General News Thread

[Tommy G]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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

So in your world, we just wait do we because it’s going to get worse? That’s procrastination at its finest.
 

Why don’t we try and fix something now so that when the next GE comes around Reform aren’t going to wipe the floor - this government have a chance to fix the issues but the two most important people in government aren’t it, and never will be. 
 

If it continues we will meander in to the abyss and hand the next election to reform on a plate. 

 

Can’t just sit back and go “oh well it will be worse?” Hardly solution focused - which you criticise people on here who come up with problems and no answers and then do exactly the same yourself, respectfully. 
 

He’s managing to get his arse handed to him by Kemi Badenoch in PMQs - she is so weak and absolutely screwing him, it’s embarrassing.

Edited 10 September 2025 by Tommy G

[Trav Le Bleu]

Labour/Conservative alliance to take on Reform?

 

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Labour/Conservative alliance to take on Reform?

 

My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Reform are way closer to the tories than the tories would like to admit 

 

farage is a protest politician.  Just like Corbyn.  Farage has to get over this stereotyping. 
 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

So in your world, we just wait do we because it’s going to get worse? That’s procrastination at its finest.
 

Why don’t we try and fix something now so that when the next GE comes around Reform aren’t going to wipe the floor - this government have a chance to fix the issues but the two most important people in government aren’t it, and never will be. 
 

If it continues we will meander in to the abyss and hand the next election to reform on a plate. 

 

Can’t just sit back and go “oh well it will be worse?” Hardly solution focused - which you criticise people on here who come up with problems and no answers and then do exactly the same yourself, respectfully. 
 

He’s managing to get his arse handed to him by Kemi Badenoch in PMQs - she is so weak and absolutely screwing him, it’s embarrassing.

Not exactly. My point is more that most of the commentary on this matter is either people not suggesting a viable way to fix things or their suggestions basically make the current government Reform in name only anyway. 

 

I absolutely agree that things have to be done to prevent the next election following the path of the polling data, but quite frankly there's an awful lot of short term self interest running the populist thought right now and if the current government makes decisions in spite of that, they are getting pelters, and in the current era of perception trumping facts, that is important. 

 

Speaking personally about specifics, I think what is necessary is a large public service and nationalisation boost funded by increased taxation of the highest earners, trying to at least reduce the inequality levels that are becoming more and more stark. Social divisions tend to be much more stark when people don't have money (so I'm told), so more state management actually guaranteeing a baseline of service and life for the poorest (no matter who they are), is necessary. The economy is a key element - I know I've overlooked it in the past. On other issues, I'd be happy if Starmer told a lot of the people with "legitimate concerns" to do their worst and get locked up (after arranging more prison space of course), and also pushing hard on net zero and making it very clear that both the Tories and Reform advocate for a path that will cause both the UK and the world great harm in the medium to long term in the name of a quick cash boost in the short term. If you want more specifics, @Greg2607 list on the last page contains a great deal I would agree with. 

 

However, I also know that this runs counter to the current zeitgeist and the ideas being bandied about by the Mises advocates who believe that the free market solves everything. And I think that's a key problem - you and I both appear to want the same thing, but we reckon the means to achieve it are very different. You appear to think low-tax, lassiez-faire will work for the future we're facing, I think central planning will. 

 

Honestly though, I'm still looking for a way from another angle that Starmer may be able to keep Reform from the door without becoming a mirror of them, so I'd be interested in your ideas on that now.

Edited 10 September 2025 by leicsmac

[Guest Bilo]

3 hours 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).

That’s a really good and thoughtful reply — thanks for laying it out so clearly. You’re absolutely right that the Ipsos numbers show Boomers weren’t the Thatcherite bloc in the 1980s, and I’ll happily concede that my framing risked oversimplifying. Many were voting Labour at that time.

