General News Thread

[Sampson]

Poland requesting to invoke article 4 now. 
 

With Isreal and Russia both attacking neutral territory the past 24 hours it does start to feel like one of these things is going to kick off World War 3 at some point tbf. Not time to stock up yet but the camel’s back surely can’t take too many more strands of straw

Edited 10 September 2025 by Sampson

[Torquay Gunner]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

Poland requesting to invoke article 4 now. 
 

With Isreal and Russia both attacking neutral territory the past 24 hours does start to feel like one of these things is going to kick off World War 3 at some point. The camel’s back can’t take too many more strands of straw

‘False flag’ (of course) according to Russia and it rather feels like Israel can bomb who they like, without repercussion. 

[Zear0]

18 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Google Keir Starmer and Lord Alli, should occupy some reading time. 

I was hoping he could answer for himself...

 

Even if the gossip is true, glad we're clear that being such inclined is "dodgy" too.

Edited 10 September 2025 by Zear0

[st albans fox]

40 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I was hoping he could answer for himself...

 

Even if the gossip is true, glad we're clear that being such inclined is "dodgy" too.

Just continuing a long held tradition of British political upper echelons ……….

if were true - who knows ?  Who cares ?

[CosbehFox]

50 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I was hoping he could answer for himself...

 

Even if the gossip is true, glad we're clear that being such inclined is "dodgy" too.

The ****ing striking irony of this of course is that this week is the leak of the ‘Boris Files’ which well and truly put him into the league shared with Nixon et al 

[CosbehFox]

Worth mentioning by the way Liz Truss was in office for 49 days but fully claims the diabolical  PCDA allowance 

[Spudulike]

Starmer all over the place in PMQ's under Mandelson scrutiny. This could be very serious for him and no amount of spin and waffle will get him out of this one. Pass the popcorn.

[ROB-THE-BLUE]

Referee David Coote charged with making indecent images of children. String him up. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

How is he dodgy?

He's an MP.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Starmer all over the place in PMQ's under Mandelson scrutiny. This could be very serious for him and no amount of spin and waffle will get him out of this one. Pass the popcorn.

I suppose in response he could take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of most of those (rightly) calling out Mandelson for links to Epstein while studiously ignoring their own (tacit or otherwise) endorsement of the policies and actions of the man who is at the front and centre of the Epstein revelations (as much as his sycophants are trying to deflect from it).

[Spudulike]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I suppose in response he could take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of most of those (rightly) calling out Mandelson for links to Epstein while studiously ignoring their own (tacit or otherwise) endorsement of the policies and actions of the man who is at the front and centre of the Epstein revelations (as much as his sycophants are trying to deflect from it).

Those hypocrites are not in Government.

[Dahnsouff]

They are all misdirecting hypocrites, but I am also conscious that we exist in a very left leaning apologist environment on here.

(Not that I am ever voting right as it stands)

 

People who claim this is a moral stand do need to have a look at themselves, as any politician being better than bad does not equate to being good.

Edited 10 September 2025 by Dahnsouff

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Those hypocrites are not in Government.

Of course, but seeing as they are aiming at being in government in the near future...

 

 

12 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

They are all misdirecting hypocrites, but I am also conscious that we exist in a very left leaning apologist environment on here.

(Not that I am ever voting right as it stands)

 

People who claim this is a moral stand do need to have a look at themselves, as any politician being better than bad does not equate to being good.

I can only speak for myself, but given the "all the same" arguments, I tend to veer towards utilitarianism rather than engage in the often messy straight moral arguments in situations like this anyway, unless the survival of a great many people is a moral matter rather than a utilitarian one. 

[CosbehFox]

Always good to cast an eye over the countries in the midst of popularism what could happen over here. 

 

At last nights Serbia v England, the crowd made chants against the long standing president. One identified who did was beaten up by one of Vucic's thugs. 

[Alf Bentley]

On 07/09/2025 at 20:39, Bilo said:

I did think it was fairly clear that I hadn't said that everyone over 60 was a selfish bellend, but evidently I wasn't clear enough.

 

As a generation, though, the reality is that swathes of that particular demographic have voted consistently in short-term self-interest over decades from Thatcher here and Reagan in the US offering tax breaks and opportunities to climb the social ladder (see Thatcher's Right to Buy scheme,) dismantling the Keynesian economic system that gave them a strong state to fall back on if the brown stuff hit the fan.

