General News Thread

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0ygg06pgko

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7n82gd7pvo

 

Just more ideological corruption and election interference both at home and abroad, then. 

[Sampson]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0ygg06pgko

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7n82gd7pvo

 

Just more ideological corruption and election interference both at home and abroad, then. 

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that a lot ot people actually want the structure an authoritarian government with no free press, no opposition nor grey lines which rules out of fear of doing something wrong, because it gives them structure etc.

 

I remember Angela Merkel saying that when Germany reunited and she went from an authoritarian regime in East Germany to a liberal democracy, it took her years to actually get her head round that she had more choice and could do things she couldn’t previously without fear, because she had been programmed growing up that you’re only allowed to do certain things. I’ll see if I can find the interview but she said it was actually quite frightening to have that much freedom to actually hold opposing opinions etc.

[Greg2607]

26 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not agreeing or disagreeing but isn’t that just changing the subject to try and deflect into more criticism of the government? Feels like Starmer and Reeves are set up to fail here. They actually start to get the economy growing, which seems like a good first step and suddenly it’s not enough because we’re not at step 4, or it’s “well it’s easy to grown from a poor position” or “well other things are more important”. Don’t we all want the country to grow and do well under this government? Shouldn’t this be something that we almost universally agree is a good start of things moving in the right direction?

This is the issue with tribalism isn't it.   Everyone that is "against the left" only see things through the lens that they agree with (from a Psychological perspective, this is called Schema) and it's the same on the opposite side of the argument.  

 

This is where something more akin to PR would likely benefit the country, as more of the good ideas would come to the table rather than trying to satisfy a voter base that 60% of the country doesn't agree with, regardless of who is in power. 

 

My moral compass is probably more aligned to co-operation and collaboration, so i'm probably biased towards it.   But the success of the country shouldn't have to come down to "left or right".... 

 

it also shouldn't be at the whim of a 4/5 year electoral cycle.  You wouldn't run a business that way.... you wouldn't suddenly lurch in a different direction after 5 years. it would be madness (and highly inefficient) 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Not agreeing or disagreeing but isn’t that just changing the subject to try and deflect into more criticism of the government? Feels like Starmer and Reeves are set up to fail here. They actually start to get the economy growing, which seems like a good first step and suddenly it’s not enough because we’re not at step 4, or it’s “well it’s easy to grown from a poor position” or “well other things are more important”. Don’t we all want the country to grow and do well under this government? Shouldn’t this be something that we almost universally agree is a good start of things moving in the right direction?

Not suggesting Economic growth isn't positive, I'm just stressing that current inflation levels and tax rises will be making the cost of living worse for mid to low earners. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that a lot ot people actually want the structure an authoritarian government with no free press, no opposition nor grey lines which rules out of fear of doing something wrong, because it gives them structure etc.

 

I remember Angela Merkel saying that when Germany reunited and she went from an authoritarian regime in East Germany to a liberal democracy, it took her years to actually get her head round that she had more choice and could do things she couldn’t previously without fear, because she had been programmed growing up that you’re only allowed to do certain things. I’ll see if I can find the interview but she said it was actually quite frightening to have that much freedom to actually hold opposing opinions etc.

 

44 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

This is the issue with tribalism isn't it.   Everyone that is "against the left" only see things through the lens that they agree with (from a Psychological perspective, this is called Schema) and it's the same on the opposite side of the argument.  

 

This is where something more akin to PR would likely benefit the country, as more of the good ideas would come to the table rather than trying to satisfy a voter base that 60% of the country doesn't agree with, regardless of who is in power. 

 

My moral compass is probably more aligned to co-operation and collaboration, so i'm probably biased towards it.   But the success of the country shouldn't have to come down to "left or right".... 

 

it also shouldn't be at the whim of a 4/5 year electoral cycle.  You wouldn't run a business that way.... you wouldn't suddenly lurch in a different direction after 5 years. it would be madness (and highly inefficient) 

"Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.It was its tendency to bend at the knees."

 

An additional complication is related to the bolded here - some absolutely vital projects need more than a single election cycle and need not to be changed or interrupted. The Chinese, for instance, are actually taking the world lead on vital energy and science infrastructure projects because they start them and mean to finish them. 

 

Democratic systems are great, but they do have flaws. The above one is a big one, and may end up being a fatal one. 

[Tommy G]

 

Is this now in place for this thread or across the forum? 

[BKLFox]

19 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Not agreeing or disagreeing but isn’t that just changing the subject to try and deflect into more criticism of the government? Feels like Starmer and Reeves are set up to fail here. They actually start to get the economy growing, which seems like a good first step and suddenly it’s not enough because we’re not at step 4, or it’s “well it’s easy to grown from a poor position” or “well other things are more important”. Don’t we all want the country to grow and do well under this government? Shouldn’t this be something that we almost universally agree is a good start of things moving in the right direction?

We all do it, pick a stat that runs in our favour, truth is they/the UK isn’t doing as well as they would have us believe 

snippet from Economic’s Editor Ed Conway’s report

 

“One of the standard exercises each time one of these reports come out is for the Treasury to pick out a flattering statistic they can then go back home and talk about for the following months.
This time around the thing they will most likely focus on is that Britain is forecast to have one of the strongest economic growth rates in the G7 (second only to the US) this year, and the third strongest next year.

 

But there are a couple of less flattering prisms through which one can look at the UK economy. First, if you look not at gross domestic product but (as you really ought to) at GDP per head (which adjusts for the growing population), in fact UK growth next year is poised to be the weakest in the G7 (at just 0.5 per cent).

 

Second, and perhaps more worryingly, UK inflation remains stubbornly high in comparison to most other economies, the highest in the G7 both this year and next.”

 

 

Knowing what i know about ‘any’ government I’d tend to focus on everything after the word but.

