General News Thread

[Md9]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

As if they let Trump demolish a quarter of the White House, absolute madness

Honestly don’t get why they let him do what ever he likes he is not normal and will just make a mess and destroy anything he touches . 
 

[Super_horns]

A sign of things to come for Labour ?

 

Under threat even in previously safe seats .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cly9rlj94x1t

[Jon the Hat]

Great to see people voting to keep Reform out.  I can see the Lib Dems doing well out of this come the next election.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Great to see people voting to keep Reform out.  I can see the Lib Dems doing well out of this come the next election.

You're probably right. Will be interesting to see if the greens can do any better too as the new leader seems to be doing a decent job of creating a profile. 

 

I do think that labour have basically been sunk by internet bots if I'm honest. The pile on over relatively mundane issues, and utter silence over things they've done well is an affront to democracy tbh.

 

As an example I'll point to the farm inheritance tax issue - vast majority of farms will be untouched by it and they've also given farmers some real wins elsewhere, but 75% of large farms sold last year were too investors seeking to avoid tax, who are targeted. But they're also the ones funding misinformation to all farmers leading to protests and misunderstand of a policy that largely won't touch them. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You're probably right. Will be interesting to see if the greens can do any better too as the new leader seems to be doing a decent job of creating a profile. 

 

I do think that labour have basically been sunk by internet bots if I'm honest. The pile on over relatively mundane issues, and utter silence over things they've done well is an affront to democracy tbh.

 

As an example I'll point to the farm inheritance tax issue - vast majority of farms will be untouched by it and they've also given farmers some real wins elsewhere, but 75% of large farms sold last year were too investors seeking to avoid tax, who are targeted. But they're also the ones funding misinformation to all farmers leading to protests and misunderstand of a policy that largely won't touch them. 

Yep. 

 

There are people out there perfectly willing, capable, and acting, of using the democratic process and its freedoms to destroy it. Digital media has given them the power to make such a process much, much easier. 

 

But while that appears reasonably obvious, the more difficult follow on is.. with that knowledge in hand, what is to be done?

[danny.]

30 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You're probably right. Will be interesting to see if the greens can do any better too as the new leader seems to be doing a decent job of creating a profile. 

 

I do think that labour have basically been sunk by internet bots if I'm honest. The pile on over relatively mundane issues, and utter silence over things they've done well is an affront to democracy tbh.

 

As an example I'll point to the farm inheritance tax issue - vast majority of farms will be untouched by it and they've also given farmers some real wins elsewhere, but 75% of large farms sold last year were too investors seeking to avoid tax, who are targeted. But they're also the ones funding misinformation to all farmers leading to protests and misunderstand of a policy that largely won't touch them. 

The farmers tax will likely lead to farms being sold to big companies.

 

Labour are done, they might not be getting amazing press but they really haven’t helped themselves. 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Great to see people voting to keep Reform out.  I can see the Lib Dems doing well out of this come the next election.

If you put the LibDems and Green votes together they’d have the most votes in most polls. I wonder if we’ll start seeing them doing some informal anti-Reform coalition where they sit out of certain by elections/local elections over the next few years 

[leicsmac]

Also, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Felon#47 destroying the entire East Wing of the White House for his own personal vanity project yet. 

 

Edit: sorry, looks like it has been mentioned, but only in passing. 

Edited 24 October 2025 by leicsmac

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, danny. said:

The farmers tax will likely lead to farms being sold to big companies.

 

Labour are done, they might not be getting amazing press but they really haven’t helped themselves. 

It won't.  There will be Financial Planning solutions in place to make sure this doesn't happen.  the "family farms" won't be sold" en masse. 

[danny.]

7 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

It won't.  There will be Financial Planning solutions in place to make sure this doesn't happen.  the "family farms" won't be sold" en masse. 

Who will buy them when the next generation can’t afford the inheritance tax?

