CornwallFox

These are absolutely not the only options. It's this sort of thinking that has led us to such a terrible place. The Tories had long periods in government where interest rates were almost nil on government debt. They should have been borrowing to invest in capital projects, that was exactly the time to borrow and spend and get the economy growing. Instead they used the false dichotomy that you're promoting to cut spending (compared to where it would have been), dampening growth, leading to the worst wage growth in hundreds of years at one point and causing massive problems in public services. Government spending underpins the entire economy. Virtually every penny spent through public services reaches the private sector. Either through wages (or benefits) being spent, or for maintenance, goods, construction etc. Government spending is the single biggest driving force in the economy. Cutting public spending is bad for the private sector and bad for the whole economy. It is now now difficult to borrow, as interest rates are higher, but cutting spending will not lead to growth. It is anti-growth. Even if you cut taxes on business, unless the government is spending on goods, services, maintenance and construction, there still isn't the work and investment there to support business investment. Businesses might have slightly more money but still not the government business streams that underpins their investment decisions and creates business certainty.

100% agree.

But being the first chancellor in 50 years to raise income tax, in direct contradiction to their manifesto, would obviously be massively unpopular. They don't need to leak that to the papers to discover it would be unpopular. The idea that a fortnight from the budget the biggest single policy is still being test run through the papers sounds ridiculous. I don't buy that for a second.

You have absolutely no idea about that. Before last year's budget all sorts of claims were made about what they'd do and she did none of them. It's just paper talk, honestly embarrassing anybody claims u-turns based on headlines.

We are. We're maybe a decade/decade and a half away from everybody realising it. The effects of global warming are picking up pace. They'll be undeniable within that sort of timeframe. We've already missed 1.5°C. we're pretty much nailed on to miss 2°C. Maybe there's just enough traction to stop before 2.5°C but without the US on board it's uphill. I sorta suspect we'll end up much higher and it'll be truly existential. Even at 2.5°C we're talking large numbers of deaths, swathes of the earth becoming very inhospitable, mass movements of people. Tbh I've long suspected the likes of the US are thinking that we'll see the human population reduce, that they have enough military to stop mass migration inwards.

It's not u turn when it's something that isn't announced and it's just paper headlines. The budget is the budget. Everything before is press noise. Also the economy isn't so binary. You can decide to borrow to try to induce growth. Cutting removes money from the economy and it's counter productive when growth and business investment is your aim.

Not in any form. Assuming this point was made about the football regulator appointment and the fact he had donated to Starmar, the appointment decision was made by the Secretary of state for culture etc, who simply asked starmar if he was content with that appointment, which starmar confirmed he was. Starmar had previously recused himself from decision making regarding the position because of his links to football, but that single exchange was what starmar apologised for as it appears to be a rubber stamp, when actually decision making sat with the secretary of state.

Tommy Watson on loan from Brighton to offer something either at 10 or on the wing.

Nobody has taken a bribe, let's be clear.

Gordon brown signed off in nuclear reactors years ago so they could have been built by now. Whatever the whys and wherefores we finally have a government pushing forward on it which should go in the positive column for them. Google's AI search gives the following information: In 2025, the UK government's nuclear build strategy has advanced significantly with major financial commitments and planning changes for large-scale and small modular reactors (SMRs). The key developments include: Sizewell C Go-ahead and Funding: On June 10, 2025, the UK government committed over £14 billion to the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. Investment: In July 2025, the government secured private investment from partners including EDF and Centrica, unlocking further funding for the project. Progress: Pre-construction work is ongoing as of mid-2025, with the project using the Hinkley Point C plant as a blueprint. Timeline: Construction is expected to take nine to twelve years, with the earliest possible commissioning date in the mid-2030s. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) Planning Reforms: In February 2025, the government announced plans to cut planning red tape to facilitate the building of SMRs on more sites across the country. Competition Winner: Rolls-Royce was named the winning bidder for the UK's SMR competition in June 2025. Site Selection: The public body Great British Nuclear aims to announce a preferred site for an SMR by the end of 2025. Potential locations are likely to be old industrial sites like former nuclear plants or coal mines. A final investment decision for the Rolls-Royce design is expected in 2029, with the goal of the first one being operational by the mid-2030s. Private Deals: In September 2025, commercial deals were announced, including plans by EDF and US firm Holtec to build SMR-powered data centres and a partnership between X-Energy and Centrica to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors (AMRs) in Hartlepool. Other Initiatives Hinkley Point C: Construction on the UK's first new nuclear power station in decades continues. The first reactor is progressing, but the project has faced significant delays and cost overruns, with completion now expected by 2031 and an estimated cost of up to £57 billion. Fuel Production: The government has committed £300 million to produce a new type of nuclear reactor fuel (HALEU) in the UK to reduce reliance on Russian supply and improve energy security. Future Sites: The government is exploring a new National Policy Statement for further large-scale nuclear plants beyond Sizewell C, with Wylfa and Moorside being leading candidate sites. The overall strategy, as outlined in the government's Civil Nuclear Roadmap, is to significantly expand the sector and quadruple nuclear generation by 2050 to bolster energy independence.

