General News Thread

[The Doctor]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

One thing that the current UK government does have on its side is time. 

 

Edit: from a political power point of view, anyway. 

yea, but they're gonna use that time to just make things worse. Constantly turning a dial that says "right wing populism" and looking over to the press barons and farage for approval. Like, when labour are bringing back aspects of section 28 (not even joking, their RHSE guidance the other day contains provisions (clause 72) which mimic the language of section 28) and trying to balance the books on the backs of disabled people, how much worse can Reform be really?

[Super_horns]

33 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Doesn't say what the breaches were?

For going against his plans to demonise the disabled basically by saying they can all work so get on with it .

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

yea, but they're gonna use that time to just make things worse. Constantly turning a dial that says "right wing populism" and looking over to the press barons and farage for approval. Like, when labour are bringing back aspects of section 28 (not even joking, their RHSE guidance the other day contains provisions (clause 72) which mimic the language of section 28) and trying to balance the books on the backs of disabled people, how much worse can Reform be really?

The broad strokes here being pertinent, you know enough about science and general science policy to know how much worse it can get. Probably more so than me. 

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I'm intrigued and excited by Trump's new strategy for dealing with the Epstein Files issue which is basically: why are you making such a fuss you twats

You can guarantee 100% he was there. 

[The Doctor]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The broad strokes here being pertinent, you know enough about science and general science policy to know how much worse it can get. Probably more so than me. 

I mean, we can get worse from where we are currently but the issue is that that very much appears to be labours strategy as well. You can take the optimistic view and suggest they're just on this path to appease the felon in chief and might change tact in 2028 if America pulls itself out of the death spiral it is in, but thats a degree of optimism I'd class as naivete. Would our current trajectory be significantly different under reform as it is under a man who quotes Enoch Powell in a professional capacity? I'm not convinced that it's anything more than retying the laces of the boot as it kicks your teeth in.

[Tommy G]

44 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

yea, but they're gonna use that time to just make things worse. Constantly turning a dial that says "right wing populism" and looking over to the press barons and farage for approval. Like, when labour are bringing back aspects of section 28 (not even joking, their RHSE guidance the other day contains provisions (clause 72) which mimic the language of section 28) and trying to balance the books on the backs of disabled people, how much worse can Reform be really?

People voted thinking it would be like the Blair and Gordon Brown days (apart from Iraq and bankrupting the country) seem completely competent compared to this rabble. 

We are going down a very dark path. 

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

People voted thinking it would be like the Blair and Gordon Brown days (apart from Iraq and bankrupting the country) seem completely competent compared to this rabble. 

We are going down a very dark path. 

honestly I don't think people even voted with that in mind, it was basically just people being fed up with Tory sleeze (this is why Labour won a massive majority with fewer absolute votes than they got in the disaster of 2019, and without making huge gains in vote share - the Tories collapsed and labour essentially won by default)

 

Problem is, labour appear to have taken the message that the problem with the Tories was that they weren't competently destroying everything, and so campaigned on change but haven't really changed anything for the positive (if we're being honest, that was obviously going to be the case, hence why Streeting nearly got portillo'd and was basically saved by a lack of a deal between an Indy and the greens, and why Starmers majority was cut nearly in half). And when you do that, people who wanted change go for something else - and we're stuck with reform on course for a majority of their own while labour join the Tories in the dustbin, Zarah Sultana and Corbyn argue over whether he should be part of her new project, the lib dems continue to be the lib dems. The only real hope I've got is that between Ramsey/Chown wanting to go back to being the political wing of Greenpeace, and Polanski's left wing populism, the green membership makes the right choice, and the centre/left rally around them instead.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I mean, we can get worse from where we are currently but the issue is that that very much appears to be labours strategy as well. You can take the optimistic view and suggest they're just on this path to appease the felon in chief and might change tact in 2028 if America pulls itself out of the death spiral it is in, but thats a degree of optimism I'd class as naivete. Would our current trajectory be significantly different under reform as it is under a man who quotes Enoch Powell in a professional capacity? I'm not convinced that it's anything more than retying the laces of the boot as it kicks your teeth in.

