General News Thread

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

It was an interesting video and kind of matches what was in this BBC interview of four South Korean women.  Long hours, big inequality between men and women and very expensive to have children with little help from the government.  It begs the question as to why the South Korean government are not doing more to support people, who want children when national birth rate is so low. 
 

 

Previous governments have tried to incentivise higher birth rates, but all of the plans that they have tried to apply have a. not really looked to change the Korean working paradigm in any meaningful way and b. made the rather misogynist assumption that women have to be the homemakers in that situation. So those incentivise have worked about as well as you might expect, eg. not at all. 

 

As you say, for such plans to work, a lot has to change over there. 

[Alf Bentley]

On 16/07/2025 at 12:38, Sampson said:

I think it’s more that, as has been the case over the past decade, that political crisis and events take over.
 

I think Farage has got his base now and I don’t see those voters changing their mind regardless of what Labour do with the immigration and economy (and tbh I think a big problem is I think a lot of the issues people care about are opposed to how you grow an economy - I don’t see how you can fix an ageing population’s economy where the labour supply is buckling under those who need care and state support without immigration and/or making politically  unpopular opinions like the cutting fuel allowance or raising the retirement age - but we saw the backlash Labour got for cutting winter fuel allowance on pensioners).

 

In that way I think Farage is on course to win the election regardless of what Labour do because it’s a catch 22. However, the mitigation here is that the world over the past decade has swung violently from one political crisis to another and these end up taking control of the narrative so things like escalations/ending of the war in Ukraine, a natural disaster, another pandemic or war or such like can completely swing the public’s view. The world feels a very different place to me than it did 4 years ago and will no doubt do in another 4 years. But a lot of that is really out of the government’s control. 

 

I agree with most of what you say here, but am genuinely in two minds as to whether Farage is on course to win the next election.

 

This link showing Reform target seats makes interesting reading: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk

If the country is still in a mess (likely, I'm afraid), I can certainly see Reform sweeping through the first 200-250 seats, plus some more thereafter. But they'd need 325+ seats for a majority.

Could they win in Mid-Derbyshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Reigate, North Cornwall, Shrewsbury, Cotswolds, Worthing, Cardiff North (the posh bit), Tunbridge Wells, Leicester East....because they'd need to win a lot of such places (though I suppose there's the possibility of a Reform-led minority govt - I presume only the Tories & Ulster Unionists might get in bed with them?).

 

Of course, much will depend on whether the Lab Govt improves people's lives in the next 4 years - a phenomenally difficult task for any govt, given the state of the economy and global turbulence. It might also depend a bit on how Farage/Reform are viewed over that time - and they're now in control of numerous councils nationwide. If they fail to improve things locally (again, a difficult task given local govt finances) or get involved in repeated scandals, that could undermine people's inclination to vote Farage into Downing Street. Plus the SDP and UKIP have had high poll ratings in the past and folk have voted in large numbers for the Brexit Party, UKIP or the Greens at European or local elections, but haven't done the same in general elections...

 

If things don't improve for voters by 2029, I'd agree that it's likely that Reform will win a lot of seats, but will they win power? That's what I'm in two minds about. I can see them winning most seats in the North & Midlands outside major cities, as well as impoverished ex-industrial towns and coastal towns, and socially mixed areas of the South (e.g. in Essex, Kent). But there are a lot of seats in major cities, in prosperous rural parts of the SE/SW and in Scotland (maybe Wales, to a lesser extent) that they might struggle to win. I'd also expect there to be a lot of anti-Reform tactical voting in seats that were known to be marginal at a general election.

 

God knows what a hypothetical Reform govt would do in office, as they'd face the same problems as Tory & Lab govts.

- Tax & spend: Slash taxes and public services, potentially harming a lot of their own voters while redistributing wealth to the rich, as per Trump's "big beautiful bill"?

- Illegal immigration: They'd have less chance than Lab/Con of gaining international cooperation to reduce illegal migration, so mass deportations of small boats migrants to Rwanda or somewhere with some UK equivalent of ICE conducting raids or grabbing people on beaches? Always assuming things don't get even darker with boat sinkings or similar?

- Legal immigration: Presumably they'd want major cuts here - and their voters would expect it - but what would happen to sectors with a lot of migrant labour like care, hospitality & agriculture?

- Demographic timebomb: This won't go away, so would they alienate their own often older voters by major cuts to pensions and/or the NHS to fund tax cuts?

- Net Zero: Will they continue to oppose this, when the majority of voters (even a lot of potential Reform voters) see climate change as an important reality that needs addressing?