[Greg2607]

Just now, danny. said:

Who will buy them when the next generation can’t afford the inheritance tax?

that's the whole point, the Financial Planning Instruments will cover this. 

[danny.]

6 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

that's the whole point, the Financial Planning Instruments will cover this. 

Can you explains how that covers the IHT with small margins and limited profits? 

[Greg2607]

Just now, danny. said:

Can you explains how that covers the IHT with small margins and limited profits? 

sure thing.... the new proposals define that a family farm can be gifted to the next generation and that this will sit outside of Inheritance Tax IF the existing owner survives for 7 years beyond the date of the "gifting" of the farm.   There is Whole of Life policies now that have been developed, that can be taken out by the existing owner, which will pay out to the new owners of the farm if that individual were to pass away in that 7 year window. That policy would be used to cover the cost of the IHT if it were to come into effect. 

 

The cost of those policies is far below any kind of Commercial Loan that would be needed to pay the IHT tax in the future. 

 

These things are available now and in place and being taken up by farmers. 

[danny.]

Just now, Greg2607 said:

sure thing.... the new proposals define that a family farm can be gifted to the next generation and that this will sit outside of Inheritance Tax IF the existing owner survives for 7 years beyond the date of the "gifting" of the farm.   There is Whole of Life policies now that have been developed, that can be taken out by the existing owner, which will pay out to the new owners of the farm if that individual were to pass away in that 7 year window. That policy would be used to cover the cost of the IHT if it were to come into effect. 

 

The cost of those policies is far below any kind of Commercial Loan that would be needed to pay the IHT tax in the future. 

 

These things are available now and in place and being taken up by farmers. 

Thanks, that is interesting. Is that an amendment to the new policy? Because that was never mentioned when farmers were protesting against this. So if the new owner keeps the farm for 7 years there is no IHT liable?

[Greg2607]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Thanks, that is interesting. Is that an amendment to the new policy? Because that was never mentioned when farmers were protesting against this. So if the new owner keeps the farm for 7 years there is no IHT liable?

It's not about the new owner keeping it for 7 years, it's about the person who is gifting the farm having to live for an additional 7 years beyond the date of the gift being given. 

 

Ultimately, farm's are passed between generations, so the likelihood of the new owner selling it is small as it will be a family member who Inherits the farm. 

 

The whole of life cover, protects all parties from IHT.  IF the original owner survives beyond that 7 years, then IHT won't be payable anyway.... If they don't, then the whole of life policy pays out an amount that would essentially pay the costs of IHT. 

 

This isn't an amendment, it was always the proposal. 

 

everyone just got into a wild tantrum, without properly understanding the detail.    Bear in mind that most farmers are conservative voters, so it was as much about the fact it was labour doing this, rather than the actual premise. 

 

[CornwallFox]

.

Edited 24 October 2025 by CornwallFox

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Also, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Felon#47 destroying the entire East Wing of the White House for his own personal vanity project yet. 

 

Edit: sorry, looks like it has been mentioned, but only in passing. 

I "kind of" get it though. The White House is one massive vanity project and statement piece, much like any palace or home of national leader. Consider the Elysee Palace in France or Quirinal Palace in Italy (Downing St is very modest in comparison, but I guess we have Buckingham Palace.)

 

It's Shock and Awe, without the bombing. Some world leaders will actually be more motivated by attending a ball there than by any amount of words. Sad, but true.

 

Look on the bright side. At least by the time it's finished he'll only get a couple of years personal use of it.

 

Though I still can't shake an image of his head in a glass jar of formaldehyde and electrolytes, Futurama style.

[CornwallFox]

40 minutes ago, danny. said:

Thanks, that is interesting. Is that an amendment to the new policy? Because that was never mentioned when farmers were protesting against this. So if the new owner keeps the farm for 7 years there is no IHT liable?

 

35 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

It's not about the new owner keeping it for 7 years, it's about the person who is gifting the farm having to live for an additional 7 years beyond the date of the gift being given. 

