General News Thread

[foxes1988]

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.  

Yeah we are definitely a bit want our cake and eat it at the minute.

 

We don't want any cuts but want services to improve but don't want taxes to rise.

 

I do think that RR has been a bit dishonest playing up  the need for tax rises when it seems it was largely to give ourselves more headroom. Which isn't a bad decision to be fair but she's done the classic Tory thing of play down finances and then magically find a bit more money to help them politically. 

 

I do think as always with this Labour government the media have overblown it compared to how they usually report this kind of thing.

 

Who knew politicians would play political games

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 hours ago, danny. said:

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

Surely if the English Channel widens that will discourage immigrants?

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

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

The left won't allow them to cut pip welfare and the right won't let them cut pension welfare unfortunately.

 

I don't want coalitions all the time as they tend to be unsteady at the best of times but I really wish parties would work together more.

[danny.]

15 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Surely if the English Channel widens that will discourage immigrants?

Not sure it would make any difference, what’s the relation between immigrants and the English Channel? 

[danny.]

40 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

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. 

 

The other downside to it is destroying the economy. There wouldn’t be any gain to the economy because the local businesses you mentioned would have any additional revenue wiped out by gigantic tax hikes needed to fund that. Without a magic money tree the argument that endless welfare boosts the economy makes no sense. 

[CornwallFox]

17 minutes ago, danny. said:

The other downside to it is destroying the economy. There wouldn’t be any gain to the economy because the local businesses you mentioned would have any additional revenue wiped out by gigantic tax hikes needed to fund that. Without a magic money tree the argument that endless welfare boosts the economy makes no sense. 

Firstly I'm not proposing this as a policy, just pointing out economics isn't the reason not to do it. 

 

Second, it's pretty much self funding. Something never talked about is that spending isn't all one way. There's a multiplier effect when government spends in ways which impact the real economy. Businesses thrive and invest, the original spend all ends up coming back in tax one way or another, plus additional revenue comes from business profiting, expanding etc. tax revenues can end up being 6 or 7 times the amount spent in some cases. 

 

The country has struggled because austerity removed spend into the real economy. Tax cuts to business will always be liked by business, but without people spending money you just don't get the investment and growth you need. You get that through people spending money. And you get that by government spending into the economy to provide some liquidity. There's a reason austerity led to higher taxes and higher debt. 

Edited 1 December 2025 by CornwallFox

[foxes1988]

BBC News - US and UK agree zero tariffs deal on pharmaceuticals - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0k520v4xro

 

Interesting. Increasing NHS spending on drugs and no tariffs.  To be fair we do probably need to increase our spending on pharmaceuticals in the NHS

[danny.]

10 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Firstly I'm not proposing this as a policy, just pointing out economics isn't the reason not to do it. 

 

Second, it's pretty much self funding. Something never talked about is that spending isn't all one way. There's a multiplier effect when government spends in ways which impact the real economy. Businesses thrive and invest, the original spend all ends up coming back in tax one way or another, plus additional revenue comes from business profiting, expanding etc. tax revenues can end up being 6 or 7 times the amount spent in some cases. 

 

The country has struggled because austerity removed spend into the real economy. Tax cuts to business will always be liked by business, but without people spending money you just don't get the investment and growth you need. You get that through people spending money. And you get that by government spending into the economy to provide some liquidity. There's a reason austerity led to higher taxes and higher debt. 

You could apply all that to tax cuts to individuals too. I was very against austerity too, wasn’t a good move for the country. But then tax rises without benefit to working people as a trade off have the same effect as austerity, disposable income goes down, businesses suffer, they make layoffs and close, people then have no business or job, disposable income goes down, repeat. 

[CornwallFox]

3 minutes ago, danny. said:

You could apply all that to tax cuts to individuals too. I was very against austerity too, wasn’t a good move for the country. But then tax rises without benefit to working people as a trade off have the same effect as austerity, disposable income goes down, businesses suffer, they make layoffs and close, people then have no business or job, disposable income goes down, repeat. 

Again though, if you're a business that sells kids toys, baby clothes, whatever really. If people on benefits have a little more to look after their kids properly - and if not include your local corner shop for fags and booze - your business will have customers with more money. That's good for you. It will allow you to sell more, profit more, pay more. This is where we need to stop looking at things in isolation. People on benefits having more money also benefits those not on benefits.

[CornwallFox]

10 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

BBC News - US and UK agree zero tariffs deal on pharmaceuticals - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0k520v4xro

 

Interesting. Increasing NHS spending on drugs and no tariffs.  To be fair we do probably need to increase our spending on pharmaceuticals in the NHS

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. 

 

I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. 

 

I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

Do you really think this forum is right leaning?

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. 

 

I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

I'll be honest though, while the result might not be as forlorn as first touted, allowing that administration to get their way in even a small fashion offends the senses. 

[foxes1988]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'll be honest though, while the result might not be as forlorn as first touted, allowing that administration to get their way in even a small fashion offends the senses. 

It does but to be fair to the US they do have a point when it comes to NHS pharmaceutical purchasing. They would argue we are very tight. I believe we spend less then Germany Italy and France on drugs thanks to the way our healthcare is organised.

 

Whilst that's generally a good thing if we can spend a bit more maybe we'll see some more investment into pharma and we might get some much needed more advanced drugs into NHS

[danny.]

35 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Again though, if you're a business that sells kids toys, baby clothes, whatever really. If people on benefits have a little more to look after their kids properly - and if not include your local corner shop for fags and booze - your business will have customers with more money. That's good for you. It will allow you to sell more, profit more, pay more. This is where we need to stop looking at things in isolation. People on benefits having more money also benefits those not on benefits.

