General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

Perhaps the media should ignore him altogether? Then you can complain that they have deplatformed him instead.

 

Serious politicians want to be questioned by the media so the public knows who they are and what they are about.

 

Grifters want to hang around on social media and don't want difficult questions so they can't be shown that they don't really have a clue.

 

I know which camp I believe ZP and NF sit in.

So far at I can see, ZP, whatever you think of his politics, appears very happy to be questioned and it's noticeably good at dealing with interviewers. 

 

That's different from claiming something is a policy when it isn't a policy. 

 

That really shouldn't be hard to understand. 

 

Let's agree to disagree because I really can't be bothered to carry on with this.

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, Clogger_ said:

Thought about this. Why is 55 mph limit *really* an issue? I think I'd be fine with it, if properly enforced

 

6 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I believe that it’s set this level because it delivers best fuel consumption. 
but its also the speed that HGVs travel at so you’ll have cars and lorry’s occupying the same space on motorways.  I’m not sure that the standard of driving in this country makes this a good idea.  Too many impatient drivers who will be breaking the speed limit. 

 

perhaps we would see more accidents but fewer fatal ones because speed is less of a factor ??

From the Admiral website:How to improve your fuel economy - Admiral

 

Generally, cars are most efficient at 45-60mph, so stick to the speed limit because faster driving wastes fuel. 

According to GOV.UK, driving at 50mph rather than 68mph can reduce fuel consumption by 20%.

 

IME trucks generally have limiters set between 55 and 58 mph.

 

If other vehicles are restricted to 55mph it will be chaos on the motorways. Drivers won't want to sit behind a line of trucks all doing 56mph. The temptation to overtake and get ahead inevitably results in breaking the speed limit.

 

Anyway, it'll never happen.

 

BTW I've been to fatal collisions where excessive speed wasn't the factor.

[BKLFox]

I guess we shouldn’t mention their thoughts on prisons either 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

So far at I can see, ZP, whatever you think of his politics, appears very happy to be questioned and it's noticeably good at dealing with interviewers. 

 

That's different from claiming something is a policy when it isn't a policy. 

 

That really shouldn't be hard to understand. 

 

Let's agree to disagree because I really can't be bothered to carry on with this.

The Mail did not say it was policy they said 'plan'.

 

But then we live in a 'post fact world' so it's probably not relevant to the discussion.

[bovril]

Italy gets Meloni and we get Farage and Polanski and their teeth. Hardly fair. 

[Lionator]

14 minutes ago, bovril said:

Italy gets Meloni and we get Farage and Polanski and their teeth. Hardly fair. 

Meloni’s a prolific chain smoker, I bet her breath stinks. 

[worthosoriginals]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

The Mail did not say it was policy they said 'plan'.

 

But then we live in a 'post fact world' so it's probably not relevant to the discussion.

Exactly that, best not to get info/ facts from rich press barons that

Only want to influence their single minded gullible readers on how to think and vote.

In order to benefit themselves.

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

So, Melania comes out saying there's nothing to say about her and Epstein.

 

Up to this point, I didn't think there was.

 

Now I do.

 

Most interestingly, she couldn't read what were supposed to be her own words correctly.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Trump "Send all your warships to the Middle East!"

 

Meanwhile Russia is mapping the North Sea.

 

Russia "Nevermind comrade Donald, better luck next time."

 

[leicsmac]

Vance must be squirming a little bit right now seeing how the administration he belongs to is picking a fight with his (alleged) chosen religious sect. 

[fox_up_north]

Even Mussolini didn't muck about with the Vatican. This is a proper vote loser for a lot of the Hispanic voters and north east. 

 

But how about that completely unprovoked Melania speech? I now have more questions than I ever did

 

[CornwallFox]

13 hours ago, BKLFox said:

I guess we shouldn’t mention their thoughts on prisons either 

That depends. Is it current party policy or something that their leader has said they believe in? If so then it's obviously fair game. If it isn't a policy at all then clearly that would be stupid. I'm not sure why you're all pretending this is hard to understand. 

[CornwallFox]

13 hours ago, kenny said:

The Mail did not say it was policy they said 'plan'.

 

But then we live in a 'post fact world' so it's probably not relevant to the discussion.

But it isn't a plan is it? 

This is the point. 

It's dishonest. 

Why not pick out an actual policy and then rip it to shreds, instead of pretending there's a plan to do something when they haven't even got a policy, let alone a plan to enact one. 

Really don't understand what you aren't understanding here. 

[Md9]

10 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So, Melania comes out saying there's nothing to say about her and Epstein.

 

Up to this point, I didn't think there was.

