General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Why?  It's not a criticism of policy, it's a criticism of dishonest behaviour.

 

Both her and Starmer were absolutely clear that due to an impending productivity downgrade there was money to be saved or accrued via tax.  She knew this downgrade wasn't as severe as previously thought but took the same remedial actions anyway.  Where you support tax rises to fund welfare rises is irrelevant in the complains people have against what she's done.  It was at best dishonest, and at worst manipulating bond markets to make her budget work.

 

It's not just mud slinging, it's pointing out dishonestly in office.  I voted for these idiots and it was a decision almost as hideous as Corbyn/Boris.  We called out the Tories for having their hand in the till, and we need to call out the current government when they make mistakes, not just continue to gaslight the country.

Honestly shocked how easily so many of you fall for this nonsense.

There was money to be saved and she saved it. 

Separately to the welfare spending. As that was offset by tax changes already within the budget. 

 

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[Tommy G]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally, I reckon that any critique of policy like this that doesn't involve comparative and instead just focuses on criticism is absolutely pointless anyway. 

Not really - you can criticise anything without comparison, especially when an independent public body like the OBR said what they said. It is not Tory papers either, the BBC have been critical, in fact I've not seen a news outlet that hasn't been critical - people don't like it because it's finally being called out and can see the way this country is heading - south and fast. 

[Tommy G]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

Honestly shocked how easily so many of you fall for this nonsense.

There was money to be saved and she saved it. 

Separately to the welfare spending. As that was offset by tax changes already within the budget. 

 

You are peddling a one man argument here - people within her own party and wider support are outraged by the pair of them.

 

Now KS is saying he won't apologise for lifting children out of poverty, so his last resort propaganda is basically saying if you disagree with that we've done then you support child poverty, a policy that wasn't even in their manifesto and came about a couple of months ago to appease people within their own party, to save their own skin 

[kenny]

35 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

That's not the complaint though. 

Absolutely fine to take that opinion. 

But that's not what I'm on about

Thats not my opinion.

 

Quote

Unless you're about to argue that not rising income tax thresholds counts as increasing income tax, which I doubt you were arguing when the Tories were doing it year after year after year.

You said this. The person who said the quote I posted disagrees with you. Unfortunately she is now the Chancellor. 

 

I would guess its raising taxes when its Tory fiscal drag and prudent governance when its Labour fiscal drag?

 

FWIW, I wouldn't have touched the bands on this occasion either.

 

But then I wouldn't have raised the tax on dividends whilst claiming to protect 'working people' which constitutes more than 10% of all tax payers in the UK.

[leicsmac]

34 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Why?  It's not a criticism of policy, it's a criticism of dishonest behaviour.

 

Both her and Starmer were absolutely clear that due to an impending productivity downgrade there was money to be saved or accrued via tax.  She knew this downgrade wasn't as severe as previously thought but took the same remedial actions anyway.  Where you support tax rises to fund welfare rises is irrelevant in the complains people have against what she's done.  It was at best dishonest, and at worst manipulating bond markets to make her budget work.

 

It's not just mud slinging, it's pointing out dishonestly in office.  I voted for these idiots and it was a decision almost as hideous as Corbyn/Boris.  We called out the Tories for having their hand in the till, and we need to call out the current government when they make mistakes, not just continue to gaslight the country.

 

30 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Not really - you can criticise anything without comparison, especially when an independent public body like the OBR said what they said. It is not Tory papers either, the BBC have been critical, in fact I've not seen a news outlet that hasn't been critical - people don't like it because it's finally being called out and can see the way this country is heading - south and fast. 

I have no issue whatsoever with the criticism in of itself. How much of it is actually legit is clearly up to the beholder and in a democracy clearly that is an important factor. There's clearly things that could be better done. 

 

What sticks in my craw right now, however, is the wilful or ignorant denial that every other viable government option in the UK right now would be categorically worse. This knee-jerk, spin the roulette wheel idea of changing things up at the drop of a hat (how long, exactly, is 18 months in terms of policy decisions?) is one of the big reasons populist shitheels have gotten into power over the last decade, and then proceed to make lives a misery for everyone not part of their favoured demographic. 

 

I know this is a refrain that's come up on here many times before, but that's because, for whatever reason, people appear bound and determined to ignore it. 

 

Criticism of current policy (including the aforementioned dishonesty) that involves them changing course with ideas on how it might happen? Of course. 

