General News Thread

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

What I don't really understand is why he's decided to try and pander to reform voters rather than left wing voters, even there's more of the latter in every election, just split across more parties.

 

Cost of living is the single biggest issue affecting the electorate right now - I understand the climate emergency we're in leicsmac but many don't. 

 

Every time there's been direct government intervention to support the public - whether it be the COVID furlough scheme, or any other policy that has directly provided support to individuals - it's been popular.

 

Surely they could have come up with real, meaningful support regarding energy costs by now? Even if it was a direct government to energy companies payment coupled with deep drops to bills. The right would go argue like crazy, the telegraph would moan about national debt, but the public would be hugely positive 

 

I do not understand why they haven't, other than the fact I think starmar genuinely is trying to make long term decisions he thinks it's best, while keeping any deficits as low as they can (which is really just pandering to the right wing press as the Tories never really bother with that when they want to do something). Starmar it's too focused on what is "right", rather than remembering governments need to win elections if they want to remain governments. 

 

A very simple answer - there isn't any money to do so, and they are hoping it will go away reasonably quickly. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, fox_favourite said:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

 

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

 

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that. 

As long as they only hit the Holiday Inn (empty of course)

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

BBC News - Top Foreign Office official to leave post after Mandelson vetting row

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c747r3v90k3o

 

They're saying no minister was informed. 

As you say, sounds unlikely, but that's what we've got to go on

 

It'll be interesting to see if Robbins (the former top official) says anything. He wouldn't have been able to comment while still in post, but presumably could now?

If he doesn't contest the claim that he didn't inform the Govt, maybe it's true?

 

If so, that would possibly be the most extraordinary, incomprehensible decision (by Robbins) I've ever seen in politics. Starmer would have to explain details of what he knew and why he didn't know more, but could potentially escape blame - though not political damage.

 

Regardless of their occupation or status, everyone who's ever worked will have encountered situations where they had to decide whether to act or to refer an issue to a line manager, customer, expert, regulator or whoever - to get "sign off", if the decision might have serious implications or be highly controversial. Anyone could make a wrong decision due to an issue being a marginal call or a lack of information important to the decision. That was not the case here.

 

It was known to everyone with half a brain that US Ambassador post is a high-profile posting. Likewise, it was known that failing a security vetting is a serious matter. It was known to everyone with the slightest interest in politics, never mind an experienced, senior civil servant, that Mandelson was a controversial - if potentially justifiable - appointment. Regardless of rules and practices, it would've been blatantly obvious to almost anyone that appointing Mandelson after he'd failed a security vetting would need to be signed off by the Foreign Secretary, at least.

 

Apparently, Robbins was faced with the decision 3 weeks into his new job. But he wasn't some panicky, eager-to-impress 18-year-old in his first job. He was an experienced, senior civil servant who'd been in high profile roles before - notably negotiating Brexit. If he did take such a decision without consulting/informing Govt, it was the most shockingly incomprehensible call I can think of (in politics, at least - we can probably cite a few such calls at LCFC in recent years ).

[davieG]

 

Other 98%  ·

Follow

 

Hungary's incoming Prime Minister Peter Magyar just did to their state media what a lot of us in the U.S. have been dreaming someone would do to Fox News. Days after a landslide victory that ended Viktor Orban's 16 year grip on power, Magyar walked onto M1, the state television channel he had been banned from for over a year, and told the interviewer to her face that her outlet had spent years spreading "fear and despair" among the population and that the whole operation would be shut down and rebuilt as a real public broadcaster. He called what Orban had built something "Goebbels or the North Korean leadership would admire," adding that "not a single true word" had been spoken there. No hedging, no diplomatic throat clearing. Just the truth, on their own airwaves.

Magyar had already set the tone on election night, telling tens of thousands of supporters along the Danube that "tonight, truth prevailed over lies." He promised the Hungarian people "a complete change of regime," not just a new government, and vowed to create independent media standards that rival or exceed the BBC.

