General News Thread

[leicsmac]

Anyway...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/crrkdylz9rxo

 

Heavy rain is expected to bring flooding and disruption across large parts of the UK on Monday.

An amber Met Office severe weather warning for rain is in force across south Wales, while multiple yellow warnings are in force for many western areas of the UK.

Nearly a month's worth of rain could fall onto already very saturated ground after above average rainfall throughout November across England and Wales.

There will also be some gusty winds, especially around coastal areas.

 

...November has been very wet overall, especially across England and Wales.

Data up to 29 November from the Met Office Hadley Centre shows that there has been 132% of normal rainfall.

But, in parts of eastern England, some weather stations have recorded their highest November rainfall on record.

Bridlington, Yorkshire for example has had nearly three times the normal rainfall with 180mm recorded compared to an average of 66mm - a new record for November.

Other parts of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have recieved more than double their normal rainfall with the wettest November on record.

 

Are people tired of breaking records yet?

 

In all seriousness though, hope everyone stays safe if they're going anywhere. 

[danny.]

We should definitely invest in flood defences. As much as the U.K. doesn’t like to invest in things. 

[Tommy G]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Anyway...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/crrkdylz9rxo

 

Heavy rain is expected to bring flooding and disruption across large parts of the UK on Monday.

An amber Met Office severe weather warning for rain is in force across south Wales, while multiple yellow warnings are in force for many western areas of the UK.

Nearly a month's worth of rain could fall onto already very saturated ground after above average rainfall throughout November across England and Wales.

There will also be some gusty winds, especially around coastal areas.

 

...November has been very wet overall, especially across England and Wales.

Data up to 29 November from the Met Office Hadley Centre shows that there has been 132% of normal rainfall.

But, in parts of eastern England, some weather stations have recorded their highest November rainfall on record.

Bridlington, Yorkshire for example has had nearly three times the normal rainfall with 180mm recorded compared to an average of 66mm - a new record for November.

Other parts of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire have recieved more than double their normal rainfall with the wettest November on record.

 

Are people tired of breaking records yet?

 

In all seriousness though, hope everyone stays safe if they're going anywhere. 

Hopefully no hosepipe bans next summer at this rate  - it really is worrying keeping on top of a scorched lawns and paddling pools. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

We should definitely invest in flood defences. As much as the U.K. doesn’t like to invest in things. 

Absolutely. As well as working with the international community on both prevention and mitigation. 

 

But that takes money, and leads rather neatly into the last discussion about taxation. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

Hopefully no hosepipe bans next summer at this rate  - it really is worrying keeping on top of a scorched lawns and paddling pools. 

Yes, maybe not, just more reduced crop yields as the UK (along with a few other places) lurches from flood to drought with not enough in between.

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Didn’t have to be that low. She didn’t have to change policy to pay for people’s 7th and 8th children. These are choices, and choices that she increases tax on working people to pay for. 

I didn't say those things weren't choices,  but the need for headroom clearly wasn't.  As for this choice,  labours manifesto promised to lower child poverty,  this measure will move that policy quicker than any other single measure could have done,  at the lowest cost.  The tories brought this policy in,  as an attempt to reduce the number of children born to poor families,  apart from that being unethical in my view (we shouldn't be blaming children for the choices of their parents) there is zero evidence that it has had that desired outcome.  It also did not only effect those families that couldn't afford to have those additional children (the media narrative) at the time the decision was made but also those (the majority) who later became poorer for no fault of there own.  

[CornwallFox]

3 hours ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

So it's doing slightly less shocking than totally shocking - good point that ..... well done keep them coming 

You seem to be missing the point about the issue that's been raised.

[danny.]

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

I didn't say those things weren't choices,  but the need for headroom clearly wasn't.  As for this choice,  labours manifesto promised to lower child poverty,  this measure will move that policy quicker than any other single measure could have done,  at the lowest cost.  The tories brought this policy in,  as an attempt to reduce the number of children born to poor families,  apart from that being unethical in my view (we shouldn't be blaming children for the choices of their parents) there is zero evidence that it has had that desired outcome.  It also did not only effect those families that couldn't afford to have those additional children (the media narrative) at the time the decision was made but also those (the majority) who later became poorer for no fault of there own.  

Headroom and spending choices go hand in hand 

[Robo61]

20 minutes ago, danny. said:

Headroom and spending choices go hand in hand 

Then why only concentrate on one side of that choice.  As is usual with these debates no one wants to discuss the real choices this country faces.  Yes,  Starmer ans Reeves have political mistakes,  they should never have promised no tax rises at the same time as promising improvements in some aspects of welfare and public services,  but name one party that has been elected in the past that hasn't done similar.  As usual the dabate is concentrated on the tax aspects,  but not on the other aspects of the manfesto that require funding,  child poverty being just one of them.  It seems to me this country is no longer capable on an honest debate on these and many other issues,  as we have become addicted to low taxation particulat taxes on income.  

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Then why only concentrate on one side of that choice.  As is usual with these debates no one wants to discuss the real choices this country faces.  Yes,  Starmer ans Reeves have political mistakes,  they should never have promised no tax rises at the same time as promising improvements in some aspects of welfare and public services,  but name one party that has been elected in the past that hasn't done similar.  As usual the dabate is concentrated on the tax aspects,  but not on the other aspects of the manfesto that require funding,  child poverty being just one of them.  It seems to me this country is no longer capable on an honest debate on these and many other issues,  as we have become addicted to low taxation particulat taxes on income.  