 

Criticism of current policy that infers strongly that there is no good course other than a change of government? Pointless without detailing why that government would be better, and I stand by the bolded word. 

 

Of course, people are free to say what they like, but pardon my frustration at the lack of foresight and brewing short term ill feeling that could well drive the UK (and elsewhere) into a very, very dark place. And that will be everyone's problem, and everyone's fault. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

That's not the complaint is it. 

She didn't need to increase taxes.  At all.

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

She didn't need to increase taxes.  At all.

She wanted to though so she could spend them on something her party wanted.

 

Which is all well and good as long as she says this rather than lying about it.

[CornwallFox]

31 minutes ago, kenny said:

Thats not my opinion.

 

You said this. The person who said the quote I posted disagrees with you. Unfortunately she is now the Chancellor. 

 

I would guess its raising taxes when its Tory fiscal drag and prudent governance when its Labour fiscal drag?

 

FWIW, I wouldn't have touched the bands on this occasion either.

 

But then I wouldn't have raised the tax on dividends whilst claiming to protect 'working people' which constitutes more than 10% of all tax payers in the UK.

I'm not saying it's prudent or arguing it's merits as a policy. I'd rather they stopped holding tax bands and of course it's increasing tax. I'm just not sure it technically beaches the manifesto. My argument was very very specific. 

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

She wanted to though so she could spend them on something her party wanted.

 

Which is all well and good as long as she says this rather than lying about it.

Her argument is that the bill for the welfare reform was covered by other tax changes. There was then a bed to create more fiscal headroom so had to make further read changes to create that. 

[CornwallFox]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

She didn't need to increase taxes.  At all.

Well she obviously felt she had to. 

[CrazyKopCorner]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Economy doing better than the opposition thought somehow equals the chancellor being a hopeless liar eh?

What nonsense

The economy's doing great. 

 

What a Twonk! 

 

 

[CornwallFox]

40 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

I have no issue whatsoever with the criticism in of itself. How much of it is actually legit is clearly up to the beholder and in a democracy clearly that is an important factor. There's clearly things that could be better done. 

 

What sticks in my craw right now, however, is the wilful or ignorant denial that every other viable government option in the UK right now would be categorically worse. This knee-jerk, spin the roulette wheel idea of changing things up at the drop of a hat (how long, exactly, is 18 months in terms of policy decisions?) is one of the big reasons populist shitheels have gotten into power over the last decade, and then proceed to make lives a misery for everyone not part of their favoured demographic. 

 

I know this is a refrain that's come up on here many times before, but that's because, for whatever reason, people appear bound and determined to ignore it. 

 

Criticism of current policy (including the aforementioned dishonesty) that involves them changing course with ideas on how it might happen? Of course. 

 

Criticism of current policy that infers strongly that there is no good course other than a change of government? Pointless without detailing why that government would be better, and I stand by the bolded word. 

 

Of course, people are free to say what they like, but pardon my frustration at the lack of foresight and brewing short term ill feeling that could well drive the UK (and elsewhere) into a very, very dark place. And that will be everyone's problem, and everyone's fault. 

Absolutely agree.

It takes about 18 months for most policy changes to have any real world effect. 

People up in arms because the country is in a state somehow blaming labour for that is really bizarre. 

Yes taxes have gone up and the country is still in a state, which isn't going to be hugely popular, but be realistic in that criticism.

[CornwallFox]

7 minutes ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

The economy's doing great. 

 

What a Twonk! 

 

 

I'm very, very precise with what I write. 

At no point did I claim the economy was doing great. 

I simply stated the fact it's doing better than the Tories wanted to believe.

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[Robo61]

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

She didn't need to increase taxes.  At all.

That is not true,  if she had left things as they were there would have been a headroom of just £4b, the lowest in decades and would have resulted in the bond markets panicking.   

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8zyp988zvo

 

US lawmakers are pressing the Trump administration for answers about military strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug boats, following reports that a follow-up strike was ordered to kill survivors of an initial attack.

Republican-led committees overseeing the Pentagon have vowed to conduct "vigorous oversight" into the US boat strikes in the Caribbean, following the report.

On Friday, The Washington Post, external reported that a US strike on a boat on 2 September left two survivors, but a second attack was carried out to comply with Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's orders to "kill everybody" on board.

 

Repub Congress members finally showing a spine? Glory be. Shame it didn't happen a while ago. 

[CrazyKopCorner]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

I'm very, very precise with what I write. 

At no point did I claim the economy was doing great. 

