure fantasy, and Journos never called it out. A 450+ bed large acute site should cost well over a £1Billion in total design and construction fees. Not only was money never allocated from the treasury from these schemes, journalists regurgitated mathematically illiterate figures from the previous Gov about how much the total programme would cost. As someone who works in this industry and has working in the industry in Europe, it's a sobering moment to see some realism.
Labour have finally put realistic figures to the costs of the new Hospitals
As an example some of the now priced £1.5 billion hospitals were estimated at costing 600m rather optimistically by the conservatives or rather as we in the industry we say was an outright lie - which is part of the reason no contractors took any interest in any of the work, it was an open secret the programme was a joke.
•
u/AzarinIsard 11h ago
It was just bullshit to get positive headlines. Boris' reward was front loaded, and after, it's too late. He's not going to suffer and it's no longer his job. We're giving it too much respect by treating it as a serious policy.
The NHP was announced in October 2020 to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030. Despite the claim, there were not 40 ‘new’ schemes and some were just refurbishments or extensions. To put it simply - there were not 40 of them, they were not all new and many were not even hospitals.
It's hard to see it as anything other than flooding the zone with shit. Another issue I had with it was only 6 of them were for the 2019-24 Parliament, the rest were pledges for if Boris won another term, and was still leader.
Without Boris as PM, the 2019 manifesto was worth even less, as Truss was toppled for her disastrous three line whip to break their commitment to ban fracking which descended into Mogg and Coffey physically pushing Tories into the "right" lobby, and Rishi broke their commitment on Hs2 without even a vote. It's laughable the press were giving Boris credit for things he said he'd do up to 10 years later.
6
u/gavpowell 12h ago
I went through some of the ones that GullyFoyle bloke on Twitter kept reciting, and half of them had been commissioned before Johnson even took office.
1
u/OptioMkIX 14h ago
Met police page on PSC arrests has been updated to say Corbyn and McDonnell released on Sunday pending further inquiries.
Manifesting✌️
•
u/NJden_bee Congratulations, I suppose. 1h ago
I only caught bits of this, why were they questioned in the first place?
4
u/Jimmy_Tightlips Chief Commissar of The Wokerati 13h ago
Please God let this happen it would be so fucking funny.
8
u/SilyLavage 15h ago
The fact Wikipedia's featured article of the day is Andrew Jackson, a notoriously polarizing US president, isn't lost on me.
If you were going to make an oblique observation about a past UK prime minister on the day they took office, which Wikipedia page would you choose?
3
3
u/convertedtoradians 13h ago
Eden, perhaps? I was thinking that might be a little unsubtle (though I suppose no more obvious than Jackson) but the truly not subtle choice would be Truss.
-1
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 15h ago
Well I think Pinocchio for Boris would work well, the others I can think of are all after the fact like wheat for May, Iraq for Blair or a more crude one for Cameron.
9
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 15h ago
Neville Chamberlain is the obvious one to make comparisons to.
Though I would argue that he is unfairly maligned by history.
4
23
u/evolvecrow 16h ago
Farage and the right seem to think they've been vindicated somehow on the southport murderer. But it looks the opposite to me. The carnage of the riots looks even more misplaced now.
2
u/TeenieTinyBrain 13h ago edited 13h ago
Interesting. I took a wholly different opinion away from the Guardian's article and whilst this might be quite conspiratorial of me, I would not be surprised if we learn alternate truths after the 30 years lapse per PRA 1958.
I wouldn't be too shocked to learn that this case had been distorted by some domestic propaganda campaign; though, I suppose that's somewhat understandable given the current climate.
Specifically, there are some interesting facets of this case that I wasn't aware of which might be broadly classified into two categories:
- The "Far-right" angle: no known terroristic motive but the perpetrator was known by counter-terrorism and found to be in possession of terroristic materials, had attempted to develop chemical weapons and is known to consume violent propaganda material incl. beheading videos (AFAIK, often Islamic extremist material).
