General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I think those rumoured tax rises would kill Labour off as an electable party indefinitely. It reminds me of that head of steam that the Lib Dems built up but then chucked it away when they bent the knee in the Coalition and raised tuition fees.

Precisely why I think they're just rumours from trouble making right wing rags. They've created a narrative around the coming budget that may or may not turn out to be true, but if it isn't then they've formented a lot of discontent simply by making things up. It's going to be an interesting budget after all the noise.

[Tommy G]

3 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Precisely why I think they're just rumours from trouble making right wing rags. They've created a narrative around the coming budget that may or may not turn out to be true, but if it isn't then they've formented a lot of discontent simply by making things up. It's going to be an interesting budget after all the noise.

I think her presser outside downing st would suggest it’s coming - all the main media outlets did reporting on it, Sky, bbc etc. so it’s not right wing media rags. 
 

This was 12 months ago 

 

 

[CornwallFox]

12 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think her presser outside downing st would suggest it’s coming - all the main media outlets did reporting on it, Sky, bbc etc. so it’s not right wing media rags. 
 

This was 12 months ago 

 

 

And maybe it is coming but it won't end well for them. 

 

I do think they are held to a different standard than the last government. They lied comprehensively at every election, including over tax, yet some don't seem to ever quite admit that. 

 

Once you set out such clear manifesto promises they'll be fools to break them. They already know they have an uphill battle with media and social media, maybe labour need to learn to play the Tory game and just ignore reality, don't raise the taxes and just tell everything is fine when it isn't. 

 

If they do need to raise taxes which ones should they raise in your opinion?

[kenny]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

And maybe it is coming but it won't end well for them. 

 

I do think they are held to a different standard than the last government. They lied comprehensively at every election, including over tax, yet some don't seem to ever quite admit that. 

 

Once you set out such clear manifesto promises they'll be fools to break them. They already know they have an uphill battle with media and social media, maybe labour need to learn to play the Tory game and just ignore reality, don't raise the taxes and just tell everything is fine when it isn't. 

 

If they do need to raise taxes which ones should they raise in your opinion?

I don't think we should raise it again, we need to stop spending what we don't have. That being said, I would go for:

 

Either scrap NI and increase tax, or increase the age that NI stops being paid to 70.

 

Increase the state pension age to 70.

 

Online retail tax for any business that doesn't have a high street offering. 10% on all Amazon purchases for example but Argos would be exempt.

 

Vehicle exercise duty has to be reformed. EV vehicles can't be free forever, but taxing them as luxury car then paying fuel duty on top won't encourage people to move over.

 

Mandatory GP charge for all users regardless of income. £10 each raise £3.6bn a year and would help with time wasters.

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

And maybe it is coming but it won't end well for them. 

 

I do think they are held to a different standard than the last government. They lied comprehensively at every election, including over tax, yet some don't seem to ever quite admit that. 

 

Once you set out such clear manifesto promises they'll be fools to break them. They already know they have an uphill battle with media and social media, maybe labour need to learn to play the Tory game and just ignore reality, don't raise the taxes and just tell everything is fine when it isn't. 

 

If they do need to raise taxes which ones should they raise in your opinion?

I wouldn’t be looking to raise anything as it will just stifle any economic growth. I agree with Kenny’s point on GP charges, I made that point previously and despite a few people having a hissy I don’t think many would object. 
 

I think any tax increases for anyone earning £250k or below is daft, they could bring in a separate wealth tax but it needs to be thought through, not the same way the envy tax was brought in on school fees. They need to get a grip on welfare and migration as costs are ballooning but that is just obvious. 
 

They will be hitting their voter base really hard with any income tax rises - Drs, nurses, teachers etc will all be hit by this. The NI pension charge idea is just a joke, surely they wouldn’t do that 

[CornwallFox]

25 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I wouldn’t be looking to raise anything as it will just stifle any economic growth. I agree with Kenny’s point on GP charges, I made that point previously and despite a few people having a hissy I don’t think many would object. 
 

