Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[mongers]

He thinks he's gotten away with it, his default reaction to many 'episodes' in his life.

[Josquius]

Lib Dems to call a no confidence motion in parliament.
The inevitable dance will play out as Conservative MPs are forced to show they don't think Johnson is fit to run the Conservative party but is just fine to run the country.

[Sheilbh]

Lib Dems to call a no confidence motion in parliament.
The inevitable dance will play out as Conservative MPs are forced to show they don't think Johnson is fit to run the Conservative party but is just fine to run the country.

A really stupid idea. Probably the most helpful thing an opposition party could do

[Josquius]

Lib Dems to call a no confidence motion in parliament.
The inevitable dance will play out as Conservative MPs are forced to show they don't think Johnson is fit to run the Conservative party but is just fine to run the country.

A really stupid idea. Probably the most helpful thing an opposition party could do

I'm not so sure. It obviously won't succeed, but as said it underlines the message that these tory MPs are hypocrites more concerned for advancing their careers than the country. Come election time if a tory tries the "You can't tie me to Johnson, I voted against him!" then there's an inevitable "O RLY?"

Of course the Lib Dems are no doubt doing this with an eye to advancing their own power and carving off a few seats from the tories even if it means they stay in power; but I'm not sure it does have this downside.

The worst can be said for it is helping to pull the Tories together which...still leaves them under Johnson.

[Sheilbh]

I think the public think all MPs are hypocrites more interested in advancing their career than the country. That's the base layer of cynicism people have about all politicians. So I don't think it necessarily helps them very much.

In the same way as I don't think the Tory (and left) attack on Starmer works - that he was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet, campaigned for Corbyn to be Prime Minister, campaigned as Corbyism without Corbyn and then kicked him out the party for anti-semitism. It's all true but that's, I think, what people expect of politicians and they're pretty grown up about party politics.

I think it's annoying because MPs are tribal so this will cause the Tories to, temporarily, unite. I think the best thing for the opposition parties is almost to let the internal Tory fights carry on without much intervention.

[Sheilbh]

Another bit of HS2 scrapped - this was basically a bypass through the most congested bit of the network and will reduce the number HS trains to Scotland. The main issue was that the construction would cause congestion/disruption.

The local Labour MP is celebrating this as a good result for her local campaign against it


All the big railway groups are up in arms. Madly we are ending up with the HS2 that all the critics hated and is of limited use, not the one that actually helps reduce congestioon on the network. Next time there's an infrastructure project people will point to HS2 as big, expensive and not very helpful - and they won't be wrong

Can't remember who it was who said that given the choice of 100% of the outcome at 100% cost or 80% of the outcome at 60% cost, the British state will always manage to create a bespoke solution getting 60% of the outcome at 90% cost

Edit: And of course not to just have a go at the Labour MP - it was a cross-party campaign against it with local Labour and Tory MPs.

[Josquius]

Oh ffs.

I do increasingly think hs2 should have done what the shinkansen did through saitama and offered a good local service tacked into the side.
The one sort of opposition I can get is when it's somewhere that's going to be blighted by the line plowing through to no immediate local benefit.
But a labour mp really shouldnt be encouraging this tribalism.

And yes. Exactly as planned by the anti hs2 lot really. Push up the costs and reduce the benefits is their aim.

[Sheilbh]

At least you could once rely on a party ruthlessly building unpopular things in their opponents' seats - but apparently we can't even have that now.

Also that the argument "it involves construction" is a good reason not to build a major national infrastructure project seems like a real problem and illustrative of the problem we're getting ourselves into.

And the really annoying thing is we can see it with transport and housing where it's been building for a while that the British people are enthusiastic about better infrastructure and housing, as long as it doesn't involve any actual practical measure to support that. It's much the same problem that energy policy or social care has had for the last 20 years. We've a very clear idea of what we want and have been very clear in rejecting proposal to deliver it

[Gups]

About half my work is dealing with HS2. I lovee new railway projects but HS2 is a shambles of epic proportions. It was sold on the basis of speed rather than capacity and resiliance. So you have a ridiculous lack of design flexibility because few curves are allowed. Billions could have been saved and much opposition removed if a few minutes journey time had been sacrificed.

On top of that HS2 governance is truly abysmal on every level. Almost every case I've had would have settled early at £x million if they'd been willing to negotiate in good faith. Nearly every case has been settled 3 years later at £3X million with them paying our costs as well as their own. Personally I've done every well out of it but it's embarrassing how useless they are.

[Josquius]

Fucking hell.
Just heard Johnson is planning to bribe some voters by knocking the bottom out of the UKs already shoddy housing situation by expanding that great disaster, right to buy, to housing association tenants

[Admiral Yi]

In what way has it been a disaster?

[Josquius]

In what way has it been a disaster?

[Admiral Yi]

Less people are renting than before, and more people own than before.  How is that a disaster?

[Josquius]

Less people are renting than before, and more people own than before.  How is that a disaster?

In the short term its fine in theory. Guy who has been living  in his council home for 40 years becomes an owner. Good feelings all round.
In the long term a lot of these houses fall into the hands of private landlords, which means they're for rent, albeit for a significantly higher price and under a messy patchwork of owners. This turn-around is really becoming clear in recent years now the original buyers are largely gone (not necessarily from this world).

Also worth noting looking at stuff like this on a national level rarely tells the whole story, in some parts of the country its not an issue at all whilst in places like London it has been devastating.

Also needs remembering the idea that owning=good and renting=bad is a very anglo assumption that needn't necessarily be true. Especially when its depriving the most needy people of the fundamentals of somewhere to live. Social housing does provide a stable long-term affordable place to live. Private renting...Not usually.

[Tamas]

Yeah it's important to remember that renting in the UK, from private landlords at least, is akin to being a peasant "renting" a lord's land. You have very little rights, contracts are short term with even shorter notice periods, and the whole general attitude to it is that you are paying for temporary lodgings in somebody else's property as opposed to renting your home space.