They're getting behind small modular nuclear reactors to provide base energy, something that should have been done many years ago. You don't hear about any of it but away from the same few talking points, they are actually doing a few decent things.

The NHS pay rises last year were already agreed under the Tories but not paid and they hadn't set aside any budget to pay them. Gross incompetence at best, intentional salting of the earth, party before country nonsense at worst. With GB energy, it's our best chance of getting bills down. Privatised energy companies are allowed to charge all energy based on the cost of the most expensive segment they use. So if they use 1% gas and 99% wind, they can charge based on gas price even though wind is 9x cheaper to produce. GB energy will be able to charge based on actual cost which should be much lower. Obviously to get there they need to buy up capacity so there's a fair old lead in time. They have started by buying solar panels for schools and NHS buildings which is a good way to reduce government energy costs beyond the initial capital spend.

GB Energy and a huge uplift in NHS budgets to support it's improvement are long term benefits.

If they don't get rid of him it'll come down to delivery. Probably not so much in terms of NHS appointments and the like, as they've already delivered on that and it's been ignored, but in terms of cost of living and immigration.

I think he's saying reform aren't a viable option and there's no other parties in position. Within labour there's a few I like.

I haven't been down here that long but there's a couple of Cornish artists I rather like so far: John Dyer has a childlike quality to his pictures but I love his work. I'll be buying a bunch of his paintings I'm sure as I love lots of them: Julia Prior does atmosphere really well, again can see me buying one of hers:

Lack of streetlights. There's no bloody streetlights down here 😂 And pheasants. Can't move for pheasants.

.

Without the BBC trying to be impartial - even if it gets it wrong sometimes then holds itself account to a degree no other broadcaster does - then it's a field day for the others. The BBC is needed.

No, labour clearly aren't doing well in this regard. Labour not doing well now and the Tories being absolutely awful over 14 years can both be true.

I think a decent head of recruitment or whatever they're called is more important than Rudkin. When we had Macia we were picking winners most of the time. Since then it's been a downhill spiral and all of the recruitment heads we've had have done appalling jobs at identifying players within budget and with potential. For every Jordan James there's a Woyo Coulibaly, Skipp, Ayew and BDCR. We must have about a 10% success rate over the last few years. Rudkin may well ultimately be to blame as overall DOF but we've brought in some well thought of recruitment leads who have utterly failed.

None of the players etc expiring contracts will leave in January without being offered silly money at they can sign pre contract agreements for free transfers. That said, how many of them will actually be wanted by anybody else is another question. Just praying we don't start giving them contracts thinking we're locking in some imaginary value.

Much like last year with a 25 point total

I'll say this again as you've refused to read it every other time I've written it. The BBC has got it wrong. I don't think it's a big issue, in fact I think it's tiny, but you disagree and think it's a big issue. Fine. Let's agree to disagree about the scale of the issue. Separately, the threat to the BBC is from a right wing political class and media that want to end unbiased reporting so that they can dominate with their right wing opinion pieces. Seperately again, I'm not sure why you keep saying the BBC is done. At the moment the entire country is being dragged rightwards by GB news, online troll farms, and a media discourse pushing the overton window ever rightwards. The BBC has been under attack from that quarter for decades for supposed left wing bias (despite independent studies showing the bias is the other way if anything). Social media has had commentators talking about not paying the licence fee for years, it's no different now. The BBC is certainly under threat from the right, but the idea it's suddenly broken due to this issue is fanciful imo.

I understand that, we come from different sides of the political coin. I can accept and understand you thinking that the BBC has erred and that you may view it more seriously than I do. All fair. But on the flip side I'd invite you to perhaps accept that compared to those other media outlets I've listed, the BBC is clearly less biased.