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree with most of what you say here, but am genuinely in two minds as to whether Farage is on course to win the next election.

 

This link showing Reform target seats makes interesting reading: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk

If the country is still in a mess (likely, I'm afraid), I can certainly see Reform sweeping through the first 200-250 seats, plus some more thereafter. But they'd need 325+ seats for a majority.

Could they win in Mid-Derbyshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Reigate, North Cornwall, Shrewsbury, Cotswolds, Worthing, Cardiff North (the posh bit), Tunbridge Wells, Leicester East....because they'd need to win a lot of such places (though I suppose there's the possibility of a Reform-led minority govt - I presume only the Tories & Ulster Unionists might get in bed with them?).

 

Of course, much will depend on whether the Lab Govt improves people's lives in the next 4 years - a phenomenally difficult task for any govt, given the state of the economy and global turbulence. It might also depend a bit on how Farage/Reform are viewed over that time - and they're now in control of numerous councils nationwide. If they fail to improve things locally (again, a difficult task given local govt finances) or get involved in repeated scandals, that could undermine people's inclination to vote Farage into Downing Street. Plus the SDP and UKIP have had high poll ratings in the past and folk have voted in large numbers for the Brexit Party, UKIP or the Greens at European or local elections, but haven't done the same in general elections...

 

If things don't improve for voters by 2029, I'd agree that it's likely that Reform will win a lot of seats, but will they win power? That's what I'm in two minds about. I can see them winning most seats in the North & Midlands outside major cities, as well as impoverished ex-industrial towns and coastal towns, and socially mixed areas of the South (e.g. in Essex, Kent). But there are a lot of seats in major cities, in prosperous rural parts of the SE/SW and in Scotland (maybe Wales, to a lesser extent) that they might struggle to win. I'd also expect there to be a lot of anti-Reform tactical voting in seats that were known to be marginal at a general election.

 

God knows what a hypothetical Reform govt would do in office, as they'd face the same problems as Tory & Lab govts.

- Tax & spend: Slash taxes and public services, potentially harming a lot of their own voters while redistributing wealth to the rich, as per Trump's "big beautiful bill"?

- Illegal immigration: They'd have less chance than Lab/Con of gaining international cooperation to reduce illegal migration, so mass deportations of small boats migrants to Rwanda or somewhere with some UK equivalent of ICE conducting raids or grabbing people on beaches? Always assuming things don't get even darker with boat sinkings or similar?

- Legal immigration: Presumably they'd want major cuts here - and their voters would expect it - but what would happen to sectors with a lot of migrant labour like care, hospitality & agriculture?

- Demographic timebomb: This won't go away, so would they alienate their own often older voters by major cuts to pensions and/or the NHS to fund tax cuts?

- Net Zero: Will they continue to oppose this, when the majority of voters (even a lot of potential Reform voters) see climate change as an important reality that needs addressing?

On this last one, I fear that they can convince enough people that it's not an immediate issue (or an issue at all) until it's impossible to deny, by which time of course it will be too late to really stop or mitigate the consequences. 

[Detroit Blues]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

On this last one, I fear that they can convince enough people that it's not an immediate issue (or an issue at all) until it's impossible to deny, by which time of course it will be too late to really stop or mitigate the consequences. 

That certainly is the plan. The people who own the fossil fuels money printing machine will say that until it is too late, and then at that point why turn it off? 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

That certainly is the plan. The people who own the fossil fuels money printing machine will say that until it is too late, and then at that point why turn it off? 

Exactly.

 

Already the narrative is a mix of "there is no problem" and "it's too late to do anything about the problem", moving from the former to the latter. 

 

Either way such sentiment needs to be neutralised wherever it is found. The stakes are high and the consequences vast. 

[foxy boxing]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Voting age will drop to 16 by next GE 

 

Understand the debate but on balance, not a fan 

The government knows that most 16 and 17 year old are more likely to vote Labour, in fact most will vote for Jeremy Corbyn new party whereas the tories have always relied on the grey(old) vote.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, UniFox21 said:

I think you're right, likewise has been many years since I was at school, but it was always thrown in as those PSHE/citizenship lessons here and there and not done very well. Overall the knowledge on politics etc is picked up by those interested or as you go through life, which really shouldn't be the way it's done.

 

I just feel if we're giving 16/17yr olds the vote whilst in full time education, we may as well teach them what their choices mean.

 

I don't have a strong view, but am inclined to be in favour of this change. It might encourage young people to become more interested in how they're governed and to feel they have more of a stake in society, at a time when things are increasingly difficult for young people in multiple ways (careers, housing, student debt, social media pressures...).