And look, it is hard not to sit here in America and feel the sting of contrast. We have our own state-adjacent propaganda machine running 24 hours a day, and the best we get from our leaders is a strongly worded tweet. Magyar looked straight into the camera of the outlet that had lied about him for years and said, essentially, this ends now. That is not just good politics. That is the kind of accountability that most of us have completely stopped imagining is possible.

 

 

Not wasting anytime with his new broom.

[davieG]

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

I know he’s wildly unpopular but I hope he doesn’t resign, the world is chaos right now and he seems to finally be getting it in terms of how to move forward with it. The next few months are going to be choppy economically and geopolitically. There’s not a single person Labour could put forward that would poll better than Starmer in the long run because of the wider socio-economic situation. People are frustrated because everyone’s standard of living is eroding, some of us blame the rich (me), some incorrectly blame immigration, realistically it was Thatcher and then Cameron/Osborne put the final nail in the coffin in 2010 and 2016. Its irreversible decline, Reform will only hasten it. 
 

The point is, even if he’s a lame duck, any new person would be too. So he should stay, take some tough decisions with his massive once in a generation majority and do what he feels is right, not what might score +1 in next weeks Yougov poll, which is how British politics is run these days sadly. 

 

Assuming it is confirmed that he didn't know about the failed security vetting, I largely agree with you - for the reasons you've stated.

 

But, unless the May elections are better than expected for Labour (unlikely), I assume it's likely he'll be forced out in a month's time. Though maybe not if the Iran war is still ongoing?

 

Despite all the economic and other problems, if Iran war damage is limited by a deal and the restoration of trade flows, Labour still has 3 years to win back support through its political decisions, unlikely as that might seem now. But the public seem to have terminally taken against Starmer. So, I can see why the party might see a change of leader as necessary, as well as an economic/political upturn.

 

I find the unprecedented antipathy towards Starmer strange. There is justified criticism for some of his decisions and U-turns, though others deserve credit. I can understand why people who buy into low-tax, low-spending politics or climate change denial would be hostile, but the extent of the hostility is astonishing. I assume that most of it is due to a combination of frustration with 16+ years of cost of living pressures, austerity and decline, and the naive belief that any Govt could quickly turn all that around. It's as if LCFC fans expected a new manager to immediately have us back in the PL challenging for Europe....when structural factors are against you and there has been long-term decline, it will take a few years to turn that around, even under perfect management.

 

I suspect that a secondary issue contributing to Starmer's unpopularity is the personal impression he gives - coming across as a dull, uncharismatic man-in-a-suit. After the likes of Johnson, or Blair to a lesser extent, you'd hope we'd moved beyond wanting charismatic leaders. Hell, even Trump is not "dull", but I'd much prefer a dull leader who gets on with tackling tricky problems that require years to resolve, rather than a charismatic "entertainer".

[wurmer]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Assuming it is confirmed that he didn't know about the failed security vetting, I largely agree with you - for the reasons you've stated.

 

But, unless the May elections are better than expected for Labour (unlikely), I assume it's likely he'll be forced out in a month's time. Though maybe not if the Iran war is still ongoing?

 

Despite all the economic and other problems, if Iran war damage is limited by a deal and the restoration of trade flows, Labour still has 3 years to win back support through its political decisions, unlikely as that might seem now. But the public seem to have terminally taken against Starmer. So, I can see why the party might see a change of leader as necessary, as well as an economic/political upturn.

 

I find the unprecedented antipathy towards Starmer strange. There is justified criticism for some of his decisions and U-turns, though others deserve credit. I can understand why people who buy into low-tax, low-spending politics or climate change denial would be hostile, but the extent of the hostility is astonishing. I assume that most of it is due to a combination of frustration with 16+ years of cost of living pressures, austerity and decline, and the naive belief that any Govt could quickly turn all that around. It's as if LCFC fans expected a new manager to immediately have us back in the PL challenging for Europe....when structural factors are against you and there has been long-term decline, it will take a few years to turn that around, even under perfect management.

