General News Thread

[Tommy G]

17 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Really not sure what people want. 

Being realistic with suggestions, what do people think any of the parties would have done differently? 

The Tories might not have raised tax but would have splashed public spending to already utterly crippled public services thanks to austerity. 

Reform are a joke party with no policies.

Greens would raise taxes on wealth and invest hugely, which kinda appeals to me but isn't really popular with any media or usually the electorate. 

Lib Dems I'm not really sure tbh.

If we want public services to get better were going to need to invest.

Removal of two child benefit cap not universally popular it's fair to say but it is also the most direct means to reduce child poverty. 

What different choices would you make? Not just what would you like, but what would you give up in return? 

 

Look up the statistics of who benefits most from the 2 child benefit cap being lifted. 
 

I’ve got a better idea - how’s about not screwing any children’s parents over so they can provide properly for their children - rather than turning us into a nanny state. 
 

Bleated on since the election, this party hasn’t even got their own voters at heart, they’ve turned their supporters backs in less than 18 months - things are about to get really bleak. 

[CornwallFox]

13 minutes ago, danny. said:

I wouldn’t have lifted the cap. It’s costing 2.3bn, if people can’t afford kids then don’t have them. I’d have loved kids but never felt financially stable enough to have them, and now I have to pay more for other people’s children. 

I understand that's a very popular viewpoint. 

An alternative consideration for you though: people might have been able to afford 3 kids but then lose their job. 

Also don't we need the birth rate to be a decent level? 

I'm really unclear on the cost as ultimately the money will all be spent and taxed multiple times as it's going straight into the real economy so the cost will be offset by recovery elsewhere

[MaidstoneFox]

16 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Really not sure what people want. 

Being realistic with suggestions, what do people think any of the parties would have done differently? 

The Tories might not have raised tax but would have splashed public spending to already utterly crippled public services thanks to austerity. 

Reform are a joke party with no policies.

Greens would raise taxes on wealth and invest hugely, which kinda appeals to me but isn't really popular with any media or usually the electorate. 

Lib Dems I'm not really sure tbh.

If we want public services to get better were going to need to invest.

Removal of two child benefit cap not universally popular it's fair to say but it is also the most direct means to reduce child poverty. 

What different choices would you make? Not just what would you like, but what would you give up in return? 

 

She created the fiscal headroom, and in doing so didn't rattle the markets. She also placated the left of the party and probably saw off any immediate challenge to KS, with the mansion tax and lifting of 2 child cap. So they kind of achieved their objectives. The real mess, was the arrogant budget of last year, which they'll spend the rest of parliament regretting, but I do think this budget was really unimaginative and a missed opportunity.

 

[CornwallFox]

5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Look up the statistics of who benefits most from the 2 child benefit cap being lifted. 
 

I’ve got a better idea - how’s about not screwing any children’s parents over so they can provide properly for their children - rather than turning us into a nanny state. 
 

Bleated on since the election, this party hasn’t even got their own voters at heart, they’ve turned their supporters backs in less than 18 months - things are about to get really bleak. 

Most labour supporters don't think they're left wing enough. 

We'd like to see them increase spending and lose their fiscal rules until growth is achieved. 

The fiscal rules are creating unnecessary economic drag and stopping them being a transformational government. 

The issue is parents being able to afford their kids isn't really a tax issue - it's a pay issue. And having employers pay wages that can really be lived on without the need for benefits to subsidise poor pay is a real issue. But that might be a hard one for us to find common ground on perhaps?

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

She created the fiscal headroom, and in doing so didn't rattle the markets. She also placated the left of the party and probably saw off any immediate challenge to KS, with the mansion tax and lifting of 2 child cap. So they kind of achieved their objectives. The real mess, was the arrogant budget of last year, which they'll spend the rest of parliament regretting, but I do think this budget was really unimaginative and a missed opportunity.

 

Yeah I thought it was all quite boring.

Whatever she did the opposition would oppose so that was equally predictable and boring. 

 

[Tommy G]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

Yeah I thought it was all quite boring.

Whatever she did the opposition would oppose so that was equally predictable and boring. 

 

She did what was needed to keep her and Keir on life support for a little while longer. 
 

Two budgets of tax increases, one following the other with promises it was a one off. 
 

What happens next year when economic growth isn’t there, inflation is still high and unemployment keeps ticking up at a rate since the previous budget? 
 

Even the comfortable “middle class” are skint. 
 

If Reform end up in power you can thank these lot for being so utterly inept. 

[CornwallFox]

Just now, Tommy G said:

She did what was needed to keep her and Keir on life support for a little while longer. 
 

Two budgets of tax increases, one following the other with promises it was a one off. 
 