I simply stated the fact it's doing better than the Tories wanted to believe.

So it's doing slightly less shocking than totally shocking - good point that ..... well done keep them coming 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Has there ever been a budget that most people were happy about?

[danny.]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

That is not true,  if she had left things as they were there would have been a headroom of just £4b, the lowest in decades and would have resulted in the bond markets panicking.   

Didn’t have to be that low. She didn’t have to change policy to pay for people’s 7th and 8th children. These are choices, and choices that she increases tax on working people to pay for. 

[Tommy G]

15 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Has there ever been a budget that most people were happy about?

Good point. There will always we be a fallout after a budget - I think the difference here is the following;

 

> Working people are unhappy

 

> There is usually a left vs right argument - the right won't be happy with a left budget and vice versa, in this case a lot of the left aren't happy with this labour budget.

 

> Lies around why taxation needs to increase.

 

> Manifesto breaches.

 

> Competency of the Chancellor - she is completely out her depth, Gordon Brown was academically bright and so was Rishi - two examples of chancellors, who, whichever side of the spectrum you sat you were confident they understood the basics of economics and were more than qualified to do the role.  

 

> A tax raising budget following the prior budget which was a one off tax raising budget (the chancellors words) will irk people. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by Tommy G

[Trav Le Bleu]

Yeah, I think it was stupid, is stupid, of any government to promise no tax rises. Who knows what might happen to make it necessary. Obviously, to go with a manifesto that even hints at tax rises is probably political suicide.

 

Which for me highlights a fundamental problem (in all scenarios, not specifically this one).

 

Tax is seen as bad.

 

Which isn't necessarily true, though it frequently has been, especially in the UK.

 

Tax is only bad when it is abused, either through bad resource management, poor investment, overpayment for services or just plain corruption.

 

If taxes provide services that people want, that benefit all, create a better standard of living and which is not wasteful in achieving that, then taxes, if not good, are beneficial and worthwhile.

 

It's not high taxes that are a problem, it's mismanagement and waste.

[danny.]

It’s perceived value for those taxes too. And we have quite a lot of inequality in the U.K. in terms of paying in/value out ratio. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Yeah, I think it was stupid, is stupid, of any government to promise no tax rises. Who knows what might happen to make it necessary. Obviously, to go with a manifesto that even hints at tax rises is probably political suicide.

 

Which for me highlights a fundamental problem (in all scenarios, not specifically this one).

 

Tax is seen as bad.

 

Which isn't necessarily true, though it frequently has been, especially in the UK.

 

Tax is only bad when it is abused, either through bad resource management, poor investment, overpayment for services or just plain corruption.

 

If taxes provide services that people want, that benefit all, create a better standard of living and which is not wasteful in achieving that, then taxes, if not good, are beneficial and worthwhile.

 

It's not high taxes that are a problem, it's mismanagement and waste.

And this is problem with societal attitude across the board, both the elected and the electors. 

 

A great deal of the nations with the highest standard of living on the planet have high tax rates, but they also have a much, much stronger social contract. 

 

Whether it's even possible that the UK and its people can adapt to that kind of idea, goodness knows. It's certainly difficult with the individualist libertarian spiel all over the Anglosphere, both on legacy and social media. 

[Tommy G]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And this is problem with societal attitude across the board, both the elected and the electors. 

 

A great deal of the nations with the highest standard of living on the planet have high tax rates, but they also have a much, much stronger social contract. 

 

Whether it's even possible that the UK and its people can adapt to that kind of idea, goodness knows. It's certainly difficult with the individualist libertarian spiel all over the Anglosphere, both on legacy and social media. 

Your point was well made until it spiralled at the end, should of chopped it off at goodness knows, because goodness know why you need to add on a few extra words on almost every post at the end that don't add anything. 

 

Sometimes short and sweet is best  

[danny.]

7 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Your point was well made until it spiralled at the end, should of chopped it off at goodness knows, because goodness know why you need to add on a few extra words on almost every post at the end that don't add anything. 

 

Sometimes short and sweet is best  

Gotta keep up those esoteric verbose circumlocutory vocabulary numbers 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Your point was well made until it spiralled at the end, should of chopped it off at goodness knows, because goodness know why you need to add on a few extra words on almost every post at the end that don't add anything. 

 

Sometimes short and sweet is best  

 The use of media by shitty people on this topic and others is both relevant and reasonably important to the topic IMO, but fair enough.

Edited 1 December 2025 by leicsmac