UK General Discussion: The Toolmaker's Son.

[Torrain]

John Mason has been expelled from the SNP, for his comments on Israel-Gaza.

He’s ruled out joining another party, and has said he’ll appeal the decision.

[CumbrianLefty]

It would be wrong to think that, in reality, this is the sole reason for Mason getting booted out.

[Torrain]

It would be wrong to think that, in reality, this is the sole reason for Mason getting booted out.

Yeah, we're into "last straw" territory here - we are talking about a man whose Wikipedia "controversies" tab is twenty four paragraphs long.

He was already standing down in 2026, so I'm kinda surprised that they actually did it now (given some of the hand-wringing over getting the budget passed - worth it's own post).

I could name several moments over the past five years when I've thought "surely he'll be suspended now" - and the wagons were invariable circled.

[CumbrianLefty]

It looks like Starmer's big investment summit is going ahead as planned today - so much for it being "plunged into chaos" as almost the entire media in unison assured us was the case a few days ago.

[CumbrianLefty]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

[Zinneke]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

The calm before the Autumn budget storm.

[Torrain]

On budgets - Holyrood is once more threatening to be interesting.  With 65 votes for passage, and the SNP stuck on 62, with uneven support from two 2 expelled members, our new minority government is reliant on at least one opposition party to keep the lights on.

Over the summer, Swinney laid out this year's Programme for Government, which included £500 million in cuts. He was left without much political cover, when our key financial institutions (the IFS, FS, SFC, Audit Scotland and Fraser of Allander) each blamed the deficit on poor spending decisions by ScotGov over the preceding years.

Plan A: A number of SNP-Green coalition policies were also dropped in the PFG: universal free school meals, rail ticket subsidies, the conversion therapy ban, and free bus travel for asylum seekers – with rent controls watered down. Subsequently, the Greens have said they would oppose a budget that represented a "betrayal" of the "progressive work" of the coalition, and their support is conditional on restoration of these programmes, to be funded by a further round of significant tax hikes.

Plan B: If that won't fly, Swinney has one alternate ally. Labour and the Tories are highly unlikely to play ball, given their 2026 strategy is confrontation-heavy, and the bases of all three parties are allergy to collaboration with one another. So he's left with the Lib Dems - who've signalled that they'd be open to a deal, based on increased mental health spending (Swinney's promised cuts there, in what looks like an opening gambit to give the LDs an easy win), and improved ferry and water infrastructure. The Lib Dems wouldn't support a bill which provides funding for the proposed National Care Service, or independence prep-work though, so getting that past SNP backbenchers and activists could be a tightrope.

Plan C: There's been a fair bit of bluster about a snap election. Swinney has dangled an early dissolution on a couple of occasions, which he frames as a punishment election that will fall on the opposition, and several Lib Dems have briefed out that they think he might be negotiating in bad-faith, to force an early poll. Labour and the Tories don't want one at this stage - although the Lib Dems and Greens both seem open, and there are some SNP figures who have fantasised to the press about a Jan 2025 election producing a shaky 2007-eque Lab-Lib-Tory deal that collapses in time for a new SNP leader to sweep back in at the regularly scheduled race in 2026.

Occam's Razor says Swinney will either get the LDs over the line, or bite the bullet and go for one final deal with the Greens - but there's a long way still to go.

[Conservatopia]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

It's gone quiet because things aren't going well for Labour. And no not because "the media" is out to get Labour. You need to get off this media bias hobby horse, it's all we ever hear from you, though you're not the only one. Even if it were true, and in my opinion it isn't, it's becoming stifling of discussion because every criticism of Labour gets spun as just media bias or some kind of AstroTurf campaign. It's Trump logic and we're better than that on this board.

[CumbrianLefty]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

It's gone quiet because things aren't going well for Labour. And no not because "the media" is out to get Labour. You need to get off this media bias hobby horse, it's all we ever hear from you, though you're not the only one. Even if it were true, and in my opinion it isn't, it's becoming stifling of discussion because every criticism of Labour gets spun as just media bias or some kind of AstroTurf campaign. It's Trump logic and we're better than that on this board.

Come off it, the media has been ridiculously unbalanced recently. Its not that they, the broadcasters at least, are in most cases overtly biased towards the Tories (though there are, of course, a few well known exceptions so obvious that even you could not deny them) but rather that they had grown far too comfortable with how things had become since 2016 especially - constant gossipy psychodrama and personality based politics helping an already existing bias towards trivial process based stories, combined with an unhealthily cosy relationship with several leading political players.

