General News Thread

[Muzzy_no7]

11 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I'd happy pay more if I knew they weren't going to waste it. We could all pay an extra 5% tax and the Government would still say it's not enough.

 

Constantly taxing us is just slowing the economy down and stopping growth IMO.

I certainly would not be happy paying more than me and the Mrs already do. It’s already too much for our bracket.

 

Thresholds need raising. 
 

 

[Tommy G]

16 hours ago, Sampson said:

Will never understand the number of people who complain about the state of the country but then complain if you say we might need to raise taxes in order to fix it.

 

You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you want to fix public services, infrastructure; buildings, fix roads etc. then we all have to be prepared to pay for it. 

How much more can taxes go up though? That's the moan, and tax rises doesn't mean automatic improvement in public services, NHS etc, as you can't trust the state not to completely waste it. 

 

It's like trusting John Rudkin with a transfer war chest, but worse. 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Because the last 13 months and several years before Cameron stepped in were covered in glory weren’t they. Christ. 

In the last half century since the "post-war consesus" was abandoned, a Conservative government has been running things for practically double the time that a Labour one has. 

 

I mean, if we're looking at responsibility based on the length of time having the power to set and apply policy...

[leicsmac]

WRT taxation, again the current ideas are neither one thing nor the other and that really doesn't help. 

 

Either levy the richest 1% with a massive rise to fund public services and cop their caterwauling about it in the press, or lower thresholds and let the market decide who lives or dies American-style (if someone has the self-interest and lack of conscience to know that is happening and be OK with it).

 

Either way, pick a lane, whether Scandinavian or US/Somalia, and pick the right targets rather than the halfway house that exists now. 

Edited 21 August 2025 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

Be careful what you wish for with Milei, he has literally doubled the levels of poverty in Argentina. 

 

Yes, he's fixing some metrics, but at what cost to the average citizen? 

Believe me, I do not want a Milei. It’s just that something will have to give and sadly it’s not going to be from the left any time soon.

[Lionator]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

In the last half century since the "post-war consesus" was abandoned, a Conservative government has been running things for practically double the time that a Labour one has. 

 

I mean, if we're looking at responsibility based on the length of time having the power to set and apply policy...

Is there any fundamental difference between the current Labour government and what was running the show before though? It seems there have been tweaks to policy and slightly more political sympathies to economic left principles but fundamentally nothing has changed. If anything this Labour government have become increasingly hostile and anti-liberal in certain areas. 

[foxy boxing]

Lucy Connolly being released today. Will she give any interviews. Free speech or incitement to violence. Was she harshly treated because of political motivations and made an example of or got what she deserved!. 

[Lionator]

3 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Lucy Connolly being released today. Will she give any interviews. Free speech or incitement to violence. Was she harshly treated because of political motivations and made an example of or got what she deserved!. 

A bit of everything I feel.

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Is there any fundamental difference between the current Labour government and what was running the show before though? It seems there have been tweaks to policy and slightly more political sympathies to economic left principles but fundamentally nothing has changed. If anything this Labour government have become increasingly hostile and anti-liberal in certain areas. 

That's an incredibly loaded debate on which everyone has a differing opinion. 

 

I'd agree from the point of view that there has been a certain agreement on policies from both major parties right from when Thatcher was in charge through to today, and now people are starting to reject that, for one end of the ideas spectrum or the other. 

[fox_up_north]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

WRT taxation, again the current ideas are neither one thing nor the other and that really doesn't help. 

 

Either levy the richest 1% with a massive rise to fund public services and cop their caterwauling about it in the press, or lower thresholds and let the market decide who lives or dies American-style (if someone has the self-interest and lack of conscience to know that is happening and be OK with it).

 

Either way, pick a lane, whether Scandinavian or US/Somalia, and pick the right targets rather than the halfway house that exists now. 

Have to agree. Governments have been dancing around it too long. Either everyone pays or the very well off pay the majority.

 

The argument that it's unfair to tax the rich, I actually understand - they would see they earned it so why should they pay more but it's about understanding everyone is a part of society. If you fear for your safety, then you need police to be paid for to keep things nice.