 

But I absolutely agree that we should improve citizenship education in schools. It's decades since I was in school, but my daughter went more recently (21 now). My impression of her school provision was as you describe: some citizenship but limited, shallow and rushed. She has a fair degree of interest/info now, but mainly gleaned from friends, parents and her own online research.

 

I saw the Tory spokesman opposing this due to the inconsistency between voting age and age limits for marriage, drinking alcohol, going to war, standing as a candidate. I find that disingenuous, selective and wrong. At 16, you can already join the army (but not go to war), get married (with parental permission), have sex and drink alcohol with a meal. At 17, you can have a driving licence. 

 

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to have different age limits for different activities - and older age limits for going to war, getting married without parental permission or standing as a candidate than for voting seem sensible to me, as more is at stake. Some of the other limits are grey areas.

 

A lot of 16-year-olds may be under-informed, but so are a lot of 18-year-olds - and an awful lot aged 28, 58 or 88! I've just spent 4 weeks interviewing passengers on buses and have now started a bar job in a holiday camp. I've been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and amenable most folk are, but unpleasantly surprised by how thick an awful lot of middle-aged and elderly folk are! 

 

I think citizenship should be compulsory, expanded and given more attention in schools. Clearly, care would be needed to avoid political bias. But a lot of citizenship knowledge (how democracy works, as well as practical life skills like banking/budgeting, tax, housing, pensions) is politically neutral - and guest speakers from different parties could be invited into class to explain their basic beliefs.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't have a strong view, but am inclined to be in favour of this change. It might encourage young people to become more interested in how they're governed and to feel they have more of a stake in society, at a time when things are increasingly difficult for young people in multiple ways (careers, housing, student debt, social media pressures...).

 

But I absolutely agree that we should improve citizenship education in schools. It's decades since I was in school, but my daughter went more recently (21 now). My impression of her school provision was as you describe: some citizenship but limited, shallow and rushed. She has a fair degree of interest/info now, but mainly gleaned from friends, parents and her own online research.

 

I saw the Tory spokesman opposing this due to the inconsistency between voting age and age limits for marriage, drinking alcohol, going to war, standing as a candidate. I find that disingenuous, selective and wrong. At 16, you can already join the army (but not go to war), get married (with parental permission), have sex and drink alcohol with a meal. At 17, you can have a driving licence. 

 

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to have different age limits for different activities - and older age limits for going to war, getting married without parental permission or standing as a candidate than for voting seem sensible to me, as more is at stake. Some of the other limits are grey areas.

 

A lot of 16-year-olds may be under-informed, but so are a lot of 18-year-olds - and an awful lot aged 28, 58 or 88! I've just spent 4 weeks interviewing passengers on buses and have now started a bar job in a holiday camp. I've been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and amenable most folk are, but unpleasantly surprised by how thick an awful lot of middle-aged and elderly folk are! 

 

I think citizenship should be compulsory, expanded and given more attention in schools. Clearly, care would be needed to avoid political bias. But a lot of citizenship knowledge (how democracy works, as well as practical life skills like banking/budgeting, tax, housing, pensions) is politically neutral - and guest speakers from different parties could be invited into class to explain their basic beliefs.

You are such an asset to this community, Alf. 

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, leicsmac said:

You are such an asset to this community, Alf. 

 

 

 

Thanks, Macca. I can only answer by quoting Spike Milligan's response to (then) Prince Charles. 

 

 

 

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, nnfox said:

I have a 16 year old. He can barely understand the implications of his decision making more than about 3 seconds into the future, and bases most of his decisions on information he received in the previous 3 seconds.  There's no way I would give him the opportunity to vote in a GE.  I'd say the same about his mates and his football team and they are, in the most part, all good, decent kids.  But that's the thing, they are most definitely kids.

 

 

I must admit, I feel that way about a good few 30, 40 and 50 year-olds that I've worked with!

 

4 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Agreed, really not a fan. Don't believe our education system gives 16/17 year olds the base to vote with understanding of what the choices mean. 

What gives them the 'base to vote with understanding of what the choices mean' after they turn 16/17'? Many things, you'd hope, but in theory being recently educated on some of these issues - e.g. a multi-cultural society / the perils of fascism and communism - should give 16/17 year-olds the edge over 70 year-olds who haven't learnt a thing in decades. Maybe they will be more likely to vote Labour, but the part of that which comes from enfranchisement won't last for long. The part of that which stems from understanding the historical issues which make solutions proposed by right-wing populists sound somewhat less appealing than they do in the British press might.