 

Where I’d gently push back, though, is on the way the political parties themselves have changed over the decades, and how that interacts with Boomer voting patterns. Labour and the Tories of the 1980s were very different beasts from what we have now. The Thatcher years entrenched neoliberal thinking, and as Boomers aged, they were the first big generation to live through — and then consolidate — that shift. Labour’s own movement towards the centre under Kinnock and Blair was in no small part a reaction to chasing votes from Boomers who had swung rightwards. So while it’s true that many weren’t Thatcherites in their youth, the gravitational pull of that generation’s voting habits helped normalise a new political consensus that dismantled post-war safety nets and prioritised markets over collective provision.

 

That’s where the “self-interest” point still has some weight for me. Not in the sense that all Boomers are uniquely selfish, but in that once their generation became the dominant voting bloc, parties of all stripes shaped policy around their preferences — tax cuts, home ownership incentives, pension protection — while younger generations got rising tuition fees, insecure work, and housing locked behind inflated prices. And yes, fear of change is part of it, but fear and self-interest often overlap: protecting what you have can mean voting against what the next generation needs.

 

I also agree with you on gender and race being crucial divides — the data on young men going rightward is worrying across countries. But to me that just underscores that we’re looking at an evolving political coalition where Boomers played the pivotal role in ushering in neoliberalism, and now parts of Gen Z/millennials may be playing a similar role in ushering in the populist right. That deserves as much scrutiny as we give to the old Left/Right generational gap.

 

So in short: I completely take your point that Boomers weren’t always Thatcher’s base. But I’d argue their long-term voting trajectory did help reshape both major parties, and with it the political-economic consensus we’re all still living under.

[Wymsey]

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-at-least-100-police-suicides-in-three-years-investigation-uncovers

 

[Tommy Fresh]

45 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

So in your world, we just wait do we because it’s going to get worse? That’s procrastination at its finest.
 

Why don’t we try and fix something now so that when the next GE comes around Reform aren’t going to wipe the floor - this government have a chance to fix the issues but the two most important people in government aren’t it, and never will be. 
 

If it continues we will meander in to the abyss and hand the next election to reform on a plate. 

 

Can’t just sit back and go “oh well it will be worse?” Hardly solution focused - which you criticise people on here who come up with problems and no answers and then do exactly the same yourself, respectfully. 
 

He’s managing to get his arse handed to him by Kemi Badenoch in PMQs - she is so weak and absolutely screwing him, it’s embarrassing.

Starmer used to batter the Tories at PMQs, let's be honest PMQs means nothing. It's the opposition asking questions that won't get answered and they won't listen to any answer they are given anyway.

[Spudulike]

Just now, Tommy Fresh said:

Starmer used to batter the Tories at PMQs, let's be honest PMQs means nothing. It's the opposition asking questions that won't get answered and they won't listen to any answer they are given anyway.

That said, today at PMQ's, Badenoch got Starmer to say that he fully supports Mandelson. If it transpires that he really did not know about the timings of his relationship with Epstein then he'll likely get away with it by simply sacking him. If however he did know then it will be curtains for him.

[leicsmac]

WRT Mandelsons job, it should be done by someone well prepared to tell the current administration to go fornicate with itself where needed (which, let's face it, may be often) anyway. 

[Guest Bilo]

8 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

That said, today at PMQ's, Badenoch got Starmer to say that he fully supports Mandelson. If it transpires that he really did not know about the timings of his relationship with Epstein then he'll likely get away with it by simply sacking him. If however he did know then it will be curtains for him.

He might be done anyway by supporting him today. 

[Dr The Singh]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

WRT Mandelsons job, it should be done by someone well prepared to tell the current administration to go fornicate with itself where needed (which, let's face it, may be often) anyway. 

Hello 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Hello 

Singhy for US Ambassador ASAP. 

[Tommy G]

34 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not exactly. My point is more that most of the commentary on this matter is either people not suggesting a viable way to fix things or their suggestions basically make the current government Reform in name only anyway. 

 

I absolutely agree that things have to be done to prevent the next election following the path of the polling data, but quite frankly there's an awful lot of short term self interest running the populist thought right now and if the current government makes decisions in spite of that, they are getting pelters, and in the current era of perception trumping facts, that is important. 

