General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

Shall we have a handful of good news stories that nobody in the media is talking about? Not as big as wars etc, but sometimes small things at least show what matters to those in charge:

 

- the government has set up a £10m fund to support families with the cost of travel to and from the 13 specialist child cancer treatment centres across the UK 

 

- GB energy has already installed solar panels on 100 schools, with another 150 expected by the summer, saving approximately £220m from the combined energy bills of those schools over the lifetime of the panels. 

 

- rail fares have been frozen for the first time since the 1990s.

 

- junk food adverts banned before 9pm

 

- 2025 showed a 10 year high in household solar panel installation. We even had a  species previously considered locally extinct return to the UK! 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Shall we have a handful of good news stories that nobody in the media is talking about? Not as big as wars etc, but sometimes small things at least show what matters to those in charge:

 

- the government has set up a £10m fund to support families with the cost of travel to and from the 13 specialist child cancer treatment centres across the UK 

 

- GB energy has already installed solar panels on 100 schools, with another 150 expected by the summer, saving approximately £220m from the combined energy bills of those schools over the lifetime of the panels. 

 

- rail fares have been frozen for the first time since the 1990s.

 

- junk food adverts banned before 9pm

 

- 2025 showed a 10 year high in household solar panel installation. We even had a  species previously considered locally extinct return to the UK! 

 

 

I am really glad that the UK continues to lean so much into wind and solar renewable energy infrastructure. 

 

The next election is so important if it is going to keep doing so, for the sake of all of us. 

[CornwallFox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I am really glad that the UK continues to lean so much into wind and solar renewable energy infrastructure. 

 

The next election is so important if it is going to keep doing so, for the sake of all of us. 

For labour to stand a chance they need to get cost of living under control. That doesn't just mean reduce inflation - it means increasing wages so cost of living starts to fall back again. Otherwise, all of us on the left are going to take to start making choices re lib Dems, greens maybe on a local level. Suspect strategic voting patterns will be quite important next time around. 

[Spudulike]

PMQ's; what is the actual point? As a voter I'd like to hear the answer to the leader of the oppositions questions. Starmer's performance is shocking and doesn't serve us. I don't ever remember another PM this bad. Not surprising that people no longer want to vote.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

PMQ's; what is the actual point? As a voter I'd like to hear the answer to the leader of the oppositions questions. Starmer's performance is shocking and doesn't serve us. I don't ever remember another PM this bad. Not surprising that people no longer want to vote.

Considering Liz Truss is a reasonably recent memory...

 

Edit: considering the current ME business is the hot button issue, Starmer has every right to question Badenoch in turn about her own highly questionable stance towards it. 

Edited 18 March by leicsmac

[MPH]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right, and those protests and rallies (as opposed to the more violent direct action) would be justified, yes?

 

I'm making this point because I'm pretty sure preventing terror attacks is not the only or even anywhere near the biggest reason to get involved with this piece of Trump-driven bloodthirsty foolhardiness. 

Peaceful ones yes, unfortunately innocent people’s property often gets brought into it and damaged these days. Some people. Don’t  seem to know the difference between protesting / rallying and rioting and I’ll never agree that damaging and destroying innocent peoples personal property would be acceptable under any circumstance.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

Peaceful ones yes, unfortunately innocent people’s property often gets brought into it and damaged these days. Some people. Don’t  seem to know the difference between protesting / rallying and rioting and I’ll never agree that damaging and destroying innocent peoples personal property would be acceptable under any circumstance.

.... which does a magnificent job of distracting from the issue itself which should be the priority focus first, last, always. 

 

But then considering this whole sorry affair is itself a distraction from Epstein, using distraction in that way tallies.

[filthyfox]

On 16/03/2026 at 16:35, Tommy G said:

At least this thread made it to over 500+ pages this time before being locked. 

It nearly didnt...  i shut up about my personal opinions regarding persons from other regimens of different religions. I should imagine if people actually spoke their minds, it would be a different matter entirely!

[Tommy G]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Considering Liz Truss is a reasonably recent memory...

 

Edit: considering the current ME business is the hot button issue, Starmer has every right to question Badenoch in turn about her own highly questionable stance towards it. 

Thankfully she was ousted pretty promptly, unfortunately this one is hanging around like a bad smell and is just massively unpopular, even within his own party and wider voters.

[Spudulike]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Considering Liz Truss is a reasonably recent memory...

 

Edit: considering the current ME business is the hot button issue, Starmer has every right to question Badenoch in turn about her own highly questionable stance towards it. 

I don't recall Liz Truss blatently avoiding questions anywhere close to these levels. The leader of the opposition asks the questions, the PM answers. The PM has a duty to the public to answer questions and his failure to do so leaves him wide open to various accusations. We are not being served by this PM.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Thankfully she was ousted pretty promptly, unfortunately this one is hanging around like a bad smell and is just massively unpopular, even within his own party and wider voters.

No argument regarding the popularity matter, just goes to show how perception can surpass fact.

 

Starmer is far from anywhere close to the best option, but thanks to Burnham getting railroaded it's also empirically true that there's no better option among those realistically in line for the job right now. 

 

9 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I don't recall Liz Truss blatently avoiding questions anywhere close to these levels. The leader of the opposition asks the questions, the PM answers. The PM has a duty to the public to answer questions and his failure to do so leaves him wide open to various accusations. We are not being served by this PM.

Then once again I have to question a memory that appears rather selective here. 

