General News Thread

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, Parafox said:

Apologies.

 

Now deleted 

Thanks Para👍

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Another U- turn ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/14/rachel-reeves-to-abandon-plans-to-raise-income-tax-rates-in-budget

Suppose the trouble is whatever they do isnt going be well liked particularly.

You either need to raise taxes or lower spending, they are the only options.

 

Pretending this has been done due to a better than anticipated OBR results is comical, it's been done because the backbenchers would vote against it to save themselves.

 

I really don't know where this Government is going.

[leicsmac]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

Quoted again for emphasis, should be required reading. 

[Super_horns]

32 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

You either need to raise taxes or lower spending, they are the only options.

 

Pretending this has been done due to a better than anticipated OBR results is comical, it's been done because the backbenchers would vote against it to save themselves.

 

I really don't know where this Government is going.

They have tried cutting spending I think but only succeed in upsetting the elderly , disabled and farmers amongst others .

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

You either need to raise taxes or lower spending, they are the only options.

 

Pretending this has been done due to a better than anticipated OBR results is comical, it's been done because the backbenchers would vote against it to save themselves.

 

I really don't know where this Government is going.

These are absolutely not the only options. It's this sort of thinking that has led us to such a terrible place. 

 

The Tories had long periods in government where interest rates were almost nil on government debt. They should have been borrowing to invest in capital projects, that was exactly the time to borrow and spend and get the economy growing. 

 

Instead they used the false dichotomy that you're promoting to cut spending (compared to where it would have been), dampening growth, leading to the worst wage growth in hundreds of years at one point and causing massive problems in public services. 

 

Government spending underpins the entire economy. Virtually every penny spent through public services reaches the private sector. Either through wages (or benefits) being spent, or for maintenance, goods, construction etc. Government spending is the single biggest driving force in the economy. Cutting public spending is bad for the private sector and bad for the whole economy. 

 

It is now now difficult to borrow, as interest rates are higher, but cutting spending will not lead to growth. It is anti-growth. 

 

Even if you cut taxes on business, unless the government is spending on goods, services, maintenance and construction, there still isn't the work and investment there to support business investment. Businesses might have slightly more money but still not the government business streams that underpins their investment decisions and creates business certainty. 

[foxes1988]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/steve-reed-government-landlords-ministry-of-housing-keir-starmer-b2864991.html

 

Some seemingly/mostly good moves trying to help renters

[Leicester_Loyal]

24 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

These are absolutely not the only options. It's this sort of thinking that has led us to such a terrible place. 

 

The Tories had long periods in government where interest rates were almost nil on government debt. They should have been borrowing to invest in capital projects, that was exactly the time to borrow and spend and get the economy growing. 

 

Instead they used the false dichotomy that you're promoting to cut spending (compared to where it would have been), dampening growth, leading to the worst wage growth in hundreds of years at one point and causing massive problems in public services. 

 

Government spending underpins the entire economy. Virtually every penny spent through public services reaches the private sector. Either through wages (or benefits) being spent, or for maintenance, goods, construction etc. Government spending is the single biggest driving force in the economy. Cutting public spending is bad for the private sector and bad for the whole economy. 

 

It is now now difficult to borrow, as interest rates are higher, but cutting spending will not lead to growth. It is anti-growth. 

 

Even if you cut taxes on business, unless the government is spending on goods, services, maintenance and construction, there still isn't the work and investment there to support business investment. Businesses might have slightly more money but still not the government business streams that underpins their investment decisions and creates business certainty. 

We needed growth 12 months ago, they've done nothing to grow the economy at all, and I doubt they will. They are trying to increase spending, whilst covering that with increased taxes, which won't work, it won't bring in anywhere near as much as they're spending IMO, people will just change their habits. They're trying to tax more, whilst wasting the extra money they're taking from people, people wouldn't mind half as much if they knew the money was going to get us out of the shit.

 

The public sector spending should be reigned in, and I say this as an employee of the public sector. I've said it 1000 times on here, the amount of money we waste in the public sector is sickening, but nothing is ever done about it, and we're just encouraged to constantly plough more into it. The red tape and nonsense that we all have to go through means that the sector is nowhere near as productive as it should be, but it's all about appearances and looking good rather than actually doing the job, in my experience.