 

Now I do.

 

Most interestingly, she couldn't read what were supposed to be her own words correctly.

There would be no need to make that speech unless something was about to come out to make out that she was. Sometimes they could just say nothing and no one would have questioned it they way they will now 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Given how many mad things have already happened that I don't think many would have predicted, what else do we think the Trump Presidency has in store?

 

I'm going for fleeing to Russia

[kenny]

34 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

But it isn't a plan is it? 

This is the point. 

It's dishonest. 

Why not pick out an actual policy and then rip it to shreds, instead of pretending there's a plan to do something when they haven't even got a policy, let alone a plan to enact one. 

Really don't understand what you aren't understanding here. 

To clarify, the Mail and Telegraph have claimed its a policy or they haven't?

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

51 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Given how many mad things have already happened that I don't think many would have predicted, what else do we think the Trump Presidency has in store?

 

I'm going for fleeing to Russia

I'd be quite surprised if Agent Orange Bear doesn't live out his last days in Donaldgrad.

[skolfoxes]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Given how many mad things have already happened that I don't think many would have predicted, what else do we think the Trump Presidency has in store?

 

I'm going for fleeing to Russia

Nah, the winters in Russia are too cold and long, he wouldn't be able to golf for 6 months of the year.

[CornwallFox]

55 minutes ago, kenny said:

To clarify, the Mail and Telegraph have claimed its a policy or they haven't?

 

 

The spectator: "If you’re wondering why, a party policy document on transport, revealed by the Mail, might give you a clue. The party wants to reduce motorway and dual carriageway speed limits to 55 mph"

 

Clearly attempting to tell readers that there's a current policy (by not mentioning it was 16 years old policy that hasn't been policy since) and the party intention is a 55mph limit. Neither is true. 

 

The daily mail: "Even Green Party voters oppose Zack Polanski's plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to 55mph, poll shows" and "More than 60 per cent of Green Party voters oppose plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to just 55mph, according to a new poll.

 

Almost 70 per cent of all voters are against Zack Polanski's party's controversial plans"

 

They're running a poll and headlines about supposed plans that don't even exist. There are no plans. There is no policy. Clearly dishonest. 

 

The telegraph: "The Greens’ 55mph motorway speed limit is an insult to us all"

 

The telegraph talks about a technical paper I believe, it's behind a pay wall, but clearly the article is intended to cause the reader to think the party plans a 55mph speed limit. It doesn't. There is no policy or plan. 

 

This is very obviously a coordinated attempt to right wing media to discredit the green party. Rather than picking an actual policy, they've chosen to highlight something that is not a policy or plan, but poll people and run headlines which cause the reader to believe it is a policy or plan. 

 

 

 

 

 

[davieG]

Enough of English politics let's have some more Trumptrash

 

[Md9]

Trump has tried so hard to try get everyone to forget about Epstein by bombing Iran he must be fuming she had brought it up again for absolutely no reason what so ever 😂 what ridiculous world we live in right now 

[Clogger_]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

To clarify, the Mail and Telegraph have claimed its a policy or they haven't?

 

 

Go Kenny! Going out to bat for these rags takes some balls

[kenny]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

The spectator: "If you’re wondering why, a party policy document on transport, revealed by the Mail, might give you a clue. The party wants to reduce motorway and dual carriageway speed limits to 55 mph"

 

Clearly attempting to tell readers that there's a current policy (by not mentioning it was 16 years old policy that hasn't been policy since) and the party intention is a 55mph limit. Neither is true. 

 

The daily mail: "Even Green Party voters oppose Zack Polanski's plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to 55mph, poll shows" and "More than 60 per cent of Green Party voters oppose plans to reduce the speed limit on Britain's motorways to just 55mph, according to a new poll.

 

Almost 70 per cent of all voters are against Zack Polanski's party's controversial plans"

 

They're running a poll and headlines about supposed plans that don't even exist. There are no plans. There is no policy. Clearly dishonest. 

 

The telegraph: "The Greens’ 55mph motorway speed limit is an insult to us all"

 

The telegraph talks about a technical paper I believe, it's behind a pay wall, but clearly the article is intended to cause the reader to think the party plans a 55mph speed limit. It doesn't. There is no policy or plan. 

 

This is very obviously a coordinated attempt to right wing media to discredit the green party. Rather than picking an actual policy, they've chosen to highlight something that is not a policy or plan, but poll people and run headlines which cause the reader to believe it is a policy or plan. 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a good job there is no election for 3 years, you are going to explode at the next one if that is your thought process.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Go Kenny! Going out to bat for these rags takes some balls

They do so much wrong. Getting wound up about this is really odd IMO particularly as its a sensationalist headline about things that are factual and easy to check.