 

I suspect that a secondary issue contributing to Starmer's unpopularity is the personal impression he gives - coming across as a dull, uncharismatic man-in-a-suit. After the likes of Johnson, or Blair to a lesser extent, you'd hope we'd moved beyond wanting charismatic leaders. Hell, even Trump is not "dull", but I'd much prefer a dull leader who gets on with tackling tricky problems that require years to resolve, rather than a charismatic "entertainer".

The one thing that is constant with Starmer is that he hasn't really changed at all.

 

He was completely ineffective in opposition and is proving to be so in government.

 

I'm not sure what people expected when they voted for his party (and by inference for him).

[wurmer]

20 minutes ago, davieG said:

There's a common theme with all of these men too...

 

They are all c**ts

[Samilktray]

Think we should change this thread title to the lets slag off Keir Starmer thread because theres so many posts slagging off Keir Starmer in here lmao only joking I dont mind the bloke, just a silly joke from me to raise spirits a bit on the forum 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, wurmer said:

The one thing that is constant with Starmer is that he hasn't really changed at all.

 

He was completely ineffective in opposition and is proving to be so in government.

 

I'm not sure what people expected when they voted for his party (and by inference for him).

 

Er....

 

- People on the Left slate him for changing too much - winning the leadership as Corbyn-lite, then shifting to the centre

- So completely ineffective in opposition that he took over a party widely expected to be out of Govt for at least 10 years, if not forever, and led them to a landslide election win?

 

People quite reasonably expected change when they voted Labour - and are massively dissatisfied that they haven't seen the change they wanted as quickly as they wanted. Partly down to Govt errors, partly down to circumstances (a rotten inheritance, years of stagnation & debt, Trump, multiple global crises - 2008 Crash, Covid, Ukraine, Iran War, aging population, climate change, social problems etc.) - and partly down to unreasonable voter expectations of rapid positive change, given Govt imperfection and massive, long-term problems. But I'm sure we'll never agree... 

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, wurmer said:

There's a common theme with all of these men too...

 

They are all c**ts

 

Just now, Samilktray said:

Think we should change this thread title to the lets slag off Keir Starmer thread because theres so many posts slagging off Keir Starmer in here lmao only joking I dont mind the bloke, just a silly joke from me to raise spirits a bit on the forum 

Or @wurmer 's thought.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Er....

 

- People on the Left slate him for changing too much - winning the leadership as Corbyn-lite, then shifting to the centre

- So completely ineffective in opposition that he took over a party widely expected to be out of Govt for at least 10 years, if not forever, and led them to a landslide election win?

 

People quite reasonably expected change when they voted Labour - and are massively dissatisfied that they haven't seen the change they wanted as quickly as they wanted. Partly down to Govt errors, partly down to circumstances (a rotten inheritance, years of stagnation & debt, Trump, multiple global crises - 2008 Crash, Covid, Ukraine, Iran War, aging population, climate change, social problems etc.) - and partly down to unreasonable voter expectations of rapid positive change, given Govt imperfection and massive, long-term problems. But I'm sure we'll never agree... 

.and partly for seemingly not having a united party on a few proposals

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

.and partly for seemingly not having a united party on a few proposals

 

Fair comment.

 

But that has always applied to every party to varying degrees, hasn't it? It's always applied to Labour and Tories in Govt down the decades (to varying degrees). The Liberal-SDP Alliance split into Lib Dems and Owen's SDP. Even Reform has split despite only having about 5 MPs. There are differences within the Green Party that would emerge in times of stress or power.

 

Isn't it also partly a result of our electoral system, whereby a party capable of encompassing a wide range of views can obtain an absolute majority?

