General News Thread

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

When I was young usually one parent stayed home for the kids (in those days invariably the wife). The difference was, they didn't expect to have the large TVs, the latest mobile, or new clothes every week.

 

Of course large TVs and mobiles didn't exist then, but most working class families would have a simple black and white TV, use the telephone booth two streets away and repaired clothes and passed them down.

 

They did this so their kids had enough to eat and a roof over their head. They made sacrifices. Nowadays people spend money on luxury items and expect the state to provide for their essential needs.

 

This is a generalism, there do, of course, still exist people who make sacrifices for their kids first, even in that case sometimes not being enough.

B&W TV's were unaffordable for the average family when I was born in the 1960's, at around 10 times average weekly earnings. Today you can purchase a large flat screen TV for less than a weeks wage.  Contrast that to the average house price being less than £50,000 in todays money. So today most families need both parents to work just to be able to afford a place to live, which most of us would feel is a nassesity.

Edited 24 October 2025 by Robo61

[Trav Le Bleu]

49 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

 

It's borderline impossible to afford a family with one parent staying at home these days and 'luxuries' in terms of TVs & Tech are cheap enough 2nd hand to get even if you were on benefits. The necessary costs of living are much higher than ever though. 

 

I'm a surveyor/civil engineer that can't afford a family without leveraging myself to a stupid degree (like most now do), whereas I have a family member that did the same job in the 90s & could afford 2 families and a chateau in France on the same salary that has barely risen since, and it's only getting worse for those younger than me. It's going to be full on Dickens just with more cheap tech inside the next decade or two without violent change.

 

The idea that it's possible for parents to just sacrifice a bit more and all will be well like in ye olden days is pure out of touch boomer fantasy I'm afraid.

 

It's absolutely possible. I wouldn't say it if I didn't do it and know other people doing it. Most of it boils down to being content with what you have.

 

The fact that you're a civil engineer (and probably earn twice what I do... (I've just checked the average wage for a Surveyor - you possibly earn three times what I do)) and feel financially stretched I find staggering.

 

In fact, I have a friend who is a surveyor who lives a very comfortable life doing not a lot of work (his words; not mine).

 

But don't worry, the robots are on the march.

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, BigGibbo said:

A source close to Keir Starmer said "This is the one thing we didn't want to happen".

 

https://youtu.be/_U-7L1tmBAo?si=Nsi9zovObw2ewSEM

Seems to have just been wandering round Chelmsford going by the BBC report.

Some people are going to get fired for this .

[Trav Le Bleu]

21 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

B&W TV's were unaffordable for the average family when I was born in the 1960's, at around 10 times average weekly earnings. Today you can purchase a large flat screen TV for less than a weeks wage.  Contrast that to the average house price being less than £50,000 in todays money. So today most families need both parents to work just to be able to afford a place to live, which most of us would feel is a nassesity.

Give you that one.

 

The idea of a working class family owning a house pre-1980s though (and I know you're not saying this) is virtually impossible; you rented for the council. Private renting was something wealthy people did for occasional residences.

 

Of course there was a lot more council houses around then and it was said and is probably true in most instances now, that the council is the best landlord. I live on a council estate and you can tell which ones are still council owned - invariably they're in better nick.

 

I often feel that this forum feels VERY middle-class, which is weird cos a) football supporters and b) often perceived (rightly or wrongly) left-wing bias.

 

But then I'm just a dumbass working class serf off the estates, without a degree to my name, what do I know?

[BigGibbo]

42 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

It's absolutely possible. I wouldn't say it if I didn't do it and know other people doing it. Most of it boils down to being content with what you have.

 

The fact that you're a civil engineer (and probably earn twice what I do... (I've just checked the average wage for a Surveyor - you possibly earn three times what I do)) and feel financially stretched I find staggering.

 

In fact, I have a friend who is a surveyor who lives a very comfortable life doing not a lot of work (his words; not mine).

 

But don't worry, the robots are on the march.

I'm talking about starting from scratch now. I imagine you could manage it if you timed it right buying a house over 5 years ago or had the bank of mum and dad to help, but if you're stuck renting a house at 3 times what a mortgage would have been 5/10 years ago and dont already have assets behind you to reduce your outgoings you'd be surprised how hard it is to climb the ladder.

 

I could afford a family life if I was willing to live precariously at the whims of increasingly incompetent government and working family tax credits, but I'm not. I also know I'm one of the very lucky ones and that's what's scary. I'm the canary in the coal mine of what comes next.

 

(Just to clarify I'm talking specifically about the wife at home family life you were advocating as still possible for the young today - obviously someone else on my salary would suddenly put us in the top 10%)

 

Edited 24 October 2025 by BigGibbo
Clarification

[BigGibbo]

7 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Seems to have just been wandering round Chelmsford going by the BBC report.