 

In any case, as if PMQs is suddenly a key barometer of the success or failure of a PM anyway (since July 2024, apparently). 

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No argument regarding the popularity matter, just goes to show how perception can surpass fact.

 

Starmer is far from anywhere close to the best option, but thanks to Burnham getting railroaded it's also empirically true that there's no better option among those realistically in line for the job right now. 

 

Then once again I have to question a memory that appears rather selective here. 

 

In any case, as if PMQs is suddenly a key barometer of the success or failure of a PM anyway (since July 2024, apparently). 

It's not success and failure though is it, it's a key moment in the week where our leader has the opportunity to answer questions, as per his duty as PM, and provide the country and markets with confidence he knows what he is doing - and that there lies the issue. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

It's not success and failure though is it, it's a key moment in the week where our leader has the opportunity to answer questions, as per his duty as PM, and provide the country and markets with confidence he knows what he is doing - and that there lies the issue. 

Something that apparently wasn't an issue with his predecessors, then?

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the legitimacy of the argument - I just think it's rather one sided. Which is fair enough, such are the times we live in. 

[Jon the Hat]

I do think Starmer is a decent guy, with the right moral compass, I just don't think he is a good enough politician to lead the country.  Not enough ideas, whether or not I agree with them, not enough authority or influence to bring people with him.  Sadly we seem to have far too few who do these days.  Our political party selection systems weed out anyone interesting I think, its just too hard.  Much easier for those with the ideas to be an adviser or lead a think tank, get paid a lot more and be in the background.  That only gets the ideas so far though.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do think Starmer is a decent guy, with the right moral compass, I just don't think he is a good enough politician to lead the country.  Not enough ideas, whether or not I agree with them, not enough authority or influence to bring people with him.  Sadly we seem to have far too few who do these days.  Our political party selection systems weed out anyone interesting I think, its just too hard.  Much easier for those with the ideas to be an adviser or lead a think tank, get paid a lot more and be in the background.  That only gets the ideas so far though.

It also seems to be an issue with other places, but not all. Carney is a notable exception, though he has Trump being his usual shitbag self mostly to thank for winning his post. 

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It also seems to be an issue with other places, but not all. Carney is a notable exception, though he has Trump being his usual shitbag self mostly to thank for winning his post. 

Yes true, I think the Finnish president Alex Stubb is pretty impressive as well, he was their PM a few years ago and I read some articles he wrote and started following him.  I also know a few senior colleagues who know him quite well, Finland being quite a small place.

[Tommy G]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Something that apparently wasn't an issue with his predecessors, then?

 

Don't get me wrong, I get the legitimacy of the argument - I just think it's rather one sided. Which is fair enough, such are the times we live in. 

Happy for you to quote me when I've said that, because I haven't. 

 

A simple world example would be ''A blue car has driven down the road.....well yes it has, but a red one has also driven down the road'' I mean, what has it got to do with it?

[foxes1988]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

PMQ's; what is the actual point? As a voter I'd like to hear the answer to the leader of the oppositions questions. Starmer's performance is shocking and doesn't serve us. I don't ever remember another PM this bad. Not surprising that people no longer want to vote.

Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are both far worse then Starmer. What in particular makes you think he's our worst PM?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommy G said:

Happy for you to quote me when I've said that, because I haven't. 

 

A simple world example would be ''A blue car has driven down the road.....well yes it has, but a red one has also driven down the road'' I mean, what has it got to do with it?

Apologies, but the inference by omission was obvious. 

 

All of these things are relative and none exist in a vacuum. 

 

But again, for what it's worth I don't think much of Starmer, but like Jon above intimated I do think he's the best of an extraordinarily poor bunch of candidates at this point in time, until really compelling evidence is shown otherwise. 

[Spudulike]

37 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are both far worse then Starmer. What in particular makes you think he's our worst PM?

Did you watch today's PMQ's? Or last week? Or most others? Proper laugh out loud nonsense.

[davieG]

Why aren't Trumps Board of Peace countries helping him out.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do think Starmer is a decent guy, with the right moral compass, I just don't think he is a good enough politician to lead the country.  Not enough ideas, whether or not I agree with them, not enough authority or influence to bring people with him.  Sadly we seem to have far too few who do these days.  Our political party selection systems weed out anyone interesting I think, its just too hard.  Much easier for those with the ideas to be an adviser or lead a think tank, get paid a lot more and be in the background.  That only gets the ideas so far though.

 

people used to say that love covers a multitude of sins. So does standing up to trump.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

Did you watch today's PMQ's? Or last week? Or most others? Proper laugh out loud nonsense.

I hate Starmer but Boris Johnson’s PMQ’s answers week after week were an utter farce. Lie after lie. Starmer’s biggest issue as others have noted is that he believes in nothing. Which means he lacks any conviction on absolutely anything. 

Edited 18 March by Lionator

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

I don't recall Liz Truss blatently avoiding questions anywhere close to these levels. The leader of the opposition asks the questions, the PM answers. The PM has a duty to the public to answer questions and his failure to do so leaves him wide open to various accusations. We are not being served by this PM.

Have you only just started watching PMQs? It's been years since any leader answered actual questions - probably Cameron was the last and even then I'm not sure. 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I do think Starmer is a decent guy, with the right moral compass, I just don't think he is a good enough politician to lead the country.  Not enough ideas, whether or not I agree with them, not enough authority or influence to bring people with him.  Sadly we seem to have far too few who do these days.  Our political party selection systems weed