 

Speaking personally about specifics, I think what is necessary is a large public service and nationalisation boost funded by increased taxation of the highest earners, trying to at least reduce the inequality levels that are becoming more and more stark. Social divisions tend to be much more stark when people don't have money (so I'm told), so more state management actually guaranteeing a baseline of service and life for the poorest (no matter who they are), is necessary. The economy is a key element - I know I've overlooked it in the past. On other issues, I'd be happy if Starmer told a lot of the people with "legitimate concerns" to do their worst and get locked up (after arranging more prison space of course), and also pushing hard on net zero and making it very clear that both the Tories and Reform advocate for a path that will cause both the UK and the world great harm in the medium to long term in the name of a quick cash boost in the short term. If you want more specifics, @Greg2607 list on the last page contains a great deal I would agree with. 

 

However, I also know that this runs counter to the current zeitgeist and the ideas being bandied about by the Mises advocates who believe that the free market solves everything. And I think that's a key problem - you and I both appear to want the same thing, but we reckon the means to achieve it are very different. You appear to think low-tax, lassiez-faire will work for the future we're facing, I think central planning will. 

 

Honestly though, I'm still looking for a way from another angle that Starmer may be able to keep Reform from the door without becoming a mirror of them, so I'd be interested in your ideas on that now.

Presume you mean high net worth individuals rather than high earners? There is already a 67% tax between 100-125k - not sure how much higher the tax should be??

[Tommy G]

21 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Starmer used to batter the Tories at PMQs, let's be honest PMQs means nothing. It's the opposition asking questions that won't get answered and they won't listen to any answer they are given anyway.

Depends if you think you want your leader to clarify his position on an ambassador who deals with convicted sex offenders. I personally think it’s important, maybe you don’t. Here’s the full transcript, maybe it will help you. 
 

 

[CornwallFox]

It's this sort of nonsense that bores me with politics. It's a non story. Just political theatre. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Presume you mean high net worth individuals rather than high earners? There is already a 67% tax between 100-125k - not sure how much higher the tax should be??

Not the 100-125k earners, the proper higher earners. Those on seven figures or more plus. 

 

NB. Would still be interested in hearing your take on the best way forward - like I said, I think our aims align but our means differ. 

[Tommy Fresh]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Depends if you think you want your leader to clarify his position on an ambassador who deals with convicted sex offenders. I personally think it’s important, maybe you don’t. Here’s the full transcript, maybe it will help you. 
 

 

Didn't say it wasn't important did I? So thanks for the assumption and the slightly patronising response. Just that every PMQs regardless of Starmer, Sunak, Johnson rarely directly answer a question, so it always looks like they are getting a battering when in reality its just bluster avoiding answering anything that'll come back to bite them.

[Zear0]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Depends if you think you want your leader to clarify his position on an ambassador who deals with convicted sex offenders. I personally think it’s important, maybe you don’t. Here’s the full transcript, maybe it will help you. 
 

 

So people should be sacked for knowing people guilty of crimes? 

[Tommy G]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Not the 100-125k earners, the proper higher earners. Those on seven figures or more plus. 

 

NB. Would still be interested in hearing your take on the best way forward - like I said, I think our aims align but our means differ. 

I outlined mine - change of leadership and chancellor. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

I outlined mine - change of leadership and chancellor. 

Fair enough, but if you have any specific policy ideas that jump to mind I'd be interested. 

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I outlined mine - change of leadership and chancellor. 

And policy? 

[Spudulike]

8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

It's this sort of nonsense that bores me with politics. It's a non story. Just political theatre. 

You hope it is, and it usually is. However, this is potentially dynamite. 

[whoareyaaa]

 

[CornwallFox]

24 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

You hope it is, and it usually is. However, this is potentially dynamite. 

If mandelson himself turned out to have done something terrible, it's still political theatre to somehow expect that a PM should be able to guess that. It's the sort of nonsense British papers churn out so people never talk about the serious stuff - like how capitalism has utterly failed to lift all boats, the rights and wrongs of nationalisation etc. If we're all messing about with what is basically gossip, and then working really hard to explain it's relevance, we don't talk about those other things.

[Zear0]

Give the French their due, they can put on a riot.