I think any tax increases for anyone earning £250k or below is daft, they could bring in a separate wealth tax but it needs to be thought through, not the same way the envy tax was brought in on school fees. They need to get a grip on welfare and migration as costs are ballooning but that is just obvious. 
 

They will be hitting their voter base really hard with any income tax rises - Drs, nurses, teachers etc will all be hit by this. The NI pension charge idea is just a joke, surely they wouldn’t do that 

I'm surprised we can find common ground on a wealth tax but yeah it's so obviously the one form of taxation that wouldn't hit them electorally they surely will take the chance to use that? 

 

There's a lot of talk of us looking at Denmark's immigration system (minus the big payments Denmark makes) so there's likely going to be movement there soon. 

 

If you give me a wealth tax I'll give you gp charging, how about that 🤣

[leicsmac]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

I'm surprised we can find common ground on a wealth tax but yeah it's so obviously the one form of taxation that wouldn't hit them electorally they surely will take the chance to use that? 

 

There's a lot of talk of us looking at Denmark's immigration system (minus the big payments Denmark makes) so there's likely going to be movement there soon. 

 

If you give me a wealth tax I'll give you gp charging, how about that 🤣

And if the welfare budget (or indeed any budget directly linked to human health and life) is going to be managed more "carefully" (shall we say), then the person suggesting it had better be ready to either prove it won't cause harm or offer a damn good justification for the level of harm caused. 

[Super_horns]

Blimey two big resignations at the BBC over the Trump edited speech .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

[ClaphamFox]

Tim Davie has resigned from the BBC:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Blimey two big resignations at the BBC over the Trump edited speech .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

 

18 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Tim Davie has resigned from the BBC:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cd9kqz1yyxkt

Guess they felt there was no other choice, but can't help this sacrifice on the altar of accountability and integrity actually means nothing when the people covered as the subject in this matter can lie and cheat as easily as they breathe and face no accountability themselves. 

Edited 9 November 2025 by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

Any wealth tax would need to be bulletproof (from evasion)  or its pointless.

And what are you actually taxing? Not earnt wealth I assume? That's just raising the tax levels.

Assets?  Well specifically inactive assets that just gather more wealth by existing.

I am 100% for an annual tax that is levied against gains on such assets.

[Dahnsouff]

BBC being the bigger man/woman yet this seems both morally laudable and wrong at the same time.

[leicsmac]

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. 

 

Sticking to the rules is laudable, but unless and until people like most of the current US administration are likewise held by the same rules (or by whatever other rule might be used to guarantee accountability), it doesn't actually mean much. 

[Brizzle Fox]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. 

 

Sticking to the rules is laudable, but unless and until people like most of the current US administration are likewise held by the same rules (or by whatever other rule might be used to guarantee accountability), it doesn't actually mean much. 

Although tbf it's pretty funny as well. There are a litany of reasons that Davie should probably have gone over the last few years but for this nah.

 

Stealing from Steve Richards on twitter..

 

"It’s ironic but predictable that the BBC duo - who tried so hard to please the right wing papers-are removed by the right wing papers."

 

It's kinda beautiful.

[st albans fox]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. 

 

Sticking to the rules is laudable, but unless and until people like most of the current US administration are likewise held by the same rules (or by whatever other rule might be used to guarantee accountability), it doesn't actually mean much. 

As I said a week ago, the bbc have to stick to the rules.  The irony here is that this was made by a non bbc production company. Clearly there are inherent dangers doing this but on cost basis they have no choice.  There must be people employed by the bbc who are so clued up on all things news that they would have spotted this if had been effectively ‘proof watched’.  

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Although tbf it's pretty funny as well. There are a litany of reasons that Davie should probably have gone over the last few years but for this nah.

 

Stealing from Steve Richards on twitter..

 

"It’s ironic but predictable that the BBC duo - who tried so hard to please the right wing papers-are removed by the right wing papers."

 

It's kinda beautiful.