What happens next year when economic growth isn’t there, inflation is still high and unemployment keeps ticking up at a rate since the previous budget? 
 

Even the comfortable “middle class” are skint. 
 

If Reform end up in power you can thank these lot for being so utterly inept. 

I don't disagree two budgets of tax increases is a pretty bitter pill. They really need to find a way to good times being ahead. 

I think inept is OTT. The Tories were absolutely abysmal for 14 years. The country is an absolute shambles. It's not a quick job. Public services are broken, at the same time as taxes and debt are really high, and we've had bugger all economic or wage growth in a decade and a half pretty much. 

The idea a new government taking this on is inept because they're having to make some crappy choices is OTT. Not that I'm saying they haven't made mistakes, or that the budgets themselves might be mistakes, just I think you need to be honest with yourself about the background context, then feel free to still criticise.

[foxes1988]

4 hours ago, splinterdream said:

But for what though? Why do you want the govt to take more of people's money. Governments are just frivolous with it. People wouldn't resent paying tax if they saw some benefit from it, but we are being taxed more than we ever have since WW2, and services have just got worse and worse, the welfare budget is out of hand, 81% of current borrowing is to pay for previous borrowing, and as of today a family on UC with 6 kids is £14,000 a year better off whilst state pensioners only get £12,500 a year to survive on. Its a mess

I don't really want any tax rises. Who does? I was just complaining about the way politics does it to placate a short term thinking general populace

Edited 26 November 2025 by foxes1988

[foxes1988]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

The Cheerios line was sensational - I mean if you can’t take that then the world has gone completely mad. 
 

She is incompetent and it needs calling out, there were warning signs after the last budget, now we have this - where do we go next year when all the economic indicators are south? They have literally backed themselves into a corner now, it’s sh*t or bust time. 

 

As much as I don't particularly like the budget I would argue she's actually shown politically at least that she's pretty competent.

 

Financially the stock and bond markets seems to suggest she competent there too. She's left a larger headroom in the budget then last time

 

She hasn't done what I would've done but to suggest she's incompetent seems hyperbole to me.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, ian__marshall said:

I get there will be winners and losers in any budget, but I've never encountered a budget which has previously hit me on so many levels. I think there are likely many people in the same boat as myself, which earn a decent living but are far from rich and seem disproportionately targeted by this budget.

 

It feels like a rather lazy budget to keep certain demographics on-side. Suffice to say, having been screwed over twice by Labour governments in my lifetime, they've destroyed any chance of ever receiving future votes from myself. 

 

It would be amazing if the Tory mismanagement of the country didn't affect you

[CornwallFox]

5 hours ago, foxes1988 said:

Yes I'm fully aware it's a 'stealth tax'.  I'd just prefer the more straight forward 'honesty' of raising income instead but the tik tok / twitter nature of the general population these days I don't think you can do it.

They're hoping they won't have to freeze them. It's a way off. They're betting on better results than predicted before this kicks in

[CornwallFox]

4 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

People buy cars, bikes, white goods and other stuff via salary sacrifice

 

4 hours ago, kenny said:

I would too if there were any truth to your statement.

 

4 hours ago, kenny said:

You have got the cycle to work scheme in there. That exists and was designed to encourage sustainable travel.

 

The others, they do, but it's all taxable. Typically the schemes to do it sells their goods at higher prices than the high street so no one bothers.

 

 

Cost saving

The most obvious advantage is the cost-saving aspect of salary sacrifice. Everyday costs like childcare can cause a heavy financial burden for many employees, so receiving a helping hand from their employer can help reduce this stress.

 

Not only are payments for large purchases like tech devices split over multiple payments throughout the year, but employees can also make tax savings. Using salary sacrifice schemes reduces their taxable income, meaning they’ll pay less in tax and National Insurance contributions.

Tech Schemes

We all know how much an iPhone costs nowadays…  

But you might be surprised to learn that mobile phones and other electrical devices can also be purchased via salary sacrifice schemes. These work by allowing employees to spread the cost of their mobile phone, laptop, TV, or even household items like a washing machine, over a 12 month period as salary deductions.

This means that the tech is delivered directly to employees, and neither the employee nor company has to be credit checked (more on this below). Plus, employees can choose their own network provider and contract separately to the purchase of the device, making it a super stress-free process for everyone involved.

 

There definitely seems to be an NI saving on the example above, even if not an income tax saving as examples for other purchase streams show. 

 

I can't comment on your pricing point, you seem to have an idea what you're talking about so I'll accept that.

Edited 27 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[S. C.]

10 hours ago, AjcW said:

Bamboo scaffolding!!! 

