UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[afleitch]

Pile on all you want. I don't really care.

I voted for Humza because I could not vote for Kate Forbes because of her views on voting against gay marriage in 2023.

Ash Regan, defected to Alba. My judgement there was correct.

I am a social liberal. I was a social liberal when I was a member of the Conservative Party. I make no apologies for that. It's entirely independent of being an SNP supporter.

What I'm trying to wrap my head around is why if 'x issues matter' (and they do) are people telling me; well human rights abuses and homophobia is tangibly different if the country is a democracy or merely claims to be. And it's okay to visit family in countries like that. And politicians being paid or lobbied by outright dictatorships like Qatar is what it is.

But Humza Yousaf taking a holiday...

I have specifically said it's not 'fine'. I'm pushing back against the narrative that it's somewhat worse.

[EastAnglianLefty]

I don't think anybody is denying you're a social liberal or saying that you should have voted for a different candidate for SNP leader. They're just attacking you for being a hack.

Regarding the point about family, it's different because seeing your family is a necessary part of most people's emotional wellbeing, and you cannot choose where your family live. Whereas you can choose where you holiday.

[CumbrianLefty]

Ah, tbh I had assumed this was family related so was prepared to cut Humza some slack over it.

If not, well.

[afleitch]

I don't think anybody is denying you're a social liberal or saying that you should have voted for a different candidate for SNP leader. They're just attacking you for being a hack.

Regarding the point about family, it's different because seeing your family is a necessary part of most people's emotional wellbeing, and you cannot choose where your family live. Whereas you can choose where you holiday.

You can chose where you holiday as I've said. I wouldn't holiday in Qatar or even spend an overnight transfer in Dubai. But for that same reason I'm more inclined to take issue with friends who chose to live and work and do business there, than those who holiday there.

And in the wider political sphere that should also carry much greater weight.

I was disappointed in Humza meeting with Erdogan. But likewise critical of the disproportionate hand-wringing over the meeting because Turkey is a UK ally. There are regular government meetings with Erdogan and there are normal diplomatic relations. The issue was Humza doing it 'unchaperoned.' The UK and subsequently the devolved nations have diplomatic and business relationships with the worst of regimes.

And we still holiday in Turkey.

[Torrain]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in Rishession
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1758025610314580266

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't worry everyone, 'BBC Verify' is here to explain that this is the 'mildest start' to a recession for fifty years, which apparently means everything is Actually Fine.

[CumbrianLefty]

I know its often said, but the initial BBC framing here really could have been dictated by Tory Central Office itself. It will be interesting if the resulting pushback causes that to change later today.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Sunak is way better at causing recessions than Biden is.

[CumbrianLefty]

A "technical" recession has been followed by "technical" byelection reverses. Any coming GE defeat for the Tories will also be "technical" because of an insufficiency of enthusiasm for Starmer. Or something.

[Silent Hunter]

A "technical" recession has been followed by "technical" byelection reverses. Any coming GE defeat for the Tories will also be "technical" because of an insufficiency of enthusiasm for Starmer. Or something.

A lack of enthusiasm for Starmer - I'm definitely not hugely excited about his policies - won't cause Labour to lose this election. But it's a problem for government.

[Progressive Pessimist]

A "technical" recession has been followed by "technical" byelection reverses. Any coming GE defeat for the Tories will also be "technical" because of an insufficiency of enthusiasm for Starmer. Or something.

A lack of enthusiasm for Starmer - I'm definitely not hugely excited about his policies - won't cause Labour to lose this election. But it's a problem for government.

So, he'll be your Joe Biden?

[Torrain]

A lack of enthusiasm for Starmer - I'm definitely not hugely excited about his policies - won't cause Labour to lose this election. But it's a problem for government.

So, he'll be your Joe Biden?

If Starmer leads a beleaguered government defined by weak policy delivery and a charisma vacuum, it’s not Biden they’ll compare him to…

[TheTide]

As it happens I think Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister, but Labour won't necessarily be a one-term government.

[Pericles]

Despite my deep scepticism of Starmer's leadership, odds are that Labour are re-elected imo. The brand damage to the Tories from the last term (especially the mini-budget), and the economy this term has also been unusually bad so Labour might have better timing in the economic cycle. The Tories are unlikely to help themselves in opposition either.