 

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Others have expressed views broadly in line with mine

 

Do we think this decision will engage more teenagers and make them feel less ostracised by the lawmakers ? 
if no, then it’s a political move.  Are we out of step globally with our min voting age? 

I totally understand where you're coming from too, and am perhaps playing devil's advocate to some extent with my previous comments. But as for being 'out of step globally' - I really would prefer to see the UK leading the way with democratic reform rather than dragging its heels. All around the West there is a groundswell of feeling that we need to bolster democracy and that this might be one of the ways of doing it. Like you, I suspect it's political opportunism, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's wrong on this occasion. If we can develop a cross-party and politically-neutral consensus on how to prep youngsters for the decisions they're going to have to make (yes, I know, fat chance!) then it could work out. You have to hope.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't have a strong view, but am inclined to be in favour of this change. It might encourage young people to become more interested in how they're governed and to feel they have more of a stake in society, at a time when things are increasingly difficult for young people in multiple ways (careers, housing, student debt, social media pressures...).

 

But I absolutely agree that we should improve citizenship education in schools. It's decades since I was in school, but my daughter went more recently (21 now). My impression of her school provision was as you describe: some citizenship but limited, shallow and rushed. She has a fair degree of interest/info now, but mainly gleaned from friends, parents and her own online research.

 

I saw the Tory spokesman opposing this due to the inconsistency between voting age and age limits for marriage, drinking alcohol, going to war, standing as a candidate. I find that disingenuous, selective and wrong. At 16, you can already join the army (but not go to war), get married (with parental permission), have sex and drink alcohol with a meal. At 17, you can have a driving licence. 

 

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to have different age limits for different activities - and older age limits for going to war, getting married without parental permission or standing as a candidate than for voting seem sensible to me, as more is at stake. Some of the other limits are grey areas.

 

A lot of 16-year-olds may be under-informed, but so are a lot of 18-year-olds - and an awful lot aged 28, 58 or 88! I've just spent 4 weeks interviewing passengers on buses and have now started a bar job in a holiday camp. I've been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and amenable most folk are, but unpleasantly surprised by how thick an awful lot of middle-aged and elderly folk are! 

 

I think citizenship should be compulsory, expanded and given more attention in schools. Clearly, care would be needed to avoid political bias. But a lot of citizenship knowledge (how democracy works, as well as practical life skills like banking/budgeting, tax, housing, pensions) is politically neutral - and guest speakers from different parties could be invited into class to explain their basic beliefs.

Have you considered starting an edu-bus for the middle-aged and elderly?

[Muzzy_no7]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

The government knows that most 16 and 17 year old are more likely to vote Labour, in fact most will vote for Jeremy Corbyn new party whereas the tories have always relied on the grey(old) vote.

It’s an absolutely ludicrous decision IMO and the only reason it’s being brought in is to prolong a government left of centre. 
 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

It’s an absolutely ludicrous decision IMO and the only reason it’s being brought in is to prolong a government left of centre. 
 

 

Purely out of interest, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on @Alf Bentley's take above, which I believe also touches on this?

 

In any case, demographic data from the last election showed that support for the current right of centre darlings was pretty consistent across age lines (apart from, funnily enough, the 65+ group).

[urban.spaceman]

****ing hell  

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

****ing hell  

 

 

Was probably his PA carrying the bags 

[Muzzy_no7]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Purely out of interest, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on @Alf Bentley's take above, which I believe also touches on this?

 

In any case, demographic data from the last election showed that support for the current right of centre darlings was pretty consistent across age lines (apart from, funnily enough, the 65+ group).

I think it’s being brought in for political reasons.

 

At 16 or 17 you can’t work full time without education being part of it. 
 

You can’t get a credit card.

 

You can’t get a loan.

 

You can’t own a house. 

 

You can’t buy alcohol legally.
 

You can’t buy cigarettes legally.

 

You can’t get a tattoo legally.

 

Your parents still get child benefits up to 20 years of age if in education. 

 

You have no real experience of the real world, concept of money, bills etc or having proper responsibilities. 
 

But yeah let’s lower the voting age.

 

I’m massively against it. 
 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I think it’s being brought in for political reasons.

 

At 16 or 17 you can’t work full time without education being part of it. 
 

You can’t get a credit card.

 

You can’t get a loan.

 

You can’t own a house. 

 

You can’t buy alcohol legally.
 

You can’t buy cigarettes legally.

 

You can’t get a tattoo legally.

 

Your parents still get child benefits up to 20 years of age if in education. 

 

You have no real experience of the real world, concept of money, bills etc or having proper responsibilities. 
 

But yeah let’s lower the voting age.

 

I’m massively against it. 
 