 

Ultimately, farm's are passed between generations, so the likelihood of the new owner selling it is small as it will be a family member who Inherits the farm. 

 

The whole of life cover, protects all parties from IHT.  IF the original owner survives beyond that 7 years, then IHT won't be payable anyway.... If they don't, then the whole of life policy pays out an amount that would essentially pay the costs of IHT. 

 

This isn't an amendment, it was always the proposal. 

 

everyone just got into a wild tantrum, without properly understanding the detail.    Bear in mind that most farmers are conservative voters, so it was as much about the fact it was labour doing this, rather than the actual premise. 

 

Precisely my point. 

The rich investors affected by the farm inheritance tax proposals have funded massively misinformation campaigns with the aim of mobilising farmers - who won't be affected - against the proposals. Aided and abetted by the lines of GB news, reform and the Tories, as well as a million bot accounts.

 

The number of supposed farmers on social media who were stunning with 4K cameras and pristine farming clothes decrying the policy was telling 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I "kind of" get it though. The White House is one massive vanity project and statement piece, much like any palace or home of national leader. Consider the Elysee Palace in France or Quirinal Palace in Italy (Downing St is very modest in comparison, but I guess we have Buckingham Palace.)

 

It's Shock and Awe, without the bombing. Some world leaders will actually be more motivated by attending a ball there than by any amount of words. Sad, but true.

 

Look on the bright side. At least by the time it's finished he'll only get a couple of years personal use of it.

 

Though I still can't shake an image of his head in a glass jar of formaldehyde and electrolytes, Futurama style.

It's the sheer scale of pomposity and (more important) self aggrandisement that gets to me. 

 

The whole idea of the office of the President is that they are first and foremost a public servant. They are elected to serve in the public interest rather than their own. Now, pretty much every past leader has understood that, or had the vague sense of humility to at least pay lip service to the idea. The current incumbent does neither - it has always been about him and his circle of sycophants looking for a power trip and to abuse that power. 

 

What baffles me more is how this blatant self interest has been spun and manipulated in a way that has managed to get enough people on board to actually win power in a democratic system, even though the vast majority of those same people are going to gain nothing and lose lots from what has already happened, and certainly what will happen, all in the name of the ego of one corrupt and sociopathic old man. 

[Jattdogg]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Felon#47 destroying the entire East Wing of the White House for his own personal vanity project yet. 

 

Edit: sorry, looks like it has been mentioned, but only in passing. 

What isn't he destroying? Lol

[Alf Bentley]

@Super_horns @Jon the Hat @Sampson

 

Interesting analysis of Caerphilly implications below from a New Statesman bod. Though he strangely ignores the LDs . There are parts of the country (e.g. Red Wall) where LDs are unlikely to cut through, but they could well be seen as an alternative or tactical option by Lab voters elsewhere. Indeed, now I've moved to S. Devon, I fully expect to be voting LD next time as my seat is likely to be a straight fight between LDs and Reform. That's in addition to their potential to win the votes of moderate Tories - especially in the South. That's very likely if the Tories keep aping Reform - and they're only likely to do that even more if they replace Badenoch with Jenrick after the May elections, which looks quite likely. The Tories could conceivably win back a few Reform switchers that way, but that's not guaranteed as memories of unpopular govts tend to last a few years, as per 1979, 1997 & 2010...

 

New Stateman:

 

"For Welsh Labour, the Caerphilly by-election offered a preview of the grim fate that could await it next May. But did it also show how Reform’s forward march could be halted?

For more than a century, Labour has been hegemonic in Wales, its run of victories surpassing that of any other force in the democratic world. Yet when the Caerphilly by-election result was announced this morning there were some inside the party relieved to have kept their deposit.

That gives you some sense of the scale of Labour’s humbling. In the Senedd contest, won by Plaid Cymru, its vote plummeted to just 11 per cent (from 45.9 per cent). Labour lost here for many of the same reasons that it is trailing across the UK: a belief that a party that promised change has amounted to more of the same; enduring anger over the winter fuel payment cuts and weariness with squeezed living standards.