[bovril]

So basically we have the lowest economic growth in the G7

[Sampson]

43 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

 

Is this now in place for this thread or across the forum? 

It’s happened to me a couple of times on this thread and the old general news thread - I’m convinced there’s a key word filter that triggers it.

[Tommy G]

36 minutes ago, Sampson said:

It’s happened to me a couple of times on this thread and the old general news thread - I’m convinced there’s a key word filter that triggers it.

Strange - there was nothing offensive!

[Jattdogg]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Strange - there was nothing offensive!

Happens to me too. Likely on a watch list or key words. My posts are shite anyways

[Tommy G]

16 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Happens to me too. Likely on a watch list or key words. My posts are shite anyways

Foxestalk most wanted

[MaidstoneFox]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that a lot ot people actually want the structure an authoritarian government with no free press, no opposition nor grey lines which rules out of fear of doing something wrong, because it gives them structure etc.

 

I remember Angela Merkel saying that when Germany reunited and she went from an authoritarian regime in East Germany to a liberal democracy, it took her years to actually get her head round that she had more choice and could do things she couldn’t previously without fear, because she had been programmed growing up that you’re only allowed to do certain things. I’ll see if I can find the interview but she said it was actually quite frightening to have that much freedom to actually hold opposing opinions etc.

Adorno's theory of authoritarianism explores this concept and there are other behavioural case studies.

 

For example, Trump inflates the sense of disorder and crime in the States to provoke a greater climate of fear, which leads certain personality types to view him as the 'strong man' protector. 

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

"Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw.It was its tendency to bend at the knees."

 

An additional complication is related to the bolded here - some absolutely vital projects need more than a single election cycle and need not to be changed or interrupted. The Chinese, for instance, are actually taking the world lead on vital energy and science infrastructure projects because they start them and mean to finish them. 

 

Democratic systems are great, but they do have flaws. The above one is a big one, and may end up being a fatal one. 

this is why I think we need an overhaul, and critical infrastructure projects or long term planning should sit in the house of lords (or some equivalent)

 

just look at our travel infrastructure.... tories cancelled HS2, announced a load of rail and road projects and then labour canned most of them. 

 

whatever Labour come up in to replace it, will probably be canned by reform after the next election. 

 

it's no wonder our infrastructure is appalling. 

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

 

Is this now in place for this thread or across the forum? 

literally never happened to me. I tend not to get grumpy though

[Tommy G]

Just now, Greg2607 said:

literally never happened to me. I tend not to get grumpy though

I was replying to your post!

[Greg2607]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

I was replying to your post!

always happens to me mate, I'm pretty controversial with most things I say. 

[Tommy G]

Just now, Greg2607 said:

always happens to me mate, I'm pretty controversial with most things I say. 

It wasn't, I was just correcting you mate 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

this is why I think we need an overhaul, and critical infrastructure projects or long term planning should sit in the house of lords (or some equivalent)

 

just look at our travel infrastructure.... tories cancelled HS2, announced a load of rail and road projects and then labour canned most of them. 

 

whatever Labour come up in to replace it, will probably be canned by reform after the next election. 

 

it's no wonder our infrastructure is appalling. 

And the UK isn't the only place right now where that kind of thought is predominant, sadly. 

 

As you say, critical overhaul is needed as a matter of urgent necessity. 

 

And (and this is something said before that bears repeating) people who like the idea of short term self interest and/or ethnonationalist policy seem to think that those opposed to them are opposed because of some lofty moral ideals. That isn't true, at least not all the time. The simple truth is that their ideas, as espoused by Trump, Farage, Lukashenko, Milei and all the others around the world right now, are inimical to the continuity of our civilisation and (to a lesser extent) our biosphere. 

 

This goes beyond moral debates and political compassing. Such long term, one species acting as one planning, is about the difference between life and death for us and for a great many other species. That becomes more and more obvious as time passes.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Strange - there was nothing offensive!

Yeah I’ve had it happened to very inoffensive and innocuous posts which is why I think there’s just a key word in there that triggers it 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Strange - there was nothing offensive!

Did it to me once but I think the original post has been deleted which might have been the cause

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

This is the issue with tribalism isn't it.   Everyone that is "against the left" only see things through the lens that they agree with (from a Psychological perspective, this is called Schema) and it's the same on the opposite side of the argument.  

 

This is where something more akin to PR would likely benefit the country, as more of the good ideas would come to the table rather than trying to satisfy a voter base that 60% of the country doesn't agree with, regardless of who is in power. 

 

My moral compass is probably more aligned to co-operation and collaboration, so i'm probably biased towards it.   But the success of the country shouldn't have to come down to "left or right".... 

 

it also shouldn't be at the whim of a 4/5 year electoral cycle.  You wouldn't run a business that way.... you wouldn't suddenly lurch in a different direction after 5 years. it would be madness (and highly inefficient) 

This government could have everyone in purposeful employment, high wages, low bills, great travel infrastructure, pristine, modern hospitals with short waiting lists, low crime, clean waterways and beaches, excellent education facilities, etc...

 

And there would still be an opposition party, criticising and wanting it to fail so that they could do it their way.

 

I'm not being party political in saying this. If Reform/Tory/Liberal/Green parties did the same, there would still be a Labour party wanting to do it "their way". Despite everything being  practically utopian.

 

We see it all the time in sport. Just look how many people wanted Maresca out despite his success.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Strange - there was nothing offensive!

Israel...

 

 

Nope, not that one 

Edited 15 October 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[leicsmac]

There's definitely keywords for premod here, but I guess that's deemed a necessary step to take. 

[StanSP]

It's a word beginning with g that's occurring in that area of the world. 

 

Obvs don't want to say it because it won't be approved, but just making other users aware as it's a word I used and had the same message.