 

In so doing, a lot of the safeguards that the first post-war generation could depend on were removed for their children and grandchildren such as affordable rents, free university and so on. As said generation have aged, many have tended to vote for whichever party will give them the most comfortable retirement rather than the party who will give their children and grandchildren the best start. Again, some but not all. Perhaps not even a majority, but certainly a big enough minority of a high turnout in FPTP to pretty much dictate the nation's political direction of travel. 

 

And when their children's and grandchildren's generation campaign or advocate for something better that will give them a chance of owning their home? Selfish! Lazy! Stop buying coffees and Netflix if you want to get a £60,000 deposit together for a house! What about the pensioners? etc etc.

 

I'll bite belatedly..... 

 

You are correct to say that the Boomer generation now vote disproportionately for the Right and that this is a serious problem. It is also true that, while older people have always tended to vote more for the Tories, they are much more likely to do so now - the Left/Right voting gap between young and old has become a chasm.

 

But it is factually incorrect to imply that the Boomer generation has voted consistently for the Right over the decades from Thatcher - and provably so.

Here is the proof: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974

If you compare the overall figures for elections from 1979 to 1992 to figures for the Boomer generation (then young-to-middle-aged), you'll see that Boomers disproportionately voted Labour. The ones who voted disproportionately for Thatcher were older - the pre-WW2 generations.

 

This destroys your thesis of a uniquely and consistently selfish generation. When it comes to age, the big question is why large numbers of Boomers voted Left in early adult life but have switched to the Right now they're older - to a much greater degree than previous generations when they aged. You assume that this is based on short-sighted selfishness, citing only anecdotal evidence. For some Boomers, I'm sure you're right: some will always have been selfish, others will have voted Left out of self-interest when young and now vote Right out of self-interest when old. But I very much doubt that's the whole story. Like you, I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence for my thesis, but I reckon a lot of this big shift is due to: (1) Much weaker class/family voting loyalty than previous generations, partly reinforcing (2) Fear of rapid change. Pre-Boomer generations voted much more out of class loyalty/family tradition, so fewer went Tory in old age - no longer the case. Every aspect of life seems to be changing faster and faster: work, institutions, media, technology, racial mix, food/drink, social identity.... Rapid change scares a lot of older people, encouraging many to vote for "how things used to be" (often a false perception of the past and often damaging progress,). It's certainly an issue that deserves proper research.

 

But @leicsmac was right to note that age isn't the only demographic that matters. Those Ipsos figures also show how voting by gender has shifted: throughout the Thatcher era, women were still more likely than men to vote Tory. That situation has now reversed: since 2005, women are increasingly more likely to vote Left, men increasingly more likely to vote Right. This is particularly true of the gender gap for the 18-24 demographic, with 2025 votes for the Greens being 23% for women v. 12% for men and votes for Reform or Tory being 22% for men v. 12% for women. Here's a good link (same data as yours, but with good, brief analysis): https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/gender-and-generational-shifts-uk-voting-trends-what-should-we-think

 

A sizeable number of young men also support the Far Right in other countries: e.g. LePen in France, Trump in the USA.

 

Of course, there'll also be big racial disparities. I'm sure white people vote disproportionately for the Right. Perhaps we need to shift some of the blame from Boomers to men - and to white men, in particular?  (Tongue-in-cheek comment from a white male Leftist Boomer - Boomer by 2 yrs).

 

That question of why so many Boomers have switched from voting Lab under Thatcher to voting Tory/Reform now is a big one, though, and one that I hope parties on the Left are looking at. If they can stop haemorrhaging elderly votes to the Right, it'll greatly improve their chances. Not least as there are a lot more pensioners than young people and they're much more likely to vote (low voting rates among the young being another issue - all parties are categorically NOT the same, folks. Who's in Govt DOES matter).

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I can only speak for myself, but given the "all the same" arguments, I tend to veer towards utilitarianism rather than engage in the often messy straight moral arguments in situations like this anyway, unless the survival of a great many people is a moral matter rather than a utilitarian one. 

The lack of balance is itself divisive, even if the noise of opposing thoughts are excruciating, such noise should be allowed to drift itself to silence if it cannot be educated there, otherwise it is but fuel.

No arguments on moral matters obvs.

[Spudulike]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, but seeing as they are aiming at being in government in the near future...

 

That's how UK politics works though. Be as hypocritical as you like in opposition and waffle your way out once in power. It's how this Labour Government got elected and most before it. Surprised that's it's only taken a year to expose the frauds.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

That's how UK politics works though. Be as hypocritical as you like in opposition and waffle your way out once in power. It's how this Labour Government got elected and most before it. Surprised that's it's only taken a year to expose the frauds.