As Welsh First Minister, Eluned Morgan has routinely distanced herself from Keir Starmer, criticising welfare and immigration policy and championing the “red Welsh way”. But that counted for nothing in Caerphilly. Welsh Labour MPs cite the backlash against the 20mph speed limit – “a general feeling that we are always telling people how to live their lives” – as one of the many drags on the party’s vote. Unless something dramatic changes, it faces a heavy defeat in next May’s Senedd election.

But it isn’t only Labour that has cause for reflection today. Reform threw resources at this contest, with Nigel Farage visiting Caerphilly multiple times. Yet while the party won 36 per cent of the vote from a standing start (Tory support collapsed to 2 per cent - from 17%), this was far eclipsed by Plaid Cymru’s 47.4 per cent.

And here lies a warning for Farage. A Survation opinion poll published a week ago showed a narrow Reform lead over Plaid Cymru (42 per cent to 38 per cent) and had the effect of mobilising an anti-Farage bloc. Waves of tactical support gave Plaid Cymru almost half the vote – far exceeding support for Welsh independence – and pushed turnout to 50.4 per cent, up from 44.3 per cent in the last devolved contest.

Even as Reform has led every UK opinion poll since May, Farage’s opponents have identified his Achilles heel. For a populist Farage is not particularly popular. Polls regularly show that around 60% of voters do not want him to become prime minister. “There’s an anti-Reform majority in Wales and in the UK,” concludes a Labour minister this morning.

But is it one that Starmer can harness? As Plaid Cymru’s unprecedented triumph shows, voters pay little heed to tradition in this new era. The SNP, the insurgent Greens and Gaza independents will all similarly frame themselves as the real alternative to Reform. For Starmer, the danger is that disillusioned progressives agree.

And the reverse dynamic applies: Reform will win tactical votes from conservatives who, above all, want Labour out of government – a regressive front, if you like. The anti-Farage majority might be enough to deny Reform power but that isn’t the same as a Labour majority.

[Tommy G]

On 23/10/2025 at 08:51, CornwallFox said:

Most ordinary people are not overwhelmed with stock ownership. The existence of pension and investment funds for the middle class does not change the point that workers are getting every smaller shares of productivity gains, rather than it being shared fairly between workers and investors. You can't just dismiss that at a point in time where we have record economic disparity between the top and bottom and an economy where ordinary people are struggling to buy the shopping even when they have two working adults in the family.

Most people do own a private pension though - you have to opt out of one now since the rules changed quite a few years back. So whilst you might not be sitting on a tonne of private stock it will be tied up in your private pension fund. 

[Tommy G]

Last time I checked it was a parental responsibility to give your kids breakfast? 
 

FREE breakfast clubs aren’t free, they are funded by the taxpayer and an inefficient way and more costly than just giving your kids a round of toast a bowl of cereal. 
 

it’s effectively early morning free childcare and nothing to do with breakfast. 
 

State dependence. Put the extra money it’s costing into improving schools, or pay teachers and TA’s a better wage. 

[kenny]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Most people do own a private pension though - you have to opt out of one now since the rules changed quite a few years back. So whilst you might not be sitting on a tonne of private stock it will be tied up in your private pension fund. 

80% of all current employees according to the government. Then there are the £13m currently claiming their pension on top of this. Over 30m people I reckon.

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Last time I checked it was a parental responsibility to give your kids breakfast? 
 

FREE breakfast clubs aren’t free, they are funded by the taxpayer and an inefficient way and more costly than just giving your kids a round of toast a bowl of cereal. 
 

it’s effectively early morning free childcare and nothing to do with breakfast. 
 

State dependence. Put the extra money it’s costing into improving schools, or pay teachers and TA’s a better wage. 

Our free breakfasts are £4.50 for a bowl of cheerios. Its absolutely the staff you are paying for.