I live in Hong Kong. It's the subpar safety netting of the scaffolding instead of the bamboo (which has been used for decades in the city) itself. Plus very poor cladding. 3 have been arrested for the cladding for now.

 

Metal scaffolding is no less of a hazard but international media blame the fires on bamboo immediately. I find it very lazy, uninformed journalism.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, S. C. said:

I live in Hong Kong. It's the subpar safety netting of the scaffolding instead of the bamboo (which has been used for decades in the city) itself. Plus very poor cladding. 3 have been arrested for the cladding for now.

 

Metal scaffolding is no less of a hazard but international media blame the fires on bamboo immediately. I find it very lazy, uninformed journalism.

If everyone was using steel scaffolding and some green entrepreneur invented Bamboo scaffolding everyone would be shouting its benefits from the rooftops.

 

I think the mainland Chinese ban on use over 6 storeys is pretty sensible though.

[S. C.]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

If everyone was using steel scaffolding and some green entrepreneur invented Bamboo scaffolding everyone would be shouting its benefits from the rooftops.

 

I think the mainland Chinese ban on use over 6 storeys is pretty sensible though.

HK Gov is also pushing for transition to steel - reactions are pretty mixed (part of it being bamboo scaffolds sort of a local heritage).

 

The bamboo scaffolding this time actually remained intact. The fire went up through the netting.

[Salisbury Fox]

7 hours ago, MaidstoneFox said:

We do actually need children though. I think it's been pointed out on here before that a number of countries are facing serious population decline and in some cases have put in place quite generous incentives for people to have children. In Hungary, mothers who have more than two children, have a lifetime exemption from paying tax! Imagine if we brought that in here!

Reality is, we need more future tax payers, we have an aging population.

I suspect that with the growing adoption of AI, this notion will be turned on its head. 

[Greg2607]

7 hours ago, Tommy G said:

She did what was needed to keep her and Keir on life support for a little while longer. 
 

Two budgets of tax increases, one following the other with promises it was a one off. 
 

What happens next year when economic growth isn’t there, inflation is still high and unemployment keeps ticking up at a rate since the previous budget? 
 

Even the comfortable “middle class” are skint. 
 

If Reform end up in power you can thank these lot for being so utterly inept. 

What would you deem to be acceptable indicators next year Tom?

 

What percentage would growth need to be?

What would the employment figures need to be?

 

What inflation number would you be comfortable with?

 

It's not a dig...I'm interested to know.  You are a numbers guy, so what numbers would you want to see? 

[danny.]

30 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I suspect that with the growing adoption of AI, this notion will be turned on its head. 

Exactly this. We’re being told we need to import millions of people, and also have millions of babies. In addition AI will make many millions unemployed. No one seems to be thinking about this or even making a basic attempt to join the dots. 

[Sly]

Kemi went in hard at her and it’s needed in reality.

 

It’s been an utter **** show for a while and she’s only said what a good proportion of the country is thinking.

 

No budget is looked upon favourably in realistic terms, as you can’t do wrong, for doing right.

 

However this one does feel a bit like “let’s rob from the grafters in the middle” a little bit more than usual. 
 

Also, I own an EV and in the grand scheme of it, 3p isn’t exactly breaking the bank. It’s if they make it to something silly like 10p+ etc. what they should have done is dropped heavy tax on the people charging 60p kW to charge when you are out and about! 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Really not sure what people want. 

Being realistic with suggestions, what do people think any of the parties would have done differently? 

The Tories might not have raised tax but would have splashed public spending to already utterly crippled public services thanks to austerity. 

Reform are a joke party with no policies.

Greens would raise taxes on wealth and invest hugely, which kinda appeals to me but isn't really popular with any media or usually the electorate. 

Lib Dems I'm not really sure tbh.

If we want public services to get better were going to need to invest.

Removal of two child benefit cap not universally popular it's fair to say but it is also the most direct means to reduce child poverty. 

What different choices would you make? Not just what would you like, but what would you give up in return? 

 

 

8 hours ago, Zear0 said:

We need people to have children to have a workforce and for those with them to be able to afford to feed them.

 

8 hours ago, MaidstoneFox said:

We do actually need children though. I think it's been pointed out on here before that a number of countries are facing serious population decline and in some cases have put in place quite generous incentives for people to have children. In Hungary, mothers who have more than two children, have a lifetime exemption from paying tax! Imagine if we brought that in here!

Reality is, we need more future tax payers, we have an aging population.

 

43 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I suspect that with the growing adoption of AI, this notion will be turned on its head. 

 

11 minutes ago, danny. said:

Exactly this. We’re being told we need to import millions of people, and also have millions of babies. In addition AI will make many millions unemployed. No one seems to be thinking about this or even making a basic attempt to join the dots. 