I can see why folks think that tbh.

 

And that brings us rather neatly back, yet again, to if all such politicians are morally compromised, perhaps the next step is to consider which ones will actually maintain a world long enough for them to stay morally compromised in and for us to complain about it. 

[Greg2607]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'll bite belatedly..... 

 

You are correct to say that the Boomer generation now vote disproportionately for the Right and that this is a serious problem. It is also true that, while older people have always tended to vote more for the Tories, they are much more likely to do so now - the Left/Right voting gap between young and old has become a chasm.

 

But it is factually incorrect to imply that the Boomer generation has voted consistently for the Right over the decades from Thatcher - and provably so.

Here is the proof: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974

If you compare the overall figures for elections from 1979 to 1992 to figures for the Boomer generation (then young-to-middle-aged), you'll see that Boomers disproportionately voted Labour. The ones who voted disproportionately for Thatcher were older - the pre-WW2 generations.

 

This destroys your thesis of a uniquely and consistently selfish generation. When it comes to age, the big question is why large numbers of Boomers voted Left in early adult life but have switched to the Right now they're older - to a much greater degree than previous generations when they aged. You assume that this is based on short-sighted selfishness, citing only anecdotal evidence. For some Boomers, I'm sure you're right: some will always have been selfish, others will have voted Left out of self-interest when young and now vote Right out of self-interest when old. But I very much doubt that's the whole story. Like you, I have nothing more than anecdotal evidence for my thesis, but I reckon a lot of this big shift is due to: (1) Much weaker class/family voting loyalty than previous generations, partly reinforcing (2) Fear of rapid change. Pre-Boomer generations voted much more out of class loyalty/family tradition, so fewer went Tory in old age - no longer the case. Every aspect of life seems to be changing faster and faster: work, institutions, media, technology, racial mix, food/drink, social identity.... Rapid change scares a lot of older people, encouraging many to vote for "how things used to be" (often a false perception of the past and often damaging progress,). It's certainly an issue that deserves proper research.

 

But @leicsmac was right to note that age isn't the only demographic that matters. Those Ipsos figures also show how voting by gender has shifted: throughout the Thatcher era, women were still more likely than men to vote Tory. That situation has now reversed: since 2005, women are increasingly more likely to vote Left, men increasingly more likely to vote Right. This is particularly true of the gender gap for the 18-24 demographic, with 2025 votes for the Greens being 23% for women v. 12% for men and votes for Reform or Tory being 22% for men v. 12% for women. Here's a good link (same data as yours, but with good, brief analysis): https://www.psa.ac.uk/psa/news/gender-and-generational-shifts-uk-voting-trends-what-should-we-think

 

A sizeable number of young men also support the Far Right in other countries: e.g. LePen in France, Trump in the USA.

 

Of course, there'll also be big racial disparities. I'm sure white people vote disproportionately for the Right. Perhaps we need to shift some of the blame from Boomers to men - and to white men, in particular?  (Tongue-in-cheek comment from a white male Leftist Boomer - Boomer by 2 yrs).

 

That question of why so many Boomers have switched from voting Lab under Thatcher to voting Tory/Reform now is a big one, though, and one that I hope parties on the Left are looking at. If they can stop haemorrhaging elderly votes to the Right, it'll greatly improve their chances. Not least as there are a lot more pensioners than young people and they're much more likely to vote (low voting rates among the young being another issue - all parties are categorically NOT the same, folks. Who's in Govt DOES matter).

Nice Analysis Alf. 

 

I'm going to add my two pence worth here and say.... this isn't a uniquely UK problem at all. it's across most of Western Society.   look at all the protests across Europe about "Tourists making our homes unaffordable".   The Younger Generation across the Western world face a huge challenge to achieve the same security in life that their parents have / had. 

 

And actually... regardless of which "parties" are in power, the problems persist, and get worse. Right OR Left (the Uniparties as Reformers like to call them)

 

There are huge and vast amounts of wealth being concentrated into a tiny, tiny minority of people. I do find myself agreeing more and more with Gary Stephenson, that this inequality is what will continue to erode living standards. 

 

he stated about 2 years ago that the UK Government would effectively go Bankrupt and we are seeing that play out now.  Potentially not in an IMF Rescue kind of way, but we are getting less and less services because we are servicing more and more debt and that "debt" is held by the very wealthiest people in the world. 

 

Unfortunately, (and I realise this is a little bit Tin Hat Conspiracy here) - I don't think we will EVER see a scenario where this situation is reversed.  Because the Mega Rich, own the communications.  So any party or government, that WOULD potentially change the status quo, are absolutely eviscerated in the press and on TV. 