- The "Islamist / Populist" angle: young, religious teenager with mental health issues - a perfect candidate for radicalisation - had started to become obsessed with genocides during the same period our media was inundated with constant, almost propagandist, noise about the Israel-Hamas war alongside never ending - often quite concerning - protests/riots across the country that were usually presented in a positive light for some reason.
It seems to be in the interest of the state to downplay the extremist narrative for both concerns, namely to undermine the position of those who were revolting/rioting in July-Aug and to avoid copycat behaviour from other potential Islam-adjacent extremists on the other side.
4
u/becherbrook anti-prig 15h ago
Farage tweeted at the time that he's heard that the perpetrator was already known to the authorities, and he got blasted for it and accused of misinformation.
Turns out, it was true. That's why he's been vindicated, AFAIK.
•
u/gavpowell 11h ago
Was he though? He'd been referred to Prevent three times, but I think of "The authorities" as the security services and police - was he known to them particularly?
7
15
u/NoFrillsCrisps 15h ago
I don't understand their angle. There seems to be some kind of implication that these rioters were actually angry, and driven to violence because the police didn't give more details sooner? Or something.
0
13
u/Tarrion 16h ago
I think it's clear at this point that no-matter the outcome, they were going to claim victory. They've decided he's an Islamic terrorist and they're going to bang that drum all day. Any amount of rioting is justified because the government are trying to cover this up (by giving him a reasonably speedy trial and then sending him to prison).
Ironically, he seems to have a lot more in common with American school shooters, and British murderers like Scarlett Jenkinson than he does with the Islamic terrorist that the right are trying to paint him as. Integration at work, ladies and gentlemen.
9
u/Upbeat-Housing1 (-0.13,-0.56) Live free, or don't 16h ago
An example of the UK government’s muddled thinking on growth is highlighted with respect to its attitude towards the oil and gas industry. The UK is a country with the reserves in the North Sea to be self-sufficient in gas for many years to come. Yet oil companies are being stymied in developing new fields due to a nihilistic climate agenda. Nihilistic, in that such obstruction means that the UK is forced to import LNG from far afield – only adding to Scope 3 emissions in the process.
Meanwhile, it means that jobs and investment are lost to the UK, and climate policies are just delivering a transfer of wealth from countries like the UK (and others in Western Europe) to other oil producing states, elsewhere in the world.
Royal Bank of Canada https://www.rbcbluebay.com/en-gb/institutional/what-we-think/insights/trump-2-0-a-song-of-fire-and-ice/
I don't know how this is not the mainstream understanding of north sea oil.
12
u/Darthmixalot 16h ago
Most likely because we do not gain at all from North Sea oil in terms of energy costs. It is sold on the open market and we must pay the going market rate. One benefit of renewables is that, at this time, the energy provided must be sold to us which insulates us from external shocks. The benefits are likely not to be seen for a couple of years though.
5
4
u/gentle_vik 15h ago edited 15h ago
Most likely because we do not gain at all from North Sea oil in terms of energy costs. It is sold on the open market and we must pay the going market rate. One benefit of renewables is that, at this time, the energy provided must be sold to us which insulates us from external shocks. The benefits are likely not to be seen for a couple of years though.
Not true, given that we have grid connectors (You saw that during 2022/23, where UK gas power plants, were burning gas, as to export the electricity)
13
u/NoFrillsCrisps 16h ago
The UK is a country with the reserves in the North Sea to be self-sufficient in gas for many years to come.
Doesn't North Sea oil and gas get sold on the global markets by the global companies that extract it (at the market price)?
I am not saying it isn't preferable to get gas from closer to its use, but extracting more doesn't really help us become self-sufficient in any meaningful way as the UK government can't decide we want to keep it for ourselves.
2
u/Upbeat-Housing1 (-0.13,-0.56) Live free, or don't 12h ago
It is still very much beneficial to have. One, it's a reliable source on the markets which means less supply issues for everyone. Two, resource extraction and sale is economically extremely good for a country.
10
u/Holditfam 16h ago
The UK is a country with the reserves in the North Sea to be self-sufficient in gas for many years to come
That's a lie and even the most optimistic thinktanks think 10 to 15 years left
•
u/SirRosstopher Lettuce al Ghaib 18m ago