 

Unfortunately, globalisation devalued a lot of our industry from 30-50 years ago and if those company heads want to continue benefitting from that, then the price is higher taxes. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Because the last 13 months and several years before Cameron stepped in were covered in glory weren’t they. Christ. 

There was obviously a global financial crisis at the end of the labour term. But before that public services had record satisfaction levels and the economy had been in great shape. Labour twice ran budget surpluses, which we haven't seen for many decades in this country. 

Post-crisis there was a high deficit but it was temporary. It includes the hundreds of billions lent to banks to keep them afloat, v which they all repaid. 

Austerity locked in that temporary deficit by removing money from the economy. Public sector spending underpins the entire economy as pretty much all of it reaches the private sector. By reducing public spending, it had a hugely negative effect on the economy.

[CornwallFox]

4 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Have to agree. Governments have been dancing around it too long. Either everyone pays or the very well off pay the majority.

 

The argument that it's unfair to tax the rich, I actually understand - they would see they earned it so why should they pay more but it's about understanding everyone is a part of society. If you fear for your safety, then you need police to be paid for to keep things nice.

 

Unfortunately, globalisation devalued a lot of our industry from 30-50 years ago and if those company heads want to continue benefitting from that, then the price is higher taxes. 

It's not earned income that would be taxed. The super rich have avenues to enrich themselves ordinary people don't have. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

WRT taxation, again the current ideas are neither one thing nor the other and that really doesn't help. 

 

Either levy the richest 1% with a massive rise to fund public services and cop their caterwauling about it in the press, or lower thresholds and let the market decide who lives or dies American-style (if someone has the self-interest and lack of conscience to know that is happening and be OK with it).

 

Either way, pick a lane, whether Scandinavian or US/Somalia, and pick the right targets rather than the halfway house that exists now. 

I went to a really interesting lecture a couple of years ago by a professor from the York school of business. 

He was talking about the changes to corporate governance introduced through Reaganomics/Thatcherism, and how in the US and UK a corporation legally only exists to increase shareholder value. 

The knock on effect is that everything that can be done to increase that value is done: hold wages down, reduce quality to cut costs, increase prices.... Basically all things that are bad for ordinary people and society. 

So we see CEOs (who shareholders appoint to directly look after their interests so they are well paid to keep them onside) wages massively increasing compared to other workers, and shareholders taking ever bigger shares of the national wealth.

Meanwhile, prices rise, wages stagnate, quality is poor and ordinary workers get an ever smaller share of the national wealth. 

It's this that is the crucial problem we have today. 

Wanting to rebalance shareholders Vs workers so there is a sharing of national prosperity isn't the politics of envy, it's absolutely vital.

Edited 21 August 2025 by CornwallFox

[Greg2607]

18 hours ago, Sampson said:

Will never understand the number of people who complain about the state of the country but then complain if you say we might need to raise taxes in order to fix it.

 

You can’t have your cake and eat it. If you want to fix public services, infrastructure; buildings, fix roads etc. then we all have to be prepared to pay for it. 

People generally want things to change, but don't want that change to impact THEIR lives.  Also, if the things that are bad, don't impact them, then they tend not to care. 

 

Love it or loathe it, the VAT charge on private schools fees are a big deal to those that pay them currently. 

 

BUT those people that sent their kids to private school, didn't care that state education was poorly invested in. It didn't impact them.

 

Those that now can't afford private school fees, are angry that these "choices" are now impacting them AND see the state education system as poorer than what they were paying for, so may impact their kids. 

 

So now they are unhappy at the provision in state education as well, because it's impacting them.  

 

In general terms, the middle class and the rich are less impacted by everyday change as they are generally "alright"....

 

But the state of decay in the UK as a whole and especially for those in need of support, is shameful. It's just that most people don't see it. 

[kenny]

9 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

People generally want things to change, but don't want that change to impact THEIR lives.  Also, if the things that are bad, don't impact them, then they tend not to care. 

 

Love it or loathe it, the VAT charge on private schools fees are a big deal to those that pay them currently. 

 

BUT those people that sent their kids to private school, didn't care that state education was poorly invested in. It didn't impact them.

 

Those that now can't afford private school fees, are angry that these "choices" are now impacting them AND see the state education system as poorer than what they were paying for, so may impact their kids. 

