General News Thread

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, kenny said:

The smarter option would be to help businesses and encourage growth. Reducing NIC would be a good place to start as would business rates.

A bit of trickle-down economics then?

 

They're never quite specific about what exactly is trickling down onto people's heads, though.

[danny.]

22 minutes ago, kenny said:

The smarter option would be to help businesses and encourage growth. Reducing NIC would be a good place to start as would business rates.

Oh yeah of course, improving the country would be better but I’m not expecting that, I just meant in terms of covering their own backs. Breaking a key manifesto pledge this early on would be so damaging 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cj0e3y6yy99o

 

Amber warnings have been issued by the Met Office as Storm Claudia brings heavy rain to parts of the United Kingdom.

With rain persisting for much of Friday and into Saturday morning, some areas may get near to their whole month's worth of rain.

Flooding and difficult travelling conditions are likely with a strong easterly wind also developing.

 

 

 

...Rain has featured a lot so far this November with some areas seeing over their November average in the first thirteen days.

Shap and Carlisle in Cumbria for example have recorded more than their November rainfall already; 226mm and 95mm compared to the averages of 205mm and 85mm respectively.

Other sites on higher ground such as Honister in the Lake District has recorded over 500mm of rain.

Bannau Brycheiniog - known as the Brecon Beacons - in south Wales, has also been particularly wet with many Natural Resources Wales rainfall stations recording over 200mm of rain so far.

The heavy rainfall in south Wales has also led to some significant flooding in previous weeks.

A business owner who had to close his shop in Carmarthen due to the floods described it as "the worst in living memory".

 

Be safe if you're out and about today, those in the affected areas. 

[danny.]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A bit of trickle-down economics then?

 

They're never quite specific about what exactly is trickling down onto people's heads, though.

It’s like the opposite of when they put up NIC and immediate caused over 100k redundancies, taking unemployment up to the highest post pandemic levels and driving multiple factors all highly damaging to the economy:

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, danny. said:

It’s like the opposite of when they put up NIC and immediate caused over 100k redundancies, taking unemployment up to the highest post pandemic levels and driving multiple factors all highly damaging to the economy:

And the past has shown that laissez-faire does nothing but deepen inequality as well. 

 

So perhaps something in between is called for. 

 

Personally, I cherish my ignorance on the topic and it's rather rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic anyway IMO.

[Zear0]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

It’s like the opposite of when they put up NIC and immediate caused over 100k redundancies, taking unemployment up to the highest post pandemic levels and driving multiple factors all highly damaging to the economy:

The plot without context is pretty useless tbh.

[foxes1988]

15 minutes ago, danny. said:

It’s like the opposite of when they put up NIC and immediate caused over 100k redundancies, taking unemployment up to the highest post pandemic levels and driving multiple factors all highly damaging to the economy:

They are kinda stuck arent they. 

 

Not sure about you but I'm really not sure what the answer is. I guess it's either big tax rises or big cuts across to the welfare (Pensions,UC and Disability)

[leicsmac]

Just now, foxes1988 said:

They are kinda stuck arent they. 

 

Not sure about you but I'm really not sure what the answer is. I guess it's either big tax rises or big cuts across to the welfare (Pensions,UC and Disability)

Social care is another big one on the budgets. 

 

Thing is, with such cuts comes the inevitability that someone, somewhere is going to suffer or worse for it. 

 

Whether that person deserves to suffer, or if that suffering is acceptable collateral damage for the sake of some greater good, is clearly up to the beholder. 

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Well it is a U turn, a welcome one too - there has been complete uproar from within their own party and the general public raising income tax when pretty much everyone is struggling. If they hadn't received such a monumental backlash they would of gone ahead and done it. 

You have absolutely no idea about that. 

Before last year's budget all sorts of claims were made about what they'd do and she did none of them. 

It's just paper talk, honestly embarrassing anybody claims u-turns based on headlines. 

 

[kenny]

10 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You have absolutely no idea about that. 

Before last year's budget all sorts of claims were made about what they'd do and she did none of them. 

It's just paper talk, honestly embarrassing anybody claims u-turns based on headlines. 

 

I agree tbh.

 

What we are seeing is that the manifesto was not properly costed as they claimed. In their excitement of bringing in a load of progressive policies they also hadn't considered that there would be any negative effects which has made that lack of planning worse.

 

I think they thought the unions would help them and support the government, I think they have now realised they are a difficult ally to have.

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Well it is a U turn, a welcome one too - there has been complete uproar from within their own party and the general public raising income tax when pretty much everyone is struggling. If they hadn't received such a monumental backlash they would of gone ahead and done it. 

This is correct.

 

9 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

You have absolutely no idea about that. 

Before last year's budget all sorts of claims were made about what they'd do and she did none of them. 

It's just paper talk, honestly embarrassing anybody claims u-turns based on headlines. 

 

The Chancellor does not do the maths.  Whoever the Chancellor is, makes the decision.  Often, they are tough decisions and rarely will everybody from business and the wider public agree that a given decision is a good one.

 

Rachel Reeves will have been presented with a list of options to raise money for the nation.  It is very likely that all options are crap.  It is a very common tactic for these decisions to be tentatively made in the weeks leading to a budget and deliberately leaked to the press to measure public opinion.  If it looks like the option will be a major vote loser, they won't do it because they want to stay in power.  Sometimes they will use the tactic to present something very bad, then deliver something less bad - it can actually be a vote winner.

 

Make no mistake, these decisions, whether blue team or red team are made with votes in mind.  Actual finances are a secondary factor.

[kenny]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

A bit of trickle-down economics then?

 

They're never quite specific about what exactly is trickling down onto people's heads, though.

Perhaps the trickling is the additional 200k people that are 'employed' by the state on benefits due to unemployment.

 

There are also 1.1m additional people claiming UC since labour came to power. So there is that trickle too.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

Perhaps the trickling is the additional 200k people that are 'employed' by the state on benefits due to unemployment.

 

There are also 1.1m additional people claiming UC since labour came to power. So there is that trickle too.

 

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And the past has shown that laissez-faire does nothing but deepen inequality as well. 

 

So perhaps something in between is called for. 

 

Personally, I cherish my ignorance on the topic and it's rather rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic anyway IMO.

Think this applies here too. 

[CornwallFox]

17 minutes ago, nnfox said:

This is correct.

 

The Chancellor does not do the maths.  Whoever the Chancellor is, makes the decision.  Often, they are tough decisions and rarely will everybody from business and the wider public agree that a given decision is a good one.

 

Rachel Reeves will have been presented with a list of options to raise money for the nation.  It is very likely that all options are crap.  It is a very common tactic for these decisions to be tentatively made in the weeks leading to a budget and deliberately leaked to the press to measure public opinion.  If it looks like the option will be a major vote loser, they won't do it because they want to stay in power.  Sometimes they will use the tactic to present something very bad, then deliver something less bad - it can actually be a vote winner.

 

Make no mistake, these decisions, whether blue team or red team are made with votes in mind.  Actual finances are a secondary factor.

But being the first chancellor in 50 years to raise income tax, in direct contradiction to their manifesto, would obviously be massively unpopular. They don't need to leak that to the papers to discover it would be unpopular. The idea that a fortnight from the budget the biggest single policy is still being test run through the papers sounds ridiculous. I don't buy that for a second. 

[leicsmac]

There's an absolutely ridiculous meme rumour going round regarding Felon#47 today. One of those "no, even for him, surely not..."

 

I'll not share it here just in case there's anyone without a sense of humour who might get lawyer-happy watching, but shall we say..let's just not "blow" things out of proportion when it comes to the "Big Beautiful Bill"...

[nnfox]

8 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

But being the first chancellor in 50 years to raise income tax, in direct contradiction to their manifesto, would obviously be massively unpopular. They don't need to leak that to the papers to discover it would be unpopular. The idea that a fortnight from the budget the biggest single policy is still being test run through the papers sounds ridiculous. I don't buy that for a second. 

That's one way of looking at it.

 

Another way of looking at it is that the situation must be pretty dire if raising income tax for the first time in 50 years is seen as a legitimate option.

 

Another way still, is to present this as an option with no intention of following through to make the public fearful that it might happen, then deliver a less bad option and a proportion of the public will be relieved to the point of thinking that the less bad option is actually a good thing.

 

I'm not sure there's much benefit for the anti-labour brigade to pluck stuff like this out of thin air to discredit Labour, because ultimately Labour hold all the cards come delivery and get the final say.

[Salisbury Fox]

14 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

But being the first chancellor in 50 years to raise income tax, in direct contradiction to their manifesto, would obviously be massively unpopular. They don't need to leak that to the papers to discover it would be unpopular. The idea that a fortnight from the budget the biggest single policy is still being test run through the papers sounds ridiculous. I don't buy that for a second. 

To be fair, if raising income tax wasn’t being considered then they could have unequivocally ruled it out much earlier. 

[ealingfox]

The Thatcherite economic model is destroying this country imo. Giving us nothing but managed decline. National infrastructure sold off and replaced with unjustified deference to a shareholder class whose top rungs simply siphon money out of the economy and give nothing back, whilst the richest cohort of our population, which owns all the wealth, land and property gets nothing but bungs through short-termist government choices.

 

Tory and now Labour both guilty, yet the only two mainstream party leaders who have proposed substantively changing the status quo were both laughed out of town (albeit one did it in government and without a democratic mandate).

[Trav Le Bleu]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's an absolutely ridiculous meme rumour going round regarding Felon#47 today. One of those "no, even for him, surely not..."

 

I'll not share it here just in case there's anyone without a sense of humour who might get lawyer-happy watching, but shall we say..let's just not "blow" things out of proportion when it comes to the "Big Beautiful Bill"...

Monica Lewinsky often used to talk about a big, beautiful bill.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cj0e3y6yy99o

 

Amber warnings have been issued by the Met Office as Storm Claudia brings heavy rain to parts of the United Kingdom.

With rain persisting for much of Friday and into Saturday morning, some areas may get near to their whole month's worth of rain.

Flooding and difficult travelling conditions are likely with a strong easterly wind also developing.

 

 

 

...Rain has featured a lot so far this November with some areas seeing over their November average in the first thirteen days.

Shap and Carlisle in Cumbria for example have recorded more than their November rainfall already; 226mm and 95mm compared to the averages of 205mm and 85mm respectively.

Other sites on higher ground such as Honister in the Lake District has recorded over 500mm of rain.

Bannau Brycheiniog - known as the Brecon Beacons - in south Wales, has also been particularly wet with many Natural Resources Wales rainfall stations recording over 200mm of rain so far.

The heavy rainfall in south Wales has also led to some significant flooding in previous weeks.

A business owner who had to close his shop in Carmarthen due to the floods described it as "the worst in living memory".

 

Be safe if you're out and about today, those in the affected areas. 

Thoughts and prayers to those living on the Isle of Countesthorpe.

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

The smarter option would be to help businesses and encourage growth. Reducing NIC would be a good place to start as would business rates.

If that puts the public finances at risk or further austerity it will not encourage growth at all and will probably spook the bond markets leaving us in a still worse postion.  This merry go round has been going for some 15 years,  it needs to change radically,  Unfortunately,  while I think this government have done a number of things that will improve things at the margins in the coming years,  it is doing no where near enough to make a real difference to peoples lifes.   

[Greg2607]

What we need to do, is re-invent our Economy (which is absolutely no small feat and will take masses of time) - Successive governments over an extended period of time have somehow managed to build a mainly serviced based economy, which has led to wage stagnation. 

 

I do actually believe in alot of what labour are TRYING to do on a Macro level.... boosting emerging industries, trying to get into a leader position and doing things like making strong attempts to address our energy mix.  They are also trying to push economic power out of London and spread it across the rest of the UK. Again, really sensible. 

 

none of this was going to be fixed in 18 months. I'd be surprised if it's fixed within a decade... but you have to make the first move at somepoint. 

 

What was starmers mantra going into the last election "Country before party".... I do think we are seeing that in action. 

 

It's not popular, it's not pretty, but it IS fundamentally required. 

 

WFA - WILDLY unpopular... but absolutely everyone can see that pensioners on even £45,000 a year don't need a fuel subsidy.   

 

Addressing Benefits - It will be wildly unpopular and all of the major parties will roll out examples of where it has impacted certain individuals... But I don't think any of us would suggest that the current system is fit for purpose or sustainable. 

 

Moving more of our Healthcare to Primary Services - Again... structural change that should have happened years ago... .if you ever watch programmes like "Ambulance" on BBC.... you can see that people end up in crisis as they can't access front line services and ambulances and A&E become a port of last resort... but having to deal with scenarios that should be dealt with by other services that have been decimated, quietly, over time. 

 

everywhere you look, there is decay. 

 

but there isn't a magic wand to fix it all in a short space of time.  

 

AND in another 3 years...... because the change won't be immediately obvious... Reform will come along with a wrecking ball and undo all of the good work that has been done. 

 

 

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

This is correct.

 

The Chancellor does not do the maths.  Whoever the Chancellor is, makes the decision.  Often, they are tough decisions and rarely will everybody from business and the wider public agree that a given decision is a good one.

 

Rachel Reeves will have been presented with a list of options to raise money for the nation.  It is very likely that all options are crap.  It is a very common tactic for these decisions to be tentatively made in the weeks leading to a budget and deliberately leaked to the press to measure public opinion.  If it looks like the option will be a major vote loser, they won't do it because they want to stay in power.  Sometimes they will use the tactic to present something very bad, then deliver something less bad - it can actually be a vote winner.

 

Make no mistake, these decisions, whether blue team or red team are made with votes in mind.  Actual finances are a secondary factor.

What is really crazy is that they are not learning from their mistakes on this front,  being too tentative is proving to be a vote loser all round.  

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Perhaps the trickling is the additional 200k people that are 'employed' by the state on benefits due to unemployment.

 

There are also 1.1m additional people claiming UC since labour came to power. So there is that trickle too.

That is strickly speaking true ,  but a very large part of that increase is due to claimants moving from legacy benefits to UC,  so is not a true reflection of what is happening.  Lies damn lies and statistics eh.  

[CornwallFox]

11 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

What we need to do, is re-invent our Economy (which is absolutely no small feat and will take masses of time) - Successive governments over an extended period of time have somehow managed to build a mainly serviced based economy, which has led to wage stagnation. 

 

I do actually believe in alot of what labour are TRYING to do on a Macro level.... boosting emerging industries, trying to get into a leader position and doing things like making strong attempts to address our energy mix.  They are also trying to push economic power out of London and spread it across the rest of the UK. Again, really sensible. 

 

none of this was going to be fixed in 18 months. I'd be surprised if it's fixed within a decade... but you have to make the first move at somepoint. 

 

What was starmers mantra going into the last election "Country before party".... I do think we are seeing that in action. 

 

It's not popular, it's not pretty, but it IS fundamentally required. 

 

WFA - WILDLY unpopular... but absolutely everyone can see that pensioners on even £45,000 a year don't need a fuel subsidy.   

 

Addressing Benefits - It will be wildly unpopular and all of the major parties will roll out examples of where it has impacted certain individuals... But I don't think any of us would suggest that the current system is fit for purpose or sustainable. 

 

Moving more of our Healthcare to Primary Services - Again... structural change that should have happened years ago... .if you ever watch programmes like "Ambulance" on BBC.... you can see that people end up in crisis as they can't access front line services and ambulances and A&E become a port of last resort... but having to deal with scenarios that should be dealt with by other services that have been decimated, quietly, over time. 

 

everywhere you look, there is decay. 

 

but there isn't a magic wand to fix it all in a short space of time.  

 

AND in another 3 years...... because the change won't be immediately obvious... Reform will come along with a wrecking ball and undo all of the good work that has been done. 

 

 

100% agree.