Sure. In that niche tightly focused example of local businesses that sell kids toys (any even left these days!?) they could benefit, but would also be hit with increase in corporation tax, NI, income tax and dividends tax…

 

27 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Do you really think this forum is right leaning?

Feels mainly left to me, maybe 60/20/20 left/centre/right. But it’s so hard to objectively analyse things like this as a human. Also the window has shifted so much someone that was left 20 years ago is labelled far right now. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Feels mainly left to me, maybe 60/20/20 left/centre/right. But it’s so hard to objectively analyse things like this as a human. Also the window has shifted so much someone that was left 20 years ago is labelled far right now. 

Tend to agree, was asking as like to try to gauge my own political unintentional variance, because just like you mentioned, such shifts can be imperceptible.

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

It does but to be fair to the US they do have a point when it comes to NHS pharmaceutical purchasing. They would argue we are very tight. I believe we spend less then Germany Italy and France on drugs thanks to the way our healthcare is organised.

 

Whilst that's generally a good thing if we can spend a bit more maybe we'll see some more investment into pharma and we might get some much needed more advanced drugs into NHS

I would see it more that they are more inclined to think life and health are simply a matter of the proper position of a dollar sign and a full stop, rather than the truly precious things they really are. 

 

But yes, some more advanced treatment available to more people would help. 

[leicsmac]

And on the topic regarding left/right divides and shifts above, my own take on it is it really comes down to whether someone thinks actually treating every demographic of people as people (rather than subhuman, a punchline, an abomination or potential chattel) and actually thinking the future of life is valuable or not is a matter of political compassing, or if it isn't.

[danny.]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And on the topic regarding left/right divides and shifts above, my own take on it is it really comes down to whether someone thinks actually treating every demographic of people as people (rather than subhuman, a punchline, an abomination or potential chattel) and actually thinking the future of life is valuable or not is a matter of political compassing, or if it isn't.

The way you’ve framed that with obvious loaded language and bias is trademark left. It’s obviously disingenuous to redact complex situations to a good/bad binary, feels like a false equivalence fallacy no doubt born from an ideological worldview. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. 

 

I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

Some interesting articles about this deal going back to 2019, pre Brexit.

 

Amazing how many were completely against it from both sides of the house. I think it was Trumps idea in 2019. Funny how these things come around.

[leicsmac]

Just now, danny. said:

The way you’ve framed that with obvious loaded language and bias is trademark left. It’s obviously disingenuous to redact complex situations to a good/bad binary, feels like a false equivalence fallacy no doubt born from an ideological worldview. 

Leaving political slant out of it for a moment, are there not apparently quite a few people (again, regardless of political persuasion) who do think the way described above and are perfectly happy to say that they are and act upon it?

 

I've no idea what the complexity is behind actually treating every human as if they are in fact human, rather than not. The second part is a bit more complex because clearly people have different value they place on the future. 

 

And, again, I'm trying very hard not to couch this in political terms because I'm not convinced all these things are political.

[danny.]

I think any reasonably minded person would agree that all humans are humans, from any part of the political spectrum. You obviously don’t mean this in its face value terms though, ie you’re equating someone being against certain political policies or worldviews as not seeing people as human.
 

I can understand that viewpoint but it’s a massively oversimplified version of things designed to illicit an emotional reaction and frame someone as bad if they don’t agree with a claim. We’ve seen this over and over with Middle Eastern conflicts, religions and welfare and forms of migration amongst other topics. 

[bovril]

11 minutes ago, danny. said:

I think any reasonably minded person would agree that all humans are humans

I draw the line at Australians

[Trav Le Bleu]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And on the topic regarding left/right divides and shifts above, my own take on it is it really comes down to whether someone thinks actually treating every demographic of people as people (rather than subhuman, a punchline, an abomination or potential chattel) and actually thinking the future of life is valuable or not is a matter of political compassing, or if it isn't.

 

35 minutes ago, danny. said:

The way you’ve framed that with obvious loaded language and bias is trademark left. It’s obviously disingenuous to redact complex situations to a good/bad binary, feels like a false equivalence fallacy no doubt born from an ideological worldview. 

I hear kitchen utensils remarking about each other

 

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, danny. said:

I think any reasonably minded person would agree that all humans are humans, from any part of the political spectrum. 

Agreed, hence the "reasonable" part. 

 

43 minutes ago, danny. said:

 You obviously don’t mean this in its face value terms though, ie you’re equating someone being against certain political policies or worldviews as not seeing people as human.

 

I think it's pretty obvious that some policy decisions and worldviews, either intentionally or not, have not seeing people as human as intent, consequence or both. However, once more I'm not convinced whether that has any place in political compassing.

 

43 minutes ago, danny. said:

 

I can understand that viewpoint but it’s a massively oversimplified version of things designed to illicit an emotional reaction and frame someone as bad if they don’t agree with a claim. We’ve seen this over and over with Middle Eastern conflicts, religions and welfare and forms of migration amongst other topics. 

I guess I've just seen enough dancing around the human cost of viewpoints and decisions on certain topics and would prefer some basic honesty of purpose. 

 

Edit: and another thing on worldviews? Good and bad is what people do, not what they are.

Edited 1 December 2025 by leicsmac

[danny.]

11 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

I hear kitchen utensils remarking about each other

 

Nah that’s just your own personal bias against me Trav