 

Its kept me amused instead of writing boring reports. Probably not much of a spectator sport though (no pun intended) so i'll stop and go back to reports. Yawn.

 

[Sampson]

Definitely feels like Iran has forced Starmer to follow the way the wind of public opinion is blowing. There’s definitely coded language in grouping Putin and Trump together there that is probably the first time he’s publicly disparaging Trump and the US

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly7d9rv4nro

 

'We should not be at the mercy of events abroad' - Starmer

 

Sir Keir met aircrew members during a visit to Taif Airbase in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday

 

The UK must become more resilient to deal with a "volatile and dangerous" world where "shocks" like the conflict in Iran are frequent, the prime minister has warned. 

 

Writing in The Guardian, Sir Keir Starmer said he was "thinking about the long-term, and remaking this country" so that people "are not at the mercy of events abroad". 

Separately, he told ITV's Talking Politics podcast he was "fed up with the fact that families across the country see their bills go up and down... because of the actions of Putin or Trump".

 

The prime minister is currently on a three-day trip to the Gulf to meet regional allies.

On Wednesday he met the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah and on Thursday he travelled to the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar.

 

His visit comes as a fragile ceasefire pausing the Iranian conflict has come under strain, with disagreements over whether the truce covered Lebanon. 

 

On Thursday evening, Sir Keir held a phone call with US President Donald Trump. Downing Street says the two men discussed the need "for a practical plan to get shipping moving" through the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane that has been effectively closed as a result of the conflict. 

 

Israel to hold talks with Lebanon as Beirut attack death toll rises to at least 303

Israeli strikes on Lebanon are wrong and should stop, PM says

 

Ships remain cautious approaching Strait of Hormuz amid fragile ceasefire

Why fuel and food prices could still be affected for months

 

Israel and Hezbollah exchange strikes overnight as Trump criticises Iran's handling of Hormuz strait

 

The closure of the strait has had an impact on the cost of living in the UK with petrol and food prices driven up.

 

Speaking to Talking Politics, Sir Keir said the events of the past two months had demonstrated why the UK needed to have "energy independence". 

 

"I'm fed up with the fact that families across the country see their bills go up and down on energy, businesses' bills go up and down on energy because of the actions of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin or Trump."

 

In his article for the Guardian newspaper, Sir Keir said Britain had been "buffeted by crises for nearly two decades", citing the 2008 financial crash, Brexit and Covid. 

"The response from Westminster has always been the same - manage the crisis, find a sticking plaster and then desperately try to reassert the status quo."

 

He promised that "this time, it will be different" and that the conflict in Iran "must now become a line in the sand".

 

He argued that government policies such as investing in renewable energy, strengthening workers' rights and removing the two-child benefit cap would help prepare the country for increased global instability. 

 

"Because resilience is what gives us control. Without it, we are constantly pushed off course by events beyond our borders."

Giving the Mansion House speech in central London, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper echoed the prime minister's sentiments.

"It might be tempting, even comforting, to think that the Iran crisis is a once-in-a-generation shock.

 

"But this is the third time in six years that international events have sent economic tidal waves around the globe, hitting Britain's shores - the Covid pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine and now the Iran conflict.

 

"Instability and volatility are becoming increasingly chronic and turbulence is the new normal.

 

"The new reality we face did not begin with the war in Iran, nor will it end with a reopened strait."

 

Responding to the prime minister's comments, Conservative Chairman Kevin Hollinrake said: "Keir Starmer says he wants resilience and energy security. So why is he banning North Sea drilling and ducking welfare reform?

 

"You cannot build a resilient economy by turning your back on British oil and gas workers, handing energy dependence to foreign states, and leaving millions trapped on benefits rather than in work."

 

Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Calum Miller MP said: "The prime minister is right that we must increase our resilience but he cannot achieve that if he won't name the greatest strategic challenge we face.

"It's clear we can't trust a Trump-led America anymore and the government should be doing everything it can to rebuild ties with our closest allies in Europe."

 

A spokesperson for Reform UK said: "If we don't want to be at the mercy of global crises, the answer is obvious: Use our own energy, control our borders and put the British people first."

 

Green Party leader Zack Polanski said: "Starmer is finally waking up to a reality Greens have been raising for years, and been attacked by him for - we cannot rely on the US for security, we need European security partnerships." 

 

"And yes, we must end fossil fuel dependence but Starmer's words are not a plan... energy bills are soaring, the gap between rich and poor grows, and this government tinkers at the edges," Polanski added.

[davieG]