Their general scientific policy decisions says yes, it would. 

 

I mean, yes, the current government are hardly endearing themselves towards themost vulnerable with their choices, but what they are not doing is not looking to choose a course of action that will see the world burn because they think they alone deserve to be king of the ashes. 

 

16 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

People voted thinking it would be like the Blair and Gordon Brown days (apart from Iraq and bankrupting the country) seem completely competent compared to this rabble. 

We are going down a very dark path. 

We have been going down the same dark path for the last decade or more, and we're still on it now. 

 

People just didn't want to see it, for their own reasons.

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Their general scientific policy decisions says yes, it would. 

 

I mean, yes, the current government are hardly endearing themselves towards themost vulnerable with their choices, but what they are not doing is not looking to choose a course of action that will see the world burn because they think they alone deserve to be king of the ashes. 

 

We have been going down the same dark path for the last decade or more, and we're still on it now. 

 

People just didn't want to see it, for their own reasons.

I'd argue their active embrace of fascism is in fact a course that burns the world down so they can be king of the ashes. You can argue literally as well as figuratively with climate change but frankly Labour aren't going to take the decisive action needed at this point to fix that, and frankly as one of the minorities who's right are being eradicated by this labour government, I have no inclination to give them any benefit of the doubt on anything 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

I'd argue their active embrace of fascism is in fact a course that burns the world down so they can be king of the ashes. You can argue literally as well as figuratively with climate change but frankly Labour aren't going to take the decisive action needed at this point to fix that, and frankly as one of the minorities who's right are being eradicated by this labour government, I have no inclination to give them any benefit of the doubt on anything 

If imminent resource scarcity issues aren't addressed then that fascism will arrive with it, both inevitably and devastatingly absolutely. You know that at least as well as I do.

 

Of course though I can see why you would have little faith in this particular government to address that problem (and seemingly even less to safeguard the rights of vulnerable people), but I'm struggling to see what kind of changes would help with both of those things beyond the drastic revolution-type which I myself have little faith in happening in enough places and even less in it happening in the way needed to work.

 

Edit: I do hope that some smart bugger can figure out a workable way forward though. The stakes are pretty high.

Edited 16 July 2025 by leicsmac

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If imminent resource scarcity issues aren't addressed then that fascism will arrive with it, both inevitably and devastatingly absolutely. You know that at least as well as I do.

 

Of course though I can see why you would have little faith in this particular government to address that problem (and seemingly even less to safeguard the rights of vulnerable people), but I'm struggling to see what kind of changes would help with both of those things beyond the drastic revolution-type which I myself have little faith in happening in enough places and even less in it happening in the way needed to work.

 

Edit: I do hope that some smart bugger can figure out a workable way forward though. The stakes are pretty high.

see where I disagree is the idea that fascism will arrive soon. 1 year ago we had race riots on the streets and attempted pogroms. The government response was to say that they had a point but should make it in a different way. They've then spent the last year treating every single ridiculous myth that the race rioters got riled up about as absolute fact, and have treated people vandalising military equipment with harder action than they did those who carried out what can be fairly described as a series of coordinated terrorist attacks (like it was definitely the use of violence and violent threats to advance a political agenda and intimidate the public). Fascism won't arrive soon, because it's already here.

Edited 16 July 2025 by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

see where I disagree is the idea that fascism will arrive soon. 1 year ago we had race riots on the streets and attempted pogroms. The government response was to say that they had a point but should make it in a different way. They've then spent the last year treating every single ridiculous myth that the race rioters got riled up about as absolute fact, and have treated people vandalising military equipment with harder action than they did those who carried out what can be fairly described as a series of coordinated terrorist attacks (like it was definitely the use of violence and violent threats to advance a political agenda and intimidate the public). Fascism won't arrive soon, because it's already here.