Starmer and his government have made it clear they aren't interested in all this, and they resent it and (even if not always consciously) want the new regime put in their place as a result.

Labour are doing badly? In some respects, perhaps - and in a minority of cases (notably mishandling the WFA message) that is largely their own doing, but an awful lot is also getting done that the media have little or no interest in reporting. This might not move voters now, but still could in 2028/29.

A lot is still riding on the budget at the end of this month, mind.....

[Conservatopia]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

It's gone quiet because things aren't going well for Labour. And no not because "the media" is out to get Labour. You need to get off this media bias hobby horse, it's all we ever hear from you, though you're not the only one. Even if it were true, and in my opinion it isn't, it's becoming stifling of discussion because every criticism of Labour gets spun as just media bias or some kind of AstroTurf campaign. It's Trump logic and we're better than that on this board.

Come on, the media has been ridiculously unbalanced recently. Its not that they, the broadcast media at least, are in most cases overtly biased towards the Tories (though there are, of course, a few well known exceptions so obvious that even you could not deny them) but rather that they had grown far too comfortable with how things had become since 2016 especially - constant gossipy psychodrama and personality based politics helping an already existing bias towards trivial process based stories, combined with an unhealthily cosy relationship with several leading political players.

Starmer and his government have made it clear they aren't interested in all this, and they resent it and (even if not always consciously) want the new regime put in their place as a result.

Labour are doing badly? In some respects, perhaps - and in a minority of cases (notably mishandling the WFA message) that is largely their own doing, but an awful lot is also getting done that the media have little or no interest in reporting. This might not move voters now, but still could in 2028/29.

A lot depends on the budget at the end of this month, mind.....

I never claimed any of the recent drama would move voters, but that doesn't mean it's not meaningful. The government has been quite shambolic, nothing Boris level sure, but still bad.

And yes there are a couple of people who may be pro Tory in the broadcast media, Laura K being the obvious one, but there's at least as many who have liberal viewpoints and regardless this is not indicative of the media wanting to "put Labour in their place".

Saying the media has been unbalanced is exactly the same as all the Tories moaning about BBC bias the past 15 years - when you're in government and you cock up, the media calls you out. Doesn't mean they have an agenda or want to put people in their places.

Your point about the media liking their personality based drama stories is clearly true. But it doesn't mean that the media is now lashing out because of it or that they are manufacturing stories out of small events.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and regardless let's discuss what's actually happening instead of allowing journalists be part of the story.

[CumbrianLefty]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

It's gone quiet because things aren't going well for Labour. And no not because "the media" is out to get Labour. You need to get off this media bias hobby horse, it's all we ever hear from you, though you're not the only one. Even if it were true, and in my opinion it isn't, it's becoming stifling of discussion because every criticism of Labour gets spun as just media bias or some kind of AstroTurf campaign. It's Trump logic and we're better than that on this board.

Come on, the media has been ridiculously unbalanced recently. Its not that they, the broadcast media at least, are in most cases overtly biased towards the Tories (though there are, of course, a few well known exceptions so obvious that even you could not deny them) but rather that they had grown far too comfortable with how things had become since 2016 especially - constant gossipy psychodrama and personality based politics helping an already existing bias towards trivial process based stories, combined with an unhealthily cosy relationship with several leading political players.

Starmer and his government have made it clear they aren't interested in all this, and they resent it and (even if not always consciously) want the new regime put in their place as a result.

Labour are doing badly? In some respects, perhaps - and in a minority of cases (notably mishandling the WFA message) that is largely their own doing, but an awful lot is also getting done that the media have little or no interest in reporting. This might not move voters now, but still could in 2028/29.

A lot depends on the budget at the end of this month, mind.....

I never claimed any of the recent drama would move voters, but that doesn't mean it's not meaningful. The government has been quite shambolic, nothing Boris level sure, but still bad.

And yes there are a couple of people who may be pro Tory in the broadcast media, Laura K being the obvious one, but there's at least as many who have liberal viewpoints and regardless this is not indicative of the media wanting to "put Labour in their place".

Saying the media has been unbalanced is exactly the same as all the Tories moaning about BBC bias the past 15 years - when you're in government and you cock up, the media calls you out. Doesn't mean they have an agenda or want to put people in their places.

Your point about the media liking their personality based drama stories is clearly true. But it doesn't mean that the media is now lashing out because of it or that they are manufacturing stories out of small events.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and regardless let's discuss what's actually happening instead of allowing journalists be part of the story.