There is perhaps a certain irony there. 

 

And also, perhaps, a lesson to be learned. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, st albans fox said:

As I said a week ago, the bbc have to stick to the rules.  The irony here is that this was made by a non bbc production company. Clearly there are inherent dangers doing this but on cost basis they have no choice.  There must be people employed by the bbc who are so clued up on all things news that they would have spotted this if had been effectively ‘proof watched’.  

Oh, I agree that they have to at least appear to take the high road. 

 

It's just that (and I'm dying to hear a good argument otherwise) it actually has little to zero effect on the landscape of actually holding those people who need to be neutralised accountable at the present time (if current events and opinions are any judge), so it actually means naff all. 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, I agree that they have to at least appear to take the high road. 

 

It's just that (and I'm dying to hear a good argument otherwise) it actually has little to zero effect on the landscape of actually holding those people who need to be neutralised accountable at the present time (if current events and opinions are any judge), so it actually means naff all. 

It means naff all as far as trump and his ilk are concerned but those of us who believe in the rules need to have a part of the msm which is totally reliable or everything becomes labelled as fake news and we’re completely in the gutter,   the hope is that the current incumbent of the White House and his politics is temporary. 

[Dahnsouff]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, I agree that they have to at least appear to take the high road. 

 

It's just that (and I'm dying to hear a good argument otherwise) it actually has little to zero effect on the landscape of actually holding those people who need to be neutralised accountable at the present time (if current events and opinions are any judge), so it actually means naff all. 

If we allow ourselves a momentary flight of fancy (not to all I realise, some are blessed with faith) then come a final reckoning, it will mean plenty, even if this is a mere footnote in this particular individuals ledger.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It means naff all as far as trump and his ilk are concerned but those of us who believe in the rules need to have a part of the msm which is totally reliable or everything becomes labelled as fake news and we’re completely in the gutter,   the hope is that the current incumbent of the White House and his politics is temporary. 

That's fair enough. Just have a couple of questions on the bolded, though:

 

Is there really any reason to suspect we're not already in the gutter?

 

And is there really any reason to suspect that the politics of that man - or at least the damage they will cause - will be temporary?

 

Pardon the questioning and the cynicism.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

If we allow ourselves a momentary flight of fancy (not to all I realise, some are blessed with faith) then come a final reckoning, it will mean plenty, even if this is a mere footnote in this particular individuals ledger.

Agreed, though I would like to see that reckoning happen here, for all to see, rather than if and in wherever the Beyond is. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough. Just have a couple of questions on the bolded, though:

 

Is there really any reason to suspect we're not already in the gutter?

 

And is there really any reason to suspect that the politics of that man - or at least the damage they will cause - will be temporary?

 

Pardon the questioning and the cynicism.

Can’t disagree

but if we don’t go down the optimistic route then it’s all over 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Agreed, though I would like to see that reckoning happen here, for all to see, rather than if and in wherever the Beyond is. 

I am sure it will be on Sky Box Office

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Can’t disagree

but if we don’t go down the optimistic route then it’s all over 

Isn't that the damn truth. 

 

It can be tiring, sometimes, to fight the good fight. 

 

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I am sure it will be on Sky Box Office

Given what's happened today, it has to be on the Beeb. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And if the welfare budget (or indeed any budget directly linked to human health and life) is going to be managed more "carefully" (shall we say), then the person suggesting it had better be ready to either prove it won't cause harm or offer a damn good justification for the level of harm caused. 

 There never will be any justification despite the despot in the Whitehouse saying it's justified and pushing his determination to put people into poverty.

What's wrong with the man? He has no shred of compassion or humanity.

 

 

 

On Friday, moments after a federal appeals court ruled the Trump administration needs to fully fund Snap food aid payments, the White House turned to the supreme court in a further attempt to block the order.

Within hours, the top US court issued an emergency order temporarily blocking full Snap food aid payments, which nearly 42 million people rely on to put food on the table.

Edited 9 November 2025 by Parafox