 

I mean, I'm not saying he would have been a suitable leader for the country.... but go back and look at Corbyn's Manifesto and what he proposed.....  it's difficult to say that we all wouldn't feel better off if the below had been enacted.... (although I've no idea what it would have done to inflation as a caveat)

 

Green Industrial Revolution

• £250 billion Green Transformation Fund to invest in renewable energy, low-carbon transport, and environmental restoration labour list
• One million green jobs across the UK.
• Ban on fracking, expansion of wind and solar energy, and support for nuclear power.
• Net-zero carbon energy system targeted for the 2030s.

Public Ownership & Infrastructure

• Nationalisation of railways, Royal Mail, water, and energy companies
• Free full-fibre broadband for all via a publicly owned company.
• Creation of Regional Development Banks and a National Investment Bank to decentralise economic power

 

Health & Social Care

• 4.3% annual increase in NHS funding.
• Free personal care for over-65s via a new National Care Service.
• Free prescriptions for all.
• Mental health services to receive an additional £1.6 billion annually.

Housing

• Build 150,000 new homes per year, including 100,000 council homes.
• Introduce rent caps and open-ended tenancies.
• £1 billion fire safety fund for tower blocks.

Education

• Establish a National Education Service offering:
• Free early years education.
• Free university tuition.
• Six years of free adult education.
• Scrap SATs and Ofsted inspections at Key Stages 1 and 2

Work & Welfare

• £10 minimum wage.
• End zero-hours contracts.
• Scrap Universal Credit
• Strengthen trade union rights
• Ending the two-child benefit cap.
• Scrapping the benefit cap.
• Increasing support for disabled people and carers.
• Reforming the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) into a new Department for Social Security.

Democracy & Brexit

• Second referendum on Brexit with a choice between a new deal and remaining in the EU.
• Extend voting rights to all UK residents.

Environment & Animal Welfare

• Introduce a Clean Air Act and a Climate and Environment Emergency Bill.
• Create new national parks and plant millions of trees.
• Ban snares, glue traps, and trophy hunting imports.

Funding & Taxation

• Funded by £83 billion in tax increases on corporations and individuals earning over £80,000.
• Reverse some corporation tax cuts.
• Critics, including the IFS, questioned the feasibility of raising such sums without broader tax impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

 

I'm going to add my two pence worth here and say.... this isn't a uniquely UK problem at all. it's across most of Western Society.   look at all the protests across Europe about "Tourists making our homes unaffordable".   The Younger Generation across the Western world face a huge challenge to achieve the same security in life that their parents have / had. 

 

And actually... regardless of which "parties" are in power, the problems persist, and get worse. Right OR Left (the Uniparties as Reformers like to call them)

 

There are huge and vast amounts of wealth being concentrated into a tiny, tiny minority of people. I do find myself agreeing more and more with Gary Stephenson, that this inequality is what will continue to erode living standards. 

 

I very much agree with this bit of your post, in particular.

 

I see a lot of the socioeconomic problems and political strife across the developed world as down to a combination of:

- Much slower economic growth since the 1970s

- Burgeoning inequality since about the 1980s

- An ongoing redistribution of wealth from labour to capital, as big capital/finance has become much more powerful & globally mobile/organised compared to people/politics

 

As a statement of ideals, I agree with almost all of that Corbyn agenda. But I think politics has to be exercised pragmatically, not based on statements of ideals. I liked his 2017 manifesto, which was a bit more pragmatic. But I was always dubious about Corbyn's ability to win power - and without the power to implement change, there's no point in statements of ideals unless the aim is to achieve feelings of moral purity/superiority. Like you, I'm also doubtful that such a set of policies could have worked, even if Corbyn had been elected. The UK has a heavily-indebted, low-growth economy with a budget deficit and an aging population (like most nations in the West) - and a very open economy oriented towards trade and finance, deeply integrated into an open global capitalist system. If a Corbyn Govt had tried to implement all of that statement of ideals/policies, I reckon he'd have rapidly either crashed the economy or been forced to U-turn on most of his plans. Something similar happened to Mitterrand, when he was elected French President on a fairly Socialist agenda - rapid U-turn....and that was in the early 80s, when capitalist globalisation was at a much earlier stage. Something less purist than Corbyn but a bit bolder than Starmer is the best short-term hope, I think (PM Burnham?). Long-term, who knows, as the chances of problems diminishing look poor and support for populist/Far Right solutions is rising across the West....and that's without addressing the multiple likely impacts of climate change. Maybe something will shift things in a better direction, but for now the odds on more strife and neo-fascist solutions look better than those on greater harmony, & contentment and reduced inequality - not least as change for the better largely has to happen multinationally, not within a single country (notwithstanding the possibility of this or another govt achieving some incremental improvements in isolation).