Personally, I'd favour electoral reform, which might eliminate the chance of a single party winning an absolute majority and lead to more narrowly focused parties that then entered into coalition - a coalition between parties, rather than within each party? Another can of worms, I know...

[Innovindil]

3 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/russia-threatens-strike-britain-5HjdXpc_2/

 

This just popped up.on my Google New feed...

 

Russia mentions Leicester, you'll never sing that. 

Is now a bad time to say what I do for a living?...Probably 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

A very simple answer - there isn't any money to do so, and they are hoping it will go away reasonably quickly. 

I'm really not a fan of this type of economic thinking, which entirely ignores the economic benefits of spending money. 

 

If ordinary people have a little more money, money supply really isn't the cause of inflation currently, and it creates demand, supports local business, enables business investment, increases tax revenues. 

 

The idea that government borrowing is intrinsically bad is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the economy is a mess. We spent 15 years cutting and wondered why living standards stagnated. 

[wurmer]

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Is now a bad time to say what I do for a living?...Probably 

You build 'dem drones?

 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Is now a bad time to say what I do for a living?...Probably 

 

3 minutes ago, wurmer said:

You build 'dem drones?

 

Merchantofdeath.gif 

[wurmer]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Merchantofdeath.gif 

At least if we went first, we'd be able to escape this fecked up world early on in the game!

[wurmer]

1 hour ago, wurmer said:

The one thing that is constant with Starmer is that he hasn't really changed at all.

 

He was completely ineffective in opposition and is proving to be so in government.

 

I'm not sure what people expected when they voted for his party (and by inference for him).

Having said that...

 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

I'm really not a fan of this type of economic thinking, which entirely ignores the economic benefits of spending money. 

 

If ordinary people have a little more money, money supply really isn't the cause of inflation currently, and it creates demand, supports local business, enables business investment, increases tax revenues. 

 

The idea that government borrowing is intrinsically bad is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the economy is a mess. We spent 15 years cutting and wondered why living standards stagnated. 

What is the plan when the interest on that debt then becomes a larger and larger proportion of government available cash to spend, is it just borrow more? 

[Wymsey]

https://news.sky.com/story/kensington-gardens-latest-police-in-protective-clothing-investigating-ongoing-incident-13532909

 

[wurmer]

But the cost of borrowing more goes up as the financial markets see the risk of getting their money back as a higher risk, which increases interest payments, which increases deficit, etc etc etc.

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair comment.

 

But that has always applied to every party to varying degrees, hasn't it? It's always applied to Labour and Tories in Govt down the decades (to varying degrees). The Liberal-SDP Alliance split into Lib Dems and Owen's SDP. Even Reform has split despite only having about 5 MPs. There are differences within the Green Party that would emerge in times of stress or power.

 

Isn't it also partly a result of our electoral system, whereby a party capable of encompassing a wide range of views can obtain an absolute majority?

Personally, I'd favour electoral reform, which might eliminate the chance of a single party winning an absolute majority and lead to more narrowly focused parties that then entered into coalition - a coalition between parties, rather than within each party? Another can of worms, I know...

I can't disagree with any of that I'm very anti party politics although I recognise even if it wasn't official we would end up with groups/parties. 

I'm with you on electoral reform but can't see it happening in my life time as we already blew the best chance but with so little choice.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

I can't disagree with any of that I'm very anti party politics although I recognise even if it wasn't official we would end up with groups/parties. 

I'm with you on electoral reform but can't see it happening in my life time as we already blew the best chance but with so little choice.

 

Who knows....There's a fair chance of a hung parliament after the next election. There's also now a significant number of electoral reform supporters within the Labour Party and, being cynical, they might have a self-interest in promoting/accepting the idea of reform before or in the immediate wake of that election - as might other parties, including LDs, Greens and Reform.... I won't hold my breath, though.

[Zear0]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/16/reeves-break-link-between-gas-cost-and-electricity-prices
 

Need to get on with this.