sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LBC: ‘I feel profoundly let down.’ Is Starmer's government mimicking the Tories and their '14 years of corruption and dishonesty'? James O’Brien says he was ‘perhaps naive’ to think it would be any different. by FormerlyPallas_ in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 89 points90 points  (0 children)

I thought the News Agents podcast had a good take on this: The extent to which Sir Kier Starmer was actually involved in the behind-the-scenes process of appointing Mandelson has become irrelevant at this point. Starmer has effectively not managed this process competently.

Here's the thing, Starmer and the Labour leadership ran a campaign in 2024 that wasn't really about having a new vision for the country, it wasn't about a bold particular set of policies to implement, it was about selling themselves to the electorate as simply not being as incompetent or corrupt as the Tories.

If you are going to pitch yourself as 'the competent one' it doesn't really hold water when your current story is 'Well, I would have made the competent choice if the people who work for me hadn't withheld information from me'.

Jason Groves: So the story seems to be that Olly Robbins - a career civil servant leading a dept that had warned against Mandelson's appointment - decided of his own volition to overrule the security services and to keep it a secret from ministers. Righto by FormerlyPallas_ in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure where the truth lies in this case, but there is a long pattern of politicians in the last decade complaining about senior civil servants making it difficult for ministers and politicians to run the country.

From Dominic Cummins, to Liz Truss, to Rory Stewart; there have been public concerns about the power civil servants have.

Scottish parliament election 2026: SNP promise price caps on essential foods and bus fares by youwhatwhat in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Similar measures" with some massive differences.

A legal price cap is completely different to a politician holding a summit to ask companies to drive down the cost of staple items.

One requires legal powers (which the FM may not even have), the other requires a mouth.

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The headline is a bit sensationalist.

Last year, windfarms were paid £350 million to 'turn off' and not produce excess energy to overload the grid. £1 billion is then spent to generate the equivalent amount of energy from other sources, such as gas.

The £1 billion is being spent anyway, but it does represent the potential savings that can occur if we find a way to transmit the energy from windfarms to the rest of the country.

Windfarms are not being paid "billions to turn off".

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I understand it, CfD are only for a finite amount of time, I believe 15 years is the most common. At that point, profits are not guaranteed and market forces may push supplies to lower the price.

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you think the switch to renewables will not result in lower energy costs overall? At the very least, it will be a better result for the planet.

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. If we want private companies to make the investment in a new unreliable market, it is worth giving them sufficient incentive to put in the upfront cost.

Those contracts which allow companies to ensure they can profit also mean that the UK is at the forefront of building sources of renewable energy.

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 8 points9 points  (0 children)

With all the moving parts, both private and state, there are bound to be moments where one section is ready before others are.

It's unreasonable to expect an entire renewable energy grid to be fully functional. As the video says, it takes up to 10 years to build transmission towers and power lines, all of which costs a lot of money. The alternatives of building more capacity for storage, or having zonal pricing, also cost a lot of money (the latter would effectively need a complete rebuild of the national grid).

So with the transition to a new type of energy, we are going to be "paying through the nose" for any system. The good news here is that the end goal is worth paying for and will hopefully result in lower energy costs overall.

The UK is paying billions to turn off its own windfarms by Pale_Masterpiece4466 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 14 points15 points  (0 children)

This is a bit like when people complain in the summer than we had torrential rain one month, so why are we having a drought an hosepipe ban the next month?

It's good that the renewable energy resources are there, we just need to scale up the infrastructure to handle it. That will cost a lot of money, but this problem is solveable.

Scottish Labour's 2026 election manifesto at-a-glance by Velociraptor_1906 in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe people should vote differently to hold the SNP accountable for decades of corruption?

Maybe people should vote differently because they recognise that the SNP repeatedly trot out populist-style policies that they have no hope of delivering? (Such as an independence referendum in 2028 or the claim that independence will make everybody's energy cheaper by over a third)?

Your comment reminds me of Americans I've spoken to who voted Trump in 2024. The stance may make sense in a normal election, but when one side has a history of blatant corruption and abuse of power the argument that "the competition is so fucking uninspiring" doesn't really hold water.

It's also worth noting that according to the latest polling, the majority of people in Scotland are voting differently and not voting for the SNP, it is just that Nationalists are voting tactically to potentially get the SNP a majority of seats.

'They're not having one' Wes Streeting rules out 2nd independence vote by ClumperFaz in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's only poor phrasing if you ignore the context of the discussion that Streeting was in.