Some people are going to get fired for this .

Wild. Kind of impressive levels of incompetence. No one gets fired any more. Low standards have been accepted as the norm, so at worst they'll just move those responsible around, like peado priests. 😆

[Tommy G]

6 hours ago, Zear0 said:

What are you even angry about?  Low income parents having child care available so they can go to work?

Not angry about anything - I think free breakfast clubs for the masses is a daft way to spend government money. 
 

so someone who earns £250k has the same access to a free breakfast club as someone who is on universal credit? It’s just stupid. 
 

 

[Tommy G]

19 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Seems to have just been wandering round Chelmsford going by the BBC report.

Some people are going to get fired for this .

Yeh well it won’t be anyone from the government getting fired. 
 

How on earth did he only get a 12 month sentence? You get triple that for an ill thought out tweet 

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Yeh well it won’t be anyone from the government getting fired. 
 

How on earth did he only get a 12 month sentence? You get triple that for an ill thought out tweet 

Or FoxesTalk post.

 

MODS!

[BKLFox]

You gotta laugh i suppose it’s the system & the man, the fact he only got 1yr is a joke when using harsh language gets you 3 but don’t wanna upset anyone 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2d5rl36vgo.amp

[deep blue]

17 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.

According to info I've just been sent the most recent council by-elections (unfortunately I don't know how far that goes back) show Reform to have won 49 seats, LibDem 43, Con 15, Labour 13 and Greens 11.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, deep blue said:

According to info I've just been sent the most recent council by-elections (unfortunately I don't know how far that goes back) show Reform to have won 49 seats, LibDem 43, Con 15, Labour 13 and Greens 11.

Lib dems have always had strong local election game.  Good for them.  Reform I think will do less well come the general election than the polls suggest.  Lets be honest, hardly anyone pays attention to council elections, so if you can get 5-10% of the locality to get angry enough to vote reform you can win a lot of seats.  

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Not angry about anything - I think free breakfast clubs for the masses is a daft way to spend government money. 
so someone who earns £250k has the same access to a free breakfast club as someone who is on universal credit? It’s just stupid. 

I don't think it is as stupid as it sounds. 

• Kids who are not hungry won't get to school early for free food. 
• They are not going to cater for every child, just those who come.
• Putting application barriers up also stops people accessing services, as well as costing a fortune.  

In this case, enabling schools to manage the delivery and balance with need is going to be by far the most cost-effective way of getting kids ready to learn.  It might also get kids who don't go to school regularly into the habit of going to breakfast and staying which can only be a good thing.  If a few better of kids want to join, that is a price worth paying.  In my experience, better of parents funnel quite a lot of money into schools anyway, through donation, fund raising, paying for everything they are asked to pay for (many can't or don't).

[Jon the Hat]

On a similar subject, imo one of the most stupid, shortsighted government decisions of recent times is the ending of surestart centres, which seemed to centre around the idea that becuase they had a lot of middle class people involved somehow where not helping anyone, or where not cost effective. Insanity.

 

This week I am trying not to think too much about the vast waste of energy going into this grooming inquiry, which while it might help us learn one or two things 14 years after the scandal broke, is very obviously being used as a reason not to take immediate and obvious action to protect kids from predators in known high risk areas.  If ever an area needed to quick action and people to be brave enough to try some things, this is it, but instead we spend years more arguing about the inquiry while kids are being abused.

[Raj]

14 hours ago, BigGibbo said:

You have to laugh or you'll cry. I dread to think how it gets any worse from here with the caliber of people now running everything in this countryg 🙈

I would say it's been worse over the last 14 years but I'm not getting political!

Seems that abit of corruption, ineptitude and shoulder shrugging goes on no matter who's in charge.

Edited 25 October 2025 by Raj

[Lionator]

12 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

When I was young usually one parent stayed home for the kids (in those days invariably the wife). The difference was, they didn't expect to have the large TVs, the latest mobile, or new clothes every week.

 

Of course large TVs and mobiles didn't exist then, but most working class families would have a simple black and white TV, use the telephone booth two streets away and repaired clothes and passed them down.

 

They did this so their kids had enough to eat and a roof over their head. They made sacrifices. Nowadays people spend money on luxury items and expect the state to provide for their essential needs.

 

This is a generalism, there do, of course, still exist people who make sacrifices for their kids first, even in that case sometimes not being enough.

I think this view is still very attached to the pre-2008 world and it’s very tabloidy. The people you describe above would still fit into a comfortable living standard. 
 