[Zinneke]

Despite my deep scepticism of Starmer's leadership, odds are that Labour are re-elected imo. The brand damage to the Tories from the last term (especially the mini-budget), and the economy this term has also been unusually bad so Labour might have better timing in the economic cycle. The Tories are unlikely to help themselves in opposition either.

Does anybody seriously think Western economies will get better in the medium run, especially Britain's?! It'll take years to fix their housing market issue. I listened to that famous pod and Alistair Campbell saying the number of 25-39 year old home owners compared to the 90s is 22% lower, when even in all the other decaying economies its single digits...that's an entire lost generation...Starmer should conscript every retired pensioner to be retrained in brick laying and announce a national mobilisation to build a new city somewhere empty and make it the capital.

[Silent Hunter]

In other local news, Transport for London have announced the names for the London Overground lines.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/15/london-overground-new-names-and-colours-for-six-lines-revealed

The Liberty line isn't actually that bad a name.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Liberty line isn't actually that bad a name.

It's a rather nice historical reference.

[CumbrianLefty]

As it happens I think Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister, but Labour won't necessarily be a one-term government.

Let's not forget his age, after all.

(he would be the oldest PM to come to power after winning an election since when?)

[Silent Hunter]

Of course, he's Sir Keir. Not many PMs these days have their knighthood before entering Number 10. Last one would be Sir Anthony Eden - I'm not counting Douglas-Home, a hereditary peer.

[MayorCarcetti]

As it happens I think Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister, but Labour won't necessarily be a one-term government.

Let's not forget his age, after all.

(he would be the oldest PM to come to power after winning an election since when?)

For the first time, after winning an election? Atlee in 1945, who was 62 years and 6 months (if it's an October or November election, Starmer will still fall short of Atlee's age, turns 62 in September).

Honorable mentions: Churchill returned to power at 75 and 3 months in 1950 via an election. Jim Callaghan became PM in 1976 just a week or so after he turned 64.

[Blair]

As it happens I think Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister, but Labour won't necessarily be a one-term government.

Let's not forget his age, after all.

(he would be the oldest PM to come to power after winning an election since when?)

Keir not looking 62 (he could have passed for late 40s when he was Brexit Sec!) means it’s often forgotten that nearly all the senior cabinet jobs are filled by people a lot younger than him- Phillipson, Mahmood, Streeting, Jonny Reynolds

[CumbrianLefty]

As it happens I think Starmer will be a one-term Prime Minister, but Labour won't necessarily be a one-term government.

Let's not forget his age, after all.

(he would be the oldest PM to come to power after winning an election since when?)

For the first time, after winning an election? Atlee in 1945, who was 62 years and 6 months (if it's an October or November election, Starmer will still fall short of Atlee's age, turns 62 in September).

Honorable mentions: Churchill returned to power at 75 and 3 months in 1950 via an election. Jim Callaghan became PM in 1976 just a week or so after he turned 64.

Churcill was a returnee, though he was in his mid-60s when first becoming PM.

Had forgotten that Attlee was that old, good call.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Post Office Scandal is marching on: the former head of the Post Office is alleging he was deliberately instructed to delay payments to victims so Tories can "limp to election" with as much liquidity as possible. This would implicate Badenoch if it is true, and she has already delivered a denial on twitter.

[Torrain]

I know Badenoch has a habit of making trouble for herself, but I would be... amused, if she actually finds a way to turn herself into the most high-profile casualty of the Post Office scandal, after everything that's happened so far.

Just seems dumb for someone with full access to parliamentary privilege in the Commons to choose to flirt with the sort of reputational damage you'd need to trigger a defamation case - out in the open on social media.

[Badger]

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in Rishession
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1758025610314580266

So from my general peanut gallery watching, the Tori seem to be dead man walking for the next election primarily based on a combination of gross incompetence to the point they couldn't organize a packet, plus just Tori fatigue after over a dozen years in power. Now there heading into a recession where voters will quite likely want to scalp them for the economy as well?

Obviously it's too early to tell given the mildest introduction to a recession ever blah blah blah blah thank you BBC, but am I overreacting and feeling that if a recession does actually kick in with a commiserate increase in unemployment that this could be at least as bad as 97?