Is 40%/45% and the 60% tax rate between £100-£125K low taxation then?

[Free Falling Foxes]

Train attacker refuses to appear in court.

I think that anyone refusing to appear in court whether pre trial, trial itself and any sentencing, should be punished with a 10% addition to any time to be served - for each refusal.

[Leicester_Loyal]

7 hours ago, Tommy G said:

You are peddling a one man argument here - people within her own party and wider support are outraged by the pair of them.

 

Now KS is saying he won't apologise for lifting children out of poverty, so his last resort propaganda is basically saying if you disagree with that we've done then you support child poverty, a policy that wasn't even in their manifesto and came about a couple of months ago to appease people within their own party, to save their own skin 

Probably already been said but KS suspended the whip for those that wanted to lift the two child cap!

 

It’s just soundbites, we’ve lied and been caught out, but if you disagree with what we’ve done that you want children in poverty. It’s just emotional reactive blackmail, same as anytime you discuss reforming the NHS, ‘so you support people dying do you?!

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Probably already been said but KS suspended the whip for those that wanted to lift the two child cap!

 

It’s just soundbites, we’ve lied and been caught out, but if you disagree with what we’ve done that you want children in poverty. It’s just emotional reactive blackmail, same as anytime you discuss reforming the NHS, ‘so you support people dying do you?!

 

I can understand the POV here and the annoyance towards it, but given that there's rather a lot of talk about cutting public services without much talk as to the consequences of it...

[st albans fox]

OBR head shows more backbone and responsibility than 99% of politicians

 

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

OBR head shows more backbone and responsibility than 99% of politicians

 

Shame in the footnote of his letter he didn't put something to the effect that now he's resigned he recommends you follow suit, Chancellor. 

[Tommy G]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can understand the POV here and the annoyance towards it, but given that there's rather a lot of talk about cutting public services without much talk as to the consequences of it...

Increasing the 2 child benefit cap or a spiralling welfare budget has nothing to do with cutting public services. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Increasing the 2 child benefit cap or a spiralling welfare budget has nothing to do with cutting public services. 

I'm reasonably sure the whole welfare system is itself a public service? I guess that's up for debate depending on who's looking. 

 

Like I said, I understand the viewpoint, but rather than injured innocence it would be nice for the people that advocate for those policy decisions to own the whole of them, including where they may end up going. 

 

Edit: Especially as such honesty seems to be demanded of our ruling politicians right now. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by leicsmac

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Is 40%/45% and the 60% tax rate between £100-£125K low taxation then?

Historically yes 

[CornwallFox]

56 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Increasing the 2 child benefit cap or a spiralling welfare budget has nothing to do with cutting public services. 

Firstly, every penny paid out in welfare is spent in the real economy. It's good for the economy.

Second, increasing the child benefit cap will lead to less child poverty and therefore less future spend on a whole host of things in education and healthcare, council services, and lots of other things. 

You always want glib answers, never want to truly explore the more complex picture politics always throws up.

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[danny.]

2 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Then why only concentrate on one side of that choice.  As is usual with these debates no one wants to discuss the real choices this country faces.  Yes,  Starmer ans Reeves have political mistakes,  they should never have promised no tax rises at the same time as promising improvements in some aspects of welfare and public services,  but name one party that has been elected in the past that hasn't done similar.  As usual the dabate is concentrated on the tax aspects,  but not on the other aspects of the manfesto that require funding,  child poverty being just one of them.  It seems to me this country is no longer capable on an honest debate on these and many other issues,  as we have become addicted to low taxation particulat taxes on income.  

I don’t really know what you mean by concentrate on one side of that choice. She’d have had head room of over £6bn without just that one policy. I haven’t gone into child poverty in my posts recently on here as it’s not something I know a lot about, I don’t have children, and I’m not in political power. I’m sorry if you feel like I’m not debating honestly, happy to try and clarify or amend whatever I have said is dishonest?
 

I don’t agree taxes are low in this country, I pay a lot of tax each year in return for very little, but anecdotally aside we also have the highest tax burden as a country since WW2, so not sure anyone would reasonably say we have low taxes. 

[danny.]

11 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Firstly, every penny paid out in welfare is spent in the real economy. It's good for the economy.

Second, increasing the child benefit cap will lead to less child poverty and therefore less future spend on a whole host of things in education and healthcare, council services, and lots of other things. 

You always want glib answers, never want to truly explore the more complex picture politics always throws up.

Using that logic we might as well just pay everyone £2k a month welfare as It’s good for the economy.

[Tommy G]

24 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Historically yes 

Are you going back pre WW2 then? 

[CornwallFox]

11 minutes ago, danny. said:

Using that logic we might as well just pay everyone £2k a month welfare as It’s good for the economy.

It's not economists arguing against that. 

 

People spending money into the economy, putting money into local businesses so they can increase their revenues and invest is all good for the economy. 

 

The only downside to it is political - people don't like it. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Direct taxation is low, indirect taxation makes the overall tax burden high. 

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Are you going back pre WW2 then? 

In 1975 the top rate on earned income was over 80%, and on unearned income 98%. The standard rate of tax was around 40%.

 

And no, that wasn't the reason for the issues of the 70s before you say it.