In this country, especially in our cities, there are a class of people now, which is growing very quickly, who don’t own these items, who can’t pay their rent either through work or benefits, who need food banks to survive, who live with disabilities. Poverty and homelessness are massively increasing and it’s not in the people you see with luxury items, it’s the people that you don’t see unless you work directly with them in the social or health sector. Just look at the homelessness statistics. People utilise stuff like luxury tv’s or mobile phones as a way of legitimacy for people’s suffering and the leeching that the landlords and ultra rich can do at the most vulnerable’s expense and it’s disgusting. 
 

 

[Sampson]

So what do you guys reckon: The plan with this war in Venezuela is to be manafactured so MAGA can use it to cancel next years mid terms and the 2028 election or not?

[Lionator]

8 minutes ago, Sampson said:

So what do you guys reckon: The plan with this war in Venezuela is to be manafactured so MAGA can use it to cancel next years mid terms and the 2028 election or not?

I don’t think it’ll be a war. They’re just gonna fire a few missiles from ships at ‘drug labs’. If that goes well politically they might try and push out Maduro. All they ultimately want is an America friendly President so that they can access the oil. Same as it ever was. 

[Super_horns]

9 hours ago, BKLFox said:

You gotta laugh i suppose it’s the system & the man, the fact he only got 1yr is a joke when using harsh language gets you 3 but don’t wanna upset anyone 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2d5rl36vgo.amp

I presume it will be the old “looked away for one second and he was gone “ excuse trotted out .

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Seems to have just been wandering round Chelmsford going by the BBC report.

Some people are going to get fired for this .

No one gets fired in the public sector 

 

10 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Yeh well it won’t be anyone from the government getting fired. 
 

How on earth did he only get a 12 month sentence? You get triple that for an ill thought out tweet 

 

9 hours ago, BKLFox said:

You gotta laugh i suppose it’s the system & the man, the fact he only got 1yr is a joke when using harsh language gets you 3 but don’t wanna upset anyone 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2d5rl36vgo.amp

I reckon the sentence was reduced somewhat so he would be deported asap.  That would be my positive spin. 

 

 

[SkidsFox]

11 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Give you that one.

 

The idea of a working class family owning a house pre-1980s though (and I know you're not saying this) is virtually impossible; you rented for the council. Private renting was something wealthy people did for occasional residences.

 

Of course there was a lot more council houses around then and it was said and is probably true in most instances now, that the council is the best landlord. I live on a council estate and you can tell which ones are still council owned - invariably they're in better nick.

 

I often feel that this forum feels VERY middle-class, which is weird cos a) football supporters and b) often perceived (rightly or wrongly) left-wing bias.

 

But then I'm just a dumbass working class serf off the estates, without a degree to my name, what do I know?

You’re exaggerating a bit (although I agree with other points). My father, who worked in a local factory, bought his house in the 70s. He needed to take in lodgers to help with the mortgage, but it wasn’t unknown for working people in that time to buy their home, that’s why building societies were around. Agree that generally the council does well by its tenants, when my parents split we lived in a couple of council (small) estates. The larger estates had a fearsome reputation though.

[SkidsFox]

37 minutes ago, Sampson said:

So what do you guys reckon: The plan with this war in Venezuela is to be manafactured so MAGA can use it to cancel next years mid terms and the 2028 election or not?

It’s part of another attack on a China ally (see Iran). A bit worrying really

[Foxdiamond]

41 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think this view is still very attached to the pre-2008 world and it’s very tabloidy. The people you describe above would still fit into a comfortable living standard. 
 

In this country, especially in our cities, there are a class of people now, which is growing very quickly, who don’t own these items, who can’t pay their rent either through work or benefits, who need food banks to survive, who live with disabilities. Poverty and homelessness are massively increasing and it’s not in the people you see with luxury items, it’s the people that you don’t see unless you work directly with them in the social or health sector. Just look at the homelessness statistics. People utilise stuff like luxury tv’s or mobile phones as a way of legitimacy for people’s suffering and the leeching that the landlords and ultra rich can do at the most vulnerable’s expense and it’s disgusting. 
 

 

This is why the severe lack of council housing for working people and their families is at the core of our problems. 

[SkidsFox]

4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

No one gets fired in the public sector 

 

 

I reckon the sentence was reduced somewhat so he would be deported asap.  That would be my positive spin. 

 

 

It’s not as if this bloke is Fred West, Gary Glitter, or that Welsh Rwanda killer (sorry forgot his name). Can’t help feeling everyone is over reacting over someone who was just inept in flirting (ok he should have avoided underage girls), there are 1000s around

[Trav Le Bleu]

53 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think this view is still very attached to the pre-2008 world and it’s very tabloidy. The people you describe above would still fit into a comfortable living standard. 
 

 

 

Guess I imagined my childhood.