 

You don't increase the economy by taxing more, we agree on this, but we're apparently in this massive blackhole of so many billion every year, the money has got to come from somewhere now at this point, and this Government haven't got a clue what to do.

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/steve-reed-government-landlords-ministry-of-housing-keir-starmer-b2864991.html

 

Some seemingly/mostly good moves trying to help renters

The biggest thing they could do to help renters is build more homes, all these laws and regulations don't change much IMO. I think a lot of these changes will just mean higher rent for those that rent, but we'll see.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We needed growth 12 months ago, they've done nothing to grow the economy at all, and I doubt they will. They are trying to increase spending, whilst covering that with increased taxes, which won't work, it won't bring in anywhere near as much as they're spending IMO, people will just change their habits. They're trying to tax more, whilst wasting the extra money they're taking from people, people wouldn't mind half as much if they knew the money was going to get us out of the shit.

 

The public sector spending should be reigned in, and I say this as an employee of the public sector. I've said it 1000 times on here, the amount of money we waste in the public sector is sickening, but nothing is ever done about it, and we're just encouraged to constantly plough more into it. The red tape and nonsense that we all have to go through means that the sector is nowhere near as productive as it should be, but it's all about appearances and looking good rather than actually doing the job, in my experience.

 

You don't increase the economy by taxing more, we agree on this, but we're apparently in this massive blackhole of so many billion every year, the money has got to come from somewhere now at this point, and this Government haven't got a clue what to do.

All those stories of SEN kids suffering because of social care cuts and places getting flooded for the umpteenth time because there's no money to build defences (just two examples) that we hear about on the regular on the local and national news must be fictional, then. 

 

Or is it a matter of money going to the wrong places within the public sector, which then raises the question of how you deal with that while actually keeping those vital public services?

[CornwallFox]

6 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We needed growth 12 months ago, they've done nothing to grow the economy at all, and I doubt they will. They are trying to increase spending, whilst covering that with increased taxes, which won't work, it won't bring in anywhere near as much as they're spending IMO, people will just change their habits. They're trying to tax more, whilst wasting the extra money they're taking from people, people wouldn't mind half as much if they knew the money was going to get us out of the shit.

 

The public sector spending should be reigned in, and I say this as an employee of the public sector. I've said it 1000 times on here, the amount of money we waste in the public sector is sickening, but nothing is ever done about it, and we're just encouraged to constantly plough more into it. The red tape and nonsense that we all have to go through means that the sector is nowhere near as productive as it should be, but it's all about appearances and looking good rather than actually doing the job, in my experience.

 

You don't increase the economy by taxing more, we agree on this, but we're apparently in this massive blackhole of so many billion every year, the money has got to come from somewhere now at this point, and this Government haven't got a clue what to do.

They've done plenty to grow the economy - it's just all in the form of longer term projects like GB energy, nuclear energy commissioning (linked to GB energy), over £100bn in additional capital spend. 

 

What they haven't been successful at is shorter term growth, that I would agree with. They need to focus on growth now and cost of living. 

 

In economic terms, no public spending is waste. It's true you could spend less, but again that would have a anti growth effect as that will be less money finding it's easy into the economy. There's a difference between quality spend and spend. If you want to cut ineffective spend that's fine but I would prefer to spend it differently rather than cut the spend. 

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

They've done plenty to grow the economy - it's just all in the form of longer term projects like GB energy, nuclear energy commissioning (linked to GB energy), over £100bn in additional capital spend. 

 

What they haven't been successful at is shorter term growth, that I would agree with. They need to focus on growth now and cost of living. 

 

In economic terms, no public spending is waste. It's true you could spend less, but again that would have a anti growth effect as that will be less money finding it's easy into the economy. There's a difference between quality spend and spend. If you want to cut ineffective spend that's fine but I would prefer to spend it differently rather than cut the spend. 

Depending on the measure capital expenditure is down under labour not up. 

 

They have plans to increase it, but at present it's lower overall than the previous government levels.

 

All being well (manifesto pledges) it should come up to the Tory levels in real terms by the end of their term.

 

As I've said before, there are a lot of projects being quietly sidelined at the moment. Not cancelled as such, but the cash is no longer there.