 

So now they are unhappy at the provision in state education as well, because it's impacting them.  

 

In general terms, the middle class and the rich are less impacted by everyday change as they are generally "alright"....

 

But the state of decay in the UK as a whole and especially for those in need of support, is shameful. It's just that most people don't see it. 

They are probably angry that the policy won't even raise any money for treasury. So its a policy that negatively effects them and brings no benefit outside of ideology.

 

The only thing it has done is make private schooling more exclusive to those than can really afford it.

 

[ClaphamFox]

36 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

People generally want things to change, but don't want that change to impact THEIR lives.  Also, if the things that are bad, don't impact them, then they tend not to care. 

 

Love it or loathe it, the VAT charge on private schools fees are a big deal to those that pay them currently. 

 

BUT those people that sent their kids to private school, didn't care that state education was poorly invested in. It didn't impact them.

 

Those that now can't afford private school fees, are angry that these "choices" are now impacting them AND see the state education system as poorer than what they were paying for, so may impact their kids. 

 

So now they are unhappy at the provision in state education as well, because it's impacting them.  

 

In general terms, the middle class and the rich are less impacted by everyday change as they are generally "alright"....

 

But the state of decay in the UK as a whole and especially for those in need of support, is shameful. It's just that most people don't see it. 

We never aspired to send our children to private school, but that was before our older boy was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. He's currently at a small village primary school in a small class, where he gets a lot of input from his teacher and the TAs, and is thriving academically. There is a very good state second school near us, but it is a large school with 30+ pupils in each class and it's just not the kind of environment in which he'll thrive. Prior to the lifting of the VAT exemption, we calculated that we could just about afford to send him to one of the local private schools and had chosen one that has a good reputation for working with neuro diverse kids. Unfortunately the lifting of the VAT exemption has killed that plan stone dead and he will now likely have to go a very large state secondary where his potential will likely go unfulfilled because they simply won't have the resources to provide the support he needs. The refusal to allow for any exemptions for children with additional needs seems particularly malicious. 

 

I've been a Labour supporter all my life, but the devastating impact this policy will have on my son has made me loathe the party. Not enough to vote Tory or Reform (that will never happen), but probably enough for me to never vote Labour again. I'm aware that there is a much bigger picture and that I should probably not allow one issue to affect my view so much, but when it's your child's future it's hard to be rational about it.

Edited 21 August 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Greg2607]

I didn't say it was a good or a bad thing... just that people are angry because it impacted them. 

 

You'll see more of this when AI REALLY kicks in.... the white collar workers will be impacted in their droves and made redundant. 

 

Historically, if Blue Collar workers were impacted by Mines closing down, or factories closing down.... the narrative was "they'll just have to re-train, or get another job"....  I can imagine the uproar and outrage when it's white collar workers and the "middle class" will outstrip anything we saw previously. 

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, foxy boxing said:

Lucy Connolly being released today. Will she give any interviews. Free speech or incitement to violence. Was she harshly treated because of political motivations and made an example of or got what she deserved!. 

Incitement to mass murder, she got exactly what she deserved, and she should be grateful to Labour for releasing her earlier than she would have been under her husband's party. 

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Because the last 13 months and several years before Cameron stepped in were covered in glory weren’t they. Christ. 

The last 13 months have been utter bliss compared to the corrupt destructive hellsacpe of the preceding 14 years. 

 

Christ indeed. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

Have to agree. Governments have been dancing around it too long. Either everyone pays or the very well off pay the majority.

 

The argument that it's unfair to tax the rich, I actually understand - they would see they earned it so why should they pay more but it's about understanding everyone is a part of society. If you fear for your safety, then you need police to be paid for to keep things nice.

 

Unfortunately, globalisation devalued a lot of our industry from 30-50 years ago and if those company heads want to continue benefitting from that, then the price is higher taxes. 

Yeah, exactly. 

 

Either you fully fund a functioning society or you don't; half measures aren't going to get you anywhere. 

 

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

I went to a really interesting lecture a couple of years ago by a professor from the York school of business. 