[Greg2607]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I very much agree with this bit of your post, in particular.

 

I see a lot of the socioeconomic problems and political strife across the developed world as down to a combination of:

- Much slower economic growth since the 1970s

- Burgeoning inequality since about the 1980s

- An ongoing redistribution of wealth from labour to capital, as big capital/finance has become much more powerful & globally mobile/organised compared to people/politics

 

As a statement of ideals, I agree with almost all of that Corbyn agenda. But I think politics has to be exercised pragmatically, not based on statements of ideals. I liked his 2017 manifesto, which was a bit more pragmatic. But I was always dubious about Corbyn's ability to win power - and without the power to implement change, there's no point in statements of ideals unless the aim is to achieve feelings of moral purity/superiority. Like you, I'm also doubtful that such a set of policies could have worked, even if Corbyn had been elected. The UK has a heavily-indebted, low-growth economy with a budget deficit and an aging population (like most nations in the West) - and a very open economy oriented towards trade and finance, deeply integrated into an open global capitalist system. If a Corbyn Govt had tried to implement all of that statement of ideals/policies, I reckon he'd have rapidly either crashed the economy or been forced to U-turn on most of his plans. Something similar happened to Mitterrand, when he was elected French President on a fairly Socialist agenda - rapid U-turn....and that was in the early 80s, when capitalist globalisation was at a much earlier stage. Something less purist than Corbyn but a bit bolder than Starmer is the best short-term hope, I think (PM Burnham?). Long-term, who knows, as the chances of problems diminishing look poor and support for populist/Far Right solutions is rising across the West....and that's without addressing the multiple likely impacts of climate change. Maybe something will shift things in a better direction, but for now the odds on more strife and neo-fascist solutions look better than those on greater harmony, & contentment and reduced inequality - not least as change for the better largely has to happen multinationally, not within a single country (notwithstanding the possibility of this or another govt achieving some incremental improvements in isolation).

I'd love to see Andy Burnham as Prime Minister to be fair.  Now he is outside of Westminster, he has proven to be a very shrewd and pragmatic operator.  At a surface level, he seems to be doing great things for Manchester and the surrounds and is a voice of reason who is keen to work with parties of all persuasions for the greater good of the area. 

[fox_up_north]

Burnham is, anecdotally, the favourite non-PM from Labour. I vaguely fall under his remit (would prefer if my own MP stood up more for Derbyshire, rather than trying to make it a part of Manchester) and he's generally seen as a good hand on the wheel.

 

Does that translate to PM? Boris Johnson did Mayor of London and then the big job. Mixed results, but they are very different jobs. 

[Greg2607]

6 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Burnham is, anecdotally, the favourite non-PM from Labour. I vaguely fall under his remit (would prefer if my own MP stood up more for Derbyshire, rather than trying to make it a part of Manchester) and he's generally seen as a good hand on the wheel.

 

Does that translate to PM? Boris Johnson did Mayor of London and then the big job. Mixed results, but they are very different jobs. 

Agreed.  I'm not sure he is a strong "political" operator.  He would probably get chewed up and spat out. It's most of what is wrong about politics in general for me. far too much subterfuge and obfuscation.

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

I'd love to see Andy Burnham as Prime Minister to be fair.  Now he is outside of Westminster, he has proven to be a very shrewd and pragmatic operator.  At a surface level, he seems to be doing great things for Manchester and the surrounds and is a voice of reason who is keen to work with parties of all persuasions for the greater good of the area. 

He’s certainly got morals and a backbone unlike Starmer, no one in his party will fear him or see him as true leadership material (not saying leading by fear is very 2025 either) but you get my point. 
 

His position is becoming weaker every day so it’s just a matter of time before we get a new PM, it’s going to be a grim 4 years otherwise whether you are left, right or otherwise. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

He’s certainly got morals and a backbone unlike Starmer, no one in his party will fear him or see him as true leadership material (not saying leading by fear is very 2025 either) but you get my point. 
 

His position is becoming weaker every day so it’s just a matter of time before we get a new PM, it’s going to be a grim 4 years otherwise whether you are left, right or otherwise. 

The time period immediately after that has the very likely potential to be an order of magnitude grimmer.