[st albans fox]

wymsey warned us this wasn’t going to be pleasant.  Disgusting bloke. How many years had he been getting away with this?  How many kids could be affected ?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgkxvjj054o

[Leicester_Loyal]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All those stories of SEN kids suffering because of social care cuts and places getting flooded for the umpteenth time because there's no money to build defences (just two examples) that we hear about on the regular on the local and national news must be fictional, then. 

 

Or is it a matter of money going to the wrong places within the public sector, which then raises the question of how you deal with that while actually keeping those vital public services?

I've said something and you've ran with something completely different in your first sentence there. But that's actually another good point, the amount for example we spend on taxis getting children to these schools, it's probably pocket change in the grand scheme of things, but the tens of millions of pounds adds up each year. You can cope with a few of these things, but we see hundreds of these examples. I can't really afford children of my own, but I'm expected to pay for everyone elses, which I accept is just life as it's how tax and NI works, but the numbers of those contributing seems to be shrinking whilst those taking seems to be growing. 

 

Money might go to the wrong places, but the money where it even ends up in the right places is wasted. Ask anyone who works in the public sector, we all witness it on a daily basis yet it's seen as something so precious and vital that you can't criticise it, much as how I have earlier and you've jumped straight on me stating won't somebody please think of the children!

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've said something and you've ran with something completely different in your first sentence there. But that's actually another good point, the amount for example we spend on taxis getting children to these schools, it's probably pocket change in the grand scheme of things, but the tens of millions of pounds adds up each year. You can cope with a few of these things, but we see hundreds of these examples. I can't really afford children of my own, but I'm expected to pay for everyone elses, which I accept is just life as it's how tax and NI works, but the numbers of those contributing seems to be shrinking whilst those taking seems to be growing. 

 

Money might go to the wrong places, but the money where it even ends up in the right places is wasted. Ask anyone who works in the public sector, we all witness it on a daily basis yet it's seen as something so precious and vital that you can't criticise it, much as how I have earlier and you've jumped straight on me stating won't somebody please think of the children!

I thought the conversation was about reigning in public spending which does indeed cover those services mentioned in the above post, among others, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered relevant to the discussion?

 

And yes, IMO human life is vital and it is precious, as is human health, as is a lot of other life come to that.

 

Evidently, again as mentioned earlier, that degree of "precious" and therefore acceptably expendable clearly depends on the beholder. 

 

I've no problem with people offering criticism of public spending, but I do have a problem with disingenuous about where that criticism logically ends. So, with respect, I do think it's important to point that out, and make it very clear about what folks are actually advocating for as a logical outcome - even if that isn't what they intend. 

 

 

[foxes1988]

25 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We needed growth 12 months ago, they've done nothing to grow the economy at all, and I doubt they will. They are trying to increase spending, whilst covering that with increased taxes, which won't work, it won't bring in anywhere near as much as they're spending IMO, people will just change their habits. They're trying to tax more, whilst wasting the extra money they're taking from people, people wouldn't mind half as much if they knew the money was going to get us out of the shit.

 

The public sector spending should be reigned in, and I say this as an employee of the public sector. I've said it 1000 times on here, the amount of money we waste in the public sector is sickening, but nothing is ever done about it, and we're just encouraged to constantly plough more into it. The red tape and nonsense that we all have to go through means that the sector is nowhere near as productive as it should be, but it's all about appearances and looking good rather than actually doing the job, in my experience.

 

You don't increase the economy by taxing more, we agree on this, but we're apparently in this massive blackhole of so many billion every year, the money has got to come from somewhere now at this point, and this Government haven't got a clue what to do.

We needed growth from 2010 to 2020. That decade of decline is what ****ed us. Brexit and COVID  added to it but the economy was terribly handled by the Lib Dems and mainly Tories.  I'm not convinced by Labours attempted but I don't know what else they do now.

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I thought the conversation was about reigning in public spending which does indeed cover those services mentioned in the above post, among others, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered relevant to the discussion?

 

And yes, IMO human life is vital and it is precious, as is human health, as is a lot of other life come to that.

 

Evidently, again as mentioned earlier, that degree of "precious" and therefore acceptably expendable clearly depends on the beholder. 

 

I've no problem with people offering criticism of public spending, but I do have a problem with disingenuous about where that criticism logically ends. So, with respect, I do think it's important to point that out, and make it very clear about what folks are actually advocating for as a logical outcome - even if that isn't what they intend. 