He was talking about the changes to corporate governance introduced through Reaganomics/Thatcherism, and how in the US and UK a corporation legally only exists to increase shareholder value. 

The knock on effect is that everything that can be done to increase that value is done: hold wages down, reduce quality to cut costs, increase prices.... Basically all things that are bad for ordinary people and society. 

So we see CEOs (who shareholders appoint to directly look after their interests so they are well paid to keep them onside) wages massively increasing compared to other workers, and shareholders taking ever bigger shares of the national wealth.

Meanwhile, prices rise, wages stagnate, quality is poor and ordinary workers get an ever smaller share of the national wealth. 

It's this that is the crucial problem we have today. 

Wanting to rebalance shareholders Vs workers so there is a sharing of national prosperity isn't the politics of envy, it's absolutely vital.

From the point of view of increasing inequality leading to increased instability leading to increased death and suffering caused by action or inaction, this is spot on. 

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We never aspired to send our children to private school, but that was before our older boy was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. He's currently at a small village primary school in a small class, where he gets a lot of input from his teacher and the TAs, and is thriving academically. There is a very good state second school near us, but it is a large school with 30+ pupils in each class and it's just not the kind of environment in which he'll thrive. Prior to the lifting of the VAT exemption, we calculated that we could just about afford to send him to one of the local private schools and had chosen one that has a good reputation for working with neuro diverse kids. Unfortunately the lifting of the VAT exemption has killed that plan stone dead and he will now likely have to go a very large state secondary where his potential will likely go unfulfilled because they simply won't have the resources to provide the support he needs. The refusal to allow for any exemptions for children with additional needs seems particularly malicious. 

 

I've been a Labour supporter all my life, but the devastating impact this policy will have on my son has made me loathe the party. Not enough to vote Tory or Reform (that will never happen), but probably enough for me to never vote Labour again. I'm aware that there is a much bigger picture and that I should probably not allow one issue to affect my view so much, but when it's your child's future it's hard to be rational about it.

It's a bloody difficult thing to not let the personal be conflated with the important every time and goodness knows I can't criticise anyone for having a single issue focus, but at the end of the day such rationality has to win through or there will be much, much fewer chances for private education - and much less of everything else - for everyone. 

 

In this case, the problem clearly lies with the state school system not having the resources, rather than the private school having them. That needs to be the focus.

Edited 21 August 2025 by leicsmac

[Muzzy_no7]

47 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

The last 13 months have been utter bliss compared to the corrupt destructive hellsacpe of the preceding 14 years. 

 

Christ indeed. 

What planet you on 😂

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

What planet you on 😂

Least we're back to the good old days of moaning about taxes not the absolute circus that preceded us. 

[ClaphamFox]

47 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's a bloody difficult thing to not let the personal be conflated with the important every time and goodness knows I can't criticise anyone for having a single issue focus, but at the end of the day such rationality has to win through or there will be much, much fewer chances for private education - and much less of everything else - for everyone. 

 

In this case, the problem clearly lies with the state school system not having the resources, rather than the private school having them. That needs to be the focus.

Oh I agree that providing the state school system with the resources is the best solution. I just don't have any faith that it will happen.

 

A few months ago we visited a local state school (not the closest one I mention above, but another equally large one) that is regarded as being best-in-class for its provisions for neuro diverse children. We desperately wanted to like it and be reassured that our son would do well there. Only it turned out that their much-lauded provision is a special unit that autistic/ADHD kids are allowed to go to at any time - ie, they are permitted to leave the classroom and go to this unit and choose what work they wish to do, under the supervision of a teacher and an assistant. The idea is that no pressure is put on them and they can escape the demands of the classroom.

 

This may be fine for children who aren't particularly academically-inclined, but many neuro diverse children are very bright and perfectly capable of thriving in a class with fewer pupils if they have the right support. The last thing they need is a passport to walk out of the classroom and go to a special unit where they won't be subject to much scrutiny. And this school is held up as a model for what other state schools should be aspiring to. We came away feeling utterly deflated and depressed.

Edited 21 August 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Muzzy_no7]

4 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Least we're back to the good old days of moaning about taxes not the absolute circus that preceded us. 

Isn’t just taxes though is it 🤦‍♂️