This is an interesting dilemma. It's also a painful one, because as far as I can see, there are no good options to deal with it. Either the UK looks to do its part to limit world population growth by disincentivising people having more children, in which case there will be a serious demographic crisis sooner rather than later, or the government does what it did yesterday to encourage population growth, in which case we continue to contribute to a problem of increasing population and decreasing finite resources until Darwin steps in and sorts it out. Brutally. 

 

I'm hoping that someone smarter than me can come up with a third option there. 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Tommy G said:

She did what was needed to keep her and Keir on life support for a little while longer. 
 

Two budgets of tax increases, one following the other with promises it was a one off. 
 

What happens next year when economic growth isn’t there, inflation is still high and unemployment keeps ticking up at a rate since the previous budget? 
 

Even the comfortable “middle class” are skint. 
 

If Reform end up in power you can thank these lot for being so utterly inept. 

I've heard this a few times before, and it always sounds like a cop-out to avoid taking responsibility for all the grotesque things that will happen if a party like Reform takes power. 

 

"But, but, the other guys were doing bad things, I didn't have any choice but to vote for these guys who are doing worse things to vulnerable people... it's not my fault..."

 

Yes. Yes it is. People should at least have the basic honesty of purpose to admit their own self interest about that. 

[Greg2607]

Labour’s 1997–2010 period delivered stronger economic fundamentals: higher GDP growth, rising living standards, stable public services and significant investment in infrastructure, education and health. Debt only rose sharply during the 2008 global financial crisis, which affected every major economy, and most of Labour’s economic performance before that period was characterised by stability, predictability and growth. The party’s public reputation, however, suffered because the crash happened on their watch, and that single event overshadowed a decade of strong economic outcomes.

 

The Conservative period from 2010–2024 produced weaker results across almost every major metric. GDP growth slowed to historically low levels, business investment stagnated, productivity flatlined and living standards barely improved for most households. Public debt nearly doubled despite years of austerity, Brexit depressed trade and investment, and a series of policy shocks — including the Truss mini-budget — raised borrowing costs and undermined stability. Despite this, Conservatives maintained a reputation for “economic competence” due to long-standing voter perceptions, stronger message discipline and a largely friendly media environment.

 

The new Labour government inherits a weaker economic foundation than the one their predecessors left in 2010 but is attempting to reverse long-term underinvestment through a push for infrastructure, planning reform and industrial strategy. Whether these efforts deliver higher growth will depend on execution, global conditions and the pace at which investment can be unlocked. In broad terms, Labour’s historical record shows stronger growth and investment, the Conservatives’ recent record shows weaker performance but stronger narrative control, and the current Labour government is positioning itself to rebuild long-term economic capacity if its policies are carried through effectively.

 

If people looked mainly at the data.... They would be generally surprised at how much difference there is between perception and reality. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

If people looked mainly at the data.... They would be generally surprised at how much difference there is between perception and reality. 

That, unfortunately, is a massive problem, and not one limited to just this one topic. 

 

Every single instance of perception being valued over fact incurs a debt to the truth. And, sooner or later, that debt is collected. 

[kenny]

7 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

 

 

Cost saving

The most obvious advantage is the cost-saving aspect of salary sacrifice. Everyday costs like childcare can cause a heavy financial burden for many employees, so receiving a helping hand from their employer can help reduce this stress.

 

Not only are payments for large purchases like tech devices split over multiple payments throughout the year, but employees can also make tax savings. Using salary sacrifice schemes reduces their taxable income, meaning they’ll pay less in tax and National Insurance contributions.

Tech Schemes

We all know how much an iPhone costs nowadays…  

But you might be surprised to learn that mobile phones and other electrical devices can also be purchased via salary sacrifice schemes. These work by allowing employees to spread the cost of their mobile phone, laptop, TV, or even household items like a washing machine, over a 12 month period as salary deductions.

This means that the tech is delivered directly to employees, and neither the employee nor company has to be credit checked (more on this below). Plus, employees can choose their own network provider and contract separately to the purchase of the device, making it a super stress-free process for everyone involved.

 

There definitely seems to be an NI saving on the example above, even if not an income tax saving as examples for other purchase streams show. 

 

I can't comment on your pricing point, you seem to have an idea what you're talking about so I'll accept that.

If there is a staff benefit we can offer then we are looking at it. Unfortunately, everything is taxable.

 

I'm trying to figure out whether we can even offer gym membership without the staff paying tax on it, it's looking like the answer is no.

 

The Tories shut down most of the tax loopholes and there are few left available to 'working people'.

[JonnyBoy]

RR doesn’t even know how they are going to charge and track the EV’s 3p a mile 🤣 what a shambles. Couldn’t make it up