General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
It doesn't need a super majority. That's an American thing.
In the UK, parliament are sovereign, and that means it can make up the rules as it goes along. You can do anything you like with a simple majority, including removing old rules that say you need a super majority.
Also this is a labour policy for after the next election. So hopefully, they will have the majority by then
Aye yes, I shouldn't have used that term. I meant that they need a large majority as no doubt they'll be dissent in Labour too.
There would be support from other progressive parties too. So you can probably count on the single lib dem and single green seat etc
SNP too.
It's so easy to make a non-Google AMP link, there really is no excuse:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67048289
You literally only have to press backspace 4 times.
I'm sorry what are you talking about? What's an amp? If you need me do so something maybe start by being a little nicer. Sounds like you're having a go at me for posting a link. That's not very nice.
AMP is a service Google started, ostensibly to load web pages faster on mobile devices, by hosting the website content on their AMP servers. This was always bullshit, because the limiting factor with mobile devices is almost always their mobile connection, not the back end internet connections of individual news websites. However, Google forced news sites into using AMP by not listing them in the news ribbon at the top of search and OK Google searches if they didn't have an AMP version of their news article. Google has publicised that they stopped doing these things, but it seems they require AMP as part of other service agreements, as everyone still uses it. The real motive behind doing all this is to consolidate web traffic for Google to more easily monitor users across the internet.
I'm sorry if I came across too harsh, I only meant it as a bit light and playful. No one is really going to feel pissy about AMP or referral links. But editing out an AMP link is a good thing and often very easy to do. Lemmy also lets you edit the post and change the url.
As an outside observer, I don't see how that could have come off as light and playful.
As another outside observer I agree with the other one.
The user you are responding to was rude about it. Not everyone knows about amp. This is an article that explains it https://medium.com/@danbuben/why-amp-is-bad-for-your-site-and-for-the-web-e4d060a4ff31
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Labour government would create an anti-corruption commissioner to recoup billions of pounds lost to fraud and waste during the Covid pandemic, the party has announced.
Meanwhile, the Labour leadership is set for a showdown with Unite - historically the party's biggest financial backer - over the union's call to nationalise critical infrastructure, starting with privatised electricity and gas networks.
Delegates will vote on whether the party should adopt this policy - which is opposed by Ms Reeves and Labour's leader Sir Keir Starmer - on Monday evening.
She will promise to appoint a Covid corruption commissioner with full powers to take cases to court and "claw back every penny of taxpayers money that they can".
Shevaun Haviland, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, welcomed the policy, saying long-term investment in infrastructure was a "key ingredient to get our economy back to growth".
FSB National Chair Martin McTague welcomed more local planning officers, to "help small housebuilders and other businesses deliver projects more quickly".
The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This whole plan doesn't mention HS2 or Brexit. (nor housing or the environment for that matter)
'Cutting regulations will unlock ยฃ50bn a year in investment, Labour said.' - This is either bullshit or code for fucking over workers.
When it comes to covid fraud, I'm less interested in recovering the cash, and more interested in prosecuting the Tory government that actually enabled, encouraged and participated in this massive fraud.
Overall, utterly pathetic, spineless, lack of leadership.
I can't stand the Tories, but at least Rishi actually had the balls to decide something publicly on HS2, I think it's wrong but at least he decided something.
Sunak has cockblocked HS2 by stating he is selling the land that was bought for it. He will sell it cheaply to his mates who in turn will make a quick profit before Labour take power back. This will make it extremely expensive to take the land back. Sunak is intentionally increasing the cost of anyone trying to resurrect HS2 in the future.
Yeah, he's a corrupt Tory prick, of course that's what he's doing.
I'm just annoyed at the total lack of vision from this Labour party. They are shite.
Sunak decided nothing until the absolute last moment possible. Definitely not worthy of praise at all.
Ignore this concern troll. Lemmy is full of these anonymous accounts who do nothing but spread FUD about labour. Anyone with their head screwed on wouldn't spend all day bad mouthing and 'bOtH sIdEs' ing labour. Rachel Reeves speech was alright, this policy is nothing but good for the British people, and I'm looking forward to seeing the manifesto closer to the election.
Oh and you have a named account do you?
Maybe you're just some Blairite pro Starmer establishmentist, ever think about that?
Well, I think he decided some time ago and then lied about having made the decision only to then make the decision.
I honestly, despise this lot but nothing Labour is saying is getting me excited, nothing at all.
if you recover the money you also review the process and potentially find wrong doing.
that's a great initiative
Starmer is not in government so unable to really make massive decisions. I don't believe we should be applauding Sunak only for being decisive. especially when it's such a terrible decision.
I appreciate that, but an election is coming and I want to know what the policy will be, especially regarding these massive issues.
Also, I want to see people in prison for this fraud, particularly anybody in or related to government.
I've seen enough crackdowns on 'benefit fraud' in my lifetime, it's time for an actual fraud smackdown.
Claiming back ยฃ7b should be an easy target. Sunak has said they are aiming to retrieve ยฃ1.1b of the potential ยฃ58.8 lost to the treasury.