But, on any objective assessment, they *are*. What else is all the confected Taylor Swift nonsense??

And as I said, they have definitely overreached themselves on that one.

Only blaming media bias is lazy yes, just as it was in the Corbyn years. But to acknowledge that isn't the same as thinking there are no issues with them. Quite a few senior observers of this area agree.

[MaxQue]

This thread has gone a bit quiet hasn't it, despite things still going on. I do wonder if the media have finally overreached themselves with the Taylor Swift nonsense? It would be nice to think so.

It's gone quiet because things aren't going well for Labour. And no not because "the media" is out to get Labour. You need to get off this media bias hobby horse, it's all we ever hear from you, though you're not the only one. Even if it were true, and in my opinion it isn't, it's becoming stifling of discussion because every criticism of Labour gets spun as just media bias or some kind of AstroTurf campaign. It's Trump logic and we're better than that on this board.

Come on, the media has been ridiculously unbalanced recently. Its not that they, the broadcast media at least, are in most cases overtly biased towards the Tories (though there are, of course, a few well known exceptions so obvious that even you could not deny them) but rather that they had grown far too comfortable with how things had become since 2016 especially - constant gossipy psychodrama and personality based politics helping an already existing bias towards trivial process based stories, combined with an unhealthily cosy relationship with several leading political players.

Starmer and his government have made it clear they aren't interested in all this, and they resent it and (even if not always consciously) want the new regime put in their place as a result.

Labour are doing badly? In some respects, perhaps - and in a minority of cases (notably mishandling the WFA message) that is largely their own doing, but an awful lot is also getting done that the media have little or no interest in reporting. This might not move voters now, but still could in 2028/29.

A lot depends on the budget at the end of this month, mind.....

I never claimed any of the recent drama would move voters, but that doesn't mean it's not meaningful. The government has been quite shambolic, nothing Boris level sure, but still bad.

And yes there are a couple of people who may be pro Tory in the broadcast media, Laura K being the obvious one, but there's at least as many who have liberal viewpoints and regardless this is not indicative of the media wanting to "put Labour in their place".

Saying the media has been unbalanced is exactly the same as all the Tories moaning about BBC bias the past 15 years - when you're in government and you cock up, the media calls you out. Doesn't mean they have an agenda or want to put people in their places.

Your point about the media liking their personality based drama stories is clearly true. But it doesn't mean that the media is now lashing out because of it or that they are manufacturing stories out of small events.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and regardless let's discuss what's actually happening instead of allowing journalists be part of the story.

But, on any objective assessment, they *are*. What else is all the confected Taylor Swift nonsense??

And as I said, they have definitely overreached themselves on that one.

Only blaming media bias is lazy yes, just as it was in the Corbyn years. But to acknowledge that isn't the same as thinking there are no issues with them. Quite a few senior observers of this area agree.

And yet, Starmer refuses reality and bring Leveson II forward.

[CumbrianLefty]

As pointed out before, Leveson 2 is in some respects pretty outdated now.

But serious media reform is badly needed, yes.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

I don't know what you guys are talking about it being a slow news period:


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAa3i-kNW80

[Zinneke]

I don't know what you guys are talking about it being a slow news period:


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAa3i-kNW80

Came in drunk, checked this reel, put "rehab" first thing Monday morning in my calendar

[Pericles]

The impression people get is that austerity hasn't come to an end. A lot of the headlines seem similar to the headlines that we see in New Zealand with a National Party government.

That's still better than the Government pursuing crazy schemes to deport people to Rwanda, and reality is more complicated. And partly it is that these are tough economic times with tight budgets across the world, though it is unfair that politicians feel it is easier to cut social housing and benefits than to tax wealth.

We will have to see what investments Labour makes and whether there are improvements in public services, at the very least this has not been communicated so far.

[CumbrianLefty]

Most leaks about the budget are unfounded gossip and rumour at best, and outright misinformation at worst. Just about the only semi-official disclosure has been that the "fiscal rules" will be significantly adjusted to allow for substantially more long term investment. Which is not really "austerity".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Austerity in a Stafford Cripps sense* maybe, Austerity in a George Osborne sense, well, no, and we already know that's not happening from decisions already made.

_{*As in the broad spirit of it rather than the specifics: completely different situation with currencies etc. these days.}

[IceAgeComing]

The impression people get is that austerity hasn't come to an end. A lot of the headlines seem similar to the headlines that we see in New Zealand with a National Party government.