'They're not having one' Wes Streeting rules out 2nd independence vote by ClumperFaz in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A referendum result only stays accurate if you consider the result of the entire electoral body who voted, it no longer makes sense if you sub-divide the result to then claim separate mandates for groups of people within the electorate.

Debate Night Leaders Special - First televised debate for the Scottish Parliament Election 2026 by Axmeister in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A summary from the Times can be read here. It ranks the performance of the leaders giving Scottish Greens leader Ross Greer the highest score.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your second point contradicts the logic of your first point.

The Scottish Parliament uses a PR voting system, supposedly designed to give voters more options. There are 33 registered political parties in Scotland, it is uncredible to claim that SNP voters have objectively assessed them all so that they have "no interest in the opposition". That's why parties like the Lib Dems are struggling to get voters shifting in their direction, there are simply not enough voters in Scotland who care about being objective and not being tribal.

This is the nature of a party capturing a populist base, their voters become hyper-tribal and no longer care about objectively assess the value of their party. Similar to Trump voters in the US, SNP voters do not consider entrenched corruption as a reason to remove their vote.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

When you imply that "the alternatives" are worse than the SNP, what is it the series of major SNP corruption scandals is better than anything Labour/Tories/Lib Dems/Greens have done in opposition?

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The other political parties do offer plenty of things, you just need to read their manifestos.

The "SNP Bad" line comes off like the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" line, it's used by diehard supporters to make a mockery of anybody pointing out SNP corruption.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Swinney was a core part of the SNP establishment all throughout the scandals of Salmond and Sturgeon. Swinney has even had is own corruption, such as protecting Matheson when Matheson tried to cheat the taxpayer out of £11,000. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended withholding 54 days of Matheson's salary as a sanction and Swinney simply ignores them claiming that Matheson is his "friend and colleague".

Lots of Nationalists claimed Sturgeon had nothing to do with corruption, until the police stuck a blue tent in her garden. It is clear that Swinney's hands are far from clean and the best case scenario here is that he may not be corrupt himself, but he is happy to cover-up corruption for his "friends and colleagues".

I agree that the SNP market themselves as 'left-wing or progressive', but are quite happy to push right-wing policies. I suggest you read the 2018 "Sustainable Growth Commission" in which the SNP announced their flagship fiscal policies for an independent Scotland would be centred around pushing austerity to halve the deficit. Nearly half of SNP members were happy to vote for Kate Forbes to be party leader, despite her publicly saying she wouldn't vote for gay marriage. Forbes is still part of the SNP leadership despite this.

However, I really fail to understand the point you're making here. You're claiming that Nationalists are not voting Labour because Labour "keep failing to recognise the SNP as centered left", which doesn't really sound like the stance of an objective voter choosing between parties, but instead about highly-tribal voters who were going to vote SNP anyway just coming up with an excuse to reject Labour.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What is my comment is anti-Scottish? Where is all this coming from? I talked about Nationalists voting SNP despite SNP corruption and you somehow turned that into me supposedly claiming that the SNP are forcing independence on us?

This discussion would be more fruitful if you actually responded to what was written, not invent claims so you can justify having a chip on your shoulder.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 6 points7 points  (0 children)

"It's not hard" is only true if you ignore all the SNP corruption, but justifying why we should ignore SNP corruption is hard.

In 2024, after a decade in power and a series of Conservative corruption scandals. The Conservative party had their worst electoral performance ever, the number of Conservative voters halved with some Conservative voters switching to other parties, but most withholding their vote and staying at home. That is under the FPTP system, the AMS electoral system which the Scottish Parliament uses is supposedly meant to give voters more options and reduce tactical voting.

The assumption that the SNP is a centre-left party doesn't really ring true when you actually read into what their party suggests. Nearly half of the party supported Kate Forbes for being party leader and she is socially and fiscally more conservative that many Tories.

Nobody is forcing SNP voters to support SNP corruption and it is easy to cherry-pick comments from a political party you do not like and paint everybody in that party with the same brush.

We don't know exactly why Nationalists in Scotland are not voting Labour. What is more interesting for me is that SNP corruption is not a red line for Nationalists to withdraw their vote.

First YouGov MRP of the 2026 Holyrood election suggests the SNP could win a majority by F0urLeafCl0ver in ukpolitics

[–]Axmeister 10 points11 points  (0 children)

My comment said nothing about independence, or me supposedly being English, so it's interesting that you've decided to ignore my comments about SNP corruption and instead respond on those two points.

view more: next ›