I was looking more for a straight refutation rather than a reiteration of points already made, but fair enough. 

 

Curiosity was more the motivation because personally on this one I don't have a horse in the race and I'm just interested in the discussion. 

[Alf Bentley]

49 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

It’s an absolutely ludicrous decision IMO and the only reason it’s being brought in is to prolong a government left of centre. 
 

 

 

A grey area and a matter of opinion, IMO, though I'm mildly in favour for reasons already stated.

 

I'm realistic enough to think they wouldn't have introduced it if they thought it would harm them electorally, but I doubt that party political gain is the main or only reason for it. Public engagement in a time of cynicism matters. Plus, it was a manifesto commitment, so they publicly said they'd raise the voting age and were voted in (though not for that reason, obviously).

 

If they were only bringing it in for party political advantage, that would be pretty unwise. A lot of young people, particularly young men, voted for LePen's crew in France. I also just checked to see which other countries have voting at 16 (only a handful, most still use 18). Those with voting at 16 include Argentina, which elected a Far Right President, and Austria, where a Far Right party won most votes.

 

In the short-term (in 2029), I suspect those gaining most votes might be Corbyn's crew, the Greens and Reform. I'd expect a lot of young people to vote against Starmer in 2029 as the evil bastard in govt who hasn't done enough for the country or for the environment or for Palestine etc. Young people might tend to vote Left more, but they also tend to oppose the status quo / powers that be more. Hopefully it will increase democratic engagement in the long-term, though a lot else will have to change for that to happen.

 

A much worse disservice to democracy was done by the previous govt needlessly introducing I.D. requirements for voting at polling stations (I might not like Tice, but suspect he's actually right that there are more issues with postal votes). Given the lack of evidence of significant in-person voting fraud, there's a strong case for arguing that the Tories introduced those changes for party political advantage, given that it is the poor, the young and racial minorities who disproportionately lack the relevant I.D. - and who disproportionately vote against the Tories. I do accept that minimum voting age is a grey area - and the reduction should be accompanied by better citizenship education - but at least this reform has the potential to help increase political engagement at a time of cynicism, rather than trying to selectively suppress voting, as the Tory change did.

[FoxesDeb]

If it tips the balance back towards being in favour of those who still have their lives ahead of them rather than those who are, respectfully, seeing out their last years, then I'm in favour. 

 

 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

I wonder how much thought the average 16 year old gives to the subject of funding adult social care or council tax for example or should defence spending be increased

[reporterpenguin]

1 hour ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I think it’s being brought in for political reasons.

 

At 16 or 17 you can’t work full time without education being part of it. 
 

You can’t get a credit card.

 

You can’t get a loan.

 

You can’t own a house. 

 

You can’t buy alcohol legally.
 

You can’t buy cigarettes legally.

 

You can’t get a tattoo legally.

 

Your parents still get child benefits up to 20 years of age if in education. 

 

You have no real experience of the real world, concept of money, bills etc or having proper responsibilities. 
 

But yeah let’s lower the voting age.

 

I’m massively against it. 
 

A counter example would be that you can fight, and die, for the country at 16 by joining the army. 
 

I've not got a strong opinion either way, but would probably lean in favour. There are some 16 year olds I wouldn’t trust to run a bath, but in truth I know a lot of adults I’d say similar of. I also know plenty who at 16 were very engaged in politics and the news. Nobody will be dragging 16 year olds to the polls, if they want to vote that’s up to them. 
 

 

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

A counter example would be that you can fight, and die, for the country at 16 by joining the army. 
 

I've not got a strong opinion either way, but would probably lean in favour. There are some 16 year olds I wouldn’t trust to run a bath, but in truth I know a lot of adults I’d say similar of. I also know plenty who at 16 were very engaged in politics and the news. Nobody will be dragging 16 year olds to the polls, if they want to vote that’s up to them. 
 

 

Soldiers would not be in combat till 18

[Muzzy_no7]

11 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

A counter example would be that you can fight, and die, for the country at 16 by joining the army. 
 

I've not got a strong opinion either way, but would probably lean in favour. There are some 16 year olds I wouldn’t trust to run a bath, but in truth I know a lot of adults I’d say similar of. I also know plenty who at 16 were very engaged in politics and the news. Nobody will be dragging 16 year olds to the polls, if they want to vote that’s up to them. 
 

 

This just isn’t correct, it’s 18. 

[st albans fox]

maybe those who are working and therefore contributing to govt funds should be entitled to vote ???

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

maybe those who are working and therefore contributing to govt funds should be entitled to vote ???

That could include toddlers?