That's still better than the Government pursuing crazy schemes to deport people to Rwanda, and reality is more complicated. And partly it is that these are tough economic times with tight budgets across the world, though it is unfair that politicians feel it is easier to cut social housing and benefits than to tax wealth.

We will have to see what investments Labour makes and whether there are improvements in public services, at the very least this has not been communicated so far.

What makes it harder is that taxing wealth in any way that raises a significant amount of money is very difficult - and the days when the Treasury could use voodoo numbers on yield are gone with the OBR being a thing (which was a Tory invention that Labour have made their thing post-Truss). Its a population that can theoretically move easily so a big wealth tax wouldn't raise anything like as much as a static costing would suggest (there's strong evidence of this across Europe - Spain is the most recent who brought in a wealth tax and it raises pennies); plus also the UK economy is not the strongest and so we don't have the advantages that somewhere like the US would have that might allow for them to go harder on wealth taxes. A big thing that's mentioned consistently is equalising rates of Income and Capital Gains Taxes - but some indicative Treasury costings (these are probably pretty solid numbers tov trust) shows that unless you reform something else increasing the higher rate of CGT by 10% actually results in a £2bn fall in yield. You could balance that and possibly more with some sort of relief for gains caused by inflation but that would also mean that you aren't getting lots of yield - and ironically that is what Nigel Lawson did in the 80s and what Brown moved away from.

Its one of the frankly bizarre things from the last government: the overall tax burden as a share of GDP is at a high since the war; yet the share of personal taxation from a person earning the median income is actually at a historically low level: which I suspect isn't what people would think. This is a combination of the very big personal allowance increases under Osborne (actually is why seven years of no increases in the personal allowance are vaguely tenable) which ended up taking lots of people out of tax completely; plus fiscal drag caused by some of the more stupid bits of the British tax system (the 65%+ marginal rate between £60k and 80k for those with children due to the loss of child benefit; the 70%+ marginal rate between £100k and £125k due to the personal allowance taper - the latter has been flat since 2009; the former was a much higher marginal rate between £50k and £60k until the last budget where they finally raised it) and also the National Insurance cuts benefiting lower income employed people primarily; at the expense of retirees. It also means that if you were looking to raise significant amounts of additional revenue the place you probably have most to get is realistically at that level: but its political poison and Labour ruled it out. There's also not much you can get from tax avoidance/evasion - tax gap is at an all time low as a share of revenue; and based on the official statistics (and those can be trusted - Ministers/SPADs can't fiddle with methodologies) most of that is from small businesses and is probably a combination of poor accounting resulting in inaccurate returns, small businesses taking cash and not claiming it; and other low-level forms of evasion that are difficult to police.

Broadly its a difficult situation and especially with the box they've painted in terms of not touching Income Tax, NICs, VAT or Corporation Tax they don't really have that much left of tax to raise; and most of the rest either raises pennies, would have economic implications, or would be a gimmick that would make things worse long term - the above-mentioned personal allowance taper and Child Benefit thing at the time were populist plays at raising extra revenue by targeting the rich; and now because of inflation they are both having increasingly significant impacts on productivity as people do salary sacrifice to grow pensions and refuse extra hours/cut down work days in order to not enter those high marginal brackets,

[JimJamUK]

Yeah, if you’re looking for taxes that could raise a few billion each while still honouring the manifesto and not being hideously unpopular, then your basically left with mild pension (likely contribution) taxation increases, sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco and gambling come to mind), mild property tax increases and limiting some unnecessary tax relief schemes.

[Torrain]

The Health Sec making all the submissions for his NHS “ideas for change” public was a choice:








And of course, the magnum opus:

[CumbrianLefty]

Now, how many of those are actually serious?

[Cassius]

All of them probably, aside from Dr Shipman’s contribution.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though an "NHS for Pets" has been campaigned for by some people going back several decades now.

[Torrain]

At a meeting of the PLP, Streeting told MPs he’ll vote against the assisted dying bill - citing the absence of a “fair choice” due to issues with NHS palliative care, and saying his experience at the Health Dept. has reversed his previous stance (having voted for assisted dying in 2015).

Does make the whole thing look shakier, if you have the Health Sec voting it down at second reading, and using a justification tailor-made to be leaked and give MPs a "protect the elderly and our NHS" permission structure to vote against.


Thus far, we've only got four cabinet ministers on this - Starmer all-but-certainly in support, and Mahmood, Reynolds and Streeting opposed. Second reading scheduled for a month from now, on 29th November (check the order paper, it's going to be a wild one - so many filibusters, so little time).