Quite frankly, I'm not going to argue with you about that (because quite frankly I don't feel capable of advocating for any one viewpoint with certainty)  and just repeat my previous regarding the smart bugger and a solution, because if you're right the need is more urgent than many people know. 

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

For going against his plans to demonise the disabled basically by saying they can all work so get on with it .

Is he taking lessons from Top on how to be a great leader?

 

Like Top, keep the shit close, like Rudkin or Reeves amd get rid of anyone that disagrees with him.  What a cooont.

 

 

[Parafox]

From Newsnight tonight, a new term for fools...

 

Knobheadery.  

 

As in being guilty of knobheadery 

 

Let's take it up and use it

Edited 16 July 2025 by Parafox

[Parafox]

What are the general views of the use of political party whips?

 

It bothers me that MP's aren't always allowed to vote with their conscience or in support of their constituents, but they are "whipped" into line. How is it right?

 

It feels like any opposing voices will be shut down. How is that democracy ?

Edited 16 July 2025 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Parafox said:

What are the general views of the use of political party whips?

 

It bothers me that MP's aren't always allowed to vote with their conscience or in support of their constituents, but they are "whipped" into line. How is it right?

 

It feels like any opposing voices will be shut down. How is that democracy ?

It's a tricky one.

 

Having every representative be independent would be the ideal course in principle (because consensus is always better than coercion), but in practice it would mean arriving at a consensus to make a policy decision would take much longer, or in some cases wouldn't happen at all. Whether that's acceptable is clearly down to the beholder.

 

It's not a new problem, either - Plato went on about it in Ancient Greece. (He didn't really have a good solution, either.)

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Parafox said:

What are the general views of the use of political party whips?

 

It bothers me that MP's aren't always allowed to vote with their conscience or in support of their constituents, but they are "whipped" into line. How is it right?

 

It feels like any opposing voices will be shut down. How is that democracy ?

The MP stood for election as a representative of that party, not an independent 

If they want to be independent in parliament then they should stand for election as an independent. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The MP stood for election as a representative of that party, not an independent 

If they want to be independent in parliament then they should stand for election as an independent. 

Sometimes the general mood of their constituents isn't in line with party policy and they represent their constituents?

[Tommy G]

23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The MP stood for election as a representative of that party, not an independent 

If they want to be independent in parliament then they should stand for election as an independent. 

….or they adopted a social conscience when the party decided to put the lives of disabled people in jeopardy, after doing the same to OAPs a few months earlier and put that ahead of anything else. 

[leicsmac]

As an aside, I bet you don't see many discourses about the theory and practice of democracy like this on other football forums. 

 

We do have some great thinkers here. 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As an aside, I bet you don't see many discourses about the theory and practice of democracy like this on other football forums. 

 

We do have some great thinkers here. 

I've never met him, but I bet Corbyn smells really musty. Like an old wardrobe.

[Bellend Sebastian]

He's not said it for months but during a bit on the news about the rebel Labour MPs losing the whip, my father-in-law muttered the immortal words 'bring back Boris'.

 

I'm not sure how that would work and I'm confident he doesn't know either, but this sort of blue sky thinking is perhaps what is needed

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

He's not said it for months but during a bit on the news about the rebel Labour MPs losing the whip, my father-in-law muttered the immortal words 'bring back Boris'.

 

I'm not sure how that would work and I'm confident he doesn't know either, but this sort of blue sky thinking is perhaps what is needed

Boris would happily lead the labour party. His political leanings are fluid enough.

[Tommy G]

HMRC payrolls down another 41,000 in June  - that’s an 8 month on-the-trot decline since the budget. 

[kenny]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

HMRC payrolls down another 41,000 in June  - that’s an 8 month on-the-trot decline since the budget. 

As I said yesterday, it has a 2006 feel out there at present. 

 

At least the current government talks confidently about a crashed economy by mentioning it at every PMQs. The way we are heading, they will be able to talk first hand about a crashed economy rather than just spouting about Truss's mess from 2022.