 

 

What you mentioned was probably about 0.01% of public spending though. We probably waste more than that every few hours within the NHS, railway, etc.

 

All rough ideas, I have no idea on the exact figures btw.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

What you mentioned was probably about 0.01% of public spending though. We probably waste more than that every few hours within the NHS, railway, etc.

 

All rough ideas, I have no idea on the exact figures btw.

Nor do I, but I do remember reading the social care budget is pretty damn big for a lot of local authorities.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know how difficult an circle this is to square, but I'd rather people be honest and admit that their solution, whatever it may be, will have a human cost, rather than pretending it won't exist. 

[Foxdiamond]

16 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've said something and you've ran with something completely different in your first sentence there. But that's actually another good point, the amount for example we spend on taxis getting children to these schools, it's probably pocket change in the grand scheme of things, but the tens of millions of pounds adds up each year. You can cope with a few of these things, but we see hundreds of these examples. I can't really afford children of my own, but I'm expected to pay for everyone elses, which I accept is just life as it's how tax and NI works, but the numbers of those contributing seems to be shrinking whilst those taking seems to be growing. 

 

Money might go to the wrong places, but the money where it even ends up in the right places is wasted. Ask anyone who works in the public sector, we all witness it on a daily basis yet it's seen as something so precious and vital that you can't criticise it, much as how I have earlier and you've jumped straight on me stating won't somebody please think of the children!

Sen children often have travel many miles to a suitable school. If there were more schools local then the children wouldn't have go so far. If parents have other children to get to a different school it is not possible to be in two places at once and then go to work themselves.  

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nor do I, but I do remember reading the social care budget is pretty damn big for a lot of local authorities.

 

Don't get me wrong, I know how difficult an circle this is to square, but I'd rather people be honest and admit that their solution, whatever it may be, will have a human cost, rather than pretending it won't exist. 

Every decision has a human cost though.

 

Taxing people more in order to pay for other people, will reduce the quality of life of other people. 

 

The reality is tough deicisons need to be made, and sadly some people will suffer, but they will in every decision.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Every decision has a human cost though.

 

Taxing people more in order to pay for other people, will reduce the quality of life of other people. 

 

The reality is tough deicisons need to be made, and sadly some people will suffer, but they will in every decision.

You see, I don't mind people admitting that, it's better than denial or ignorance. 

 

That being said, for me the pathway must always be to do the least harm to the most vulnerable. And I honestly don't think such a thing is such a zero sum game as many people think. 

[CornwallFox]

27 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Every decision has a human cost though.

 

Taxing people more in order to pay for other people, will reduce the quality of life of other people. 

 

The reality is tough deicisons need to be made, and sadly some people will suffer, but they will in every decision.

The point of growth is that you don't need to raise tax levels to raise tax income. So I can accept there may be ways to spend more wisely, to create growth, and I agree we can't add more taxes on working people as cost of living is ridiculous right now. We need to borrow to redirect expenditure, borrow to invest in growth creation and also raise taxes on wealth. They're the only palatable options.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It seems that it's quite en vogue to accuse people of whataboutery at the moment, so ...

 

Trump to order probe into Epstein's alleged ties to Clinton and banks - BBC News

 

https://share.google/KpVBvpptaTp5Hrzhy

[kenny]

Reckon Shabana Mahmood has added herself to the 'not a ****wit' list with Streeting and possibly Nandy.

 

Might be time to start a cabinet best 11.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Sen children often have travel many miles to a suitable school. If there were more schools local then the children wouldn't have go so far. If parents have other children to get to a different school it is not possible to be in two places at once and then go to work themselves.  

Meant to reply to this earlier but missed it.

 

The 'attack' on private schools pushed private school children back into state edution, meaning the schools become even more crowded. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/14/obr-changes-forecasts-to-give-reeves-17bn-budget-lifeline/

 

'The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has handed Rachel Reeves a £1.7bn lifeline to balance the books after it changed a crucial window for its forecasts amid growing political pressure. In a highly unusual move, the fiscal watchdog said it had changed the time frame to forecast moves in bond markets from the 10 days to Oct 10 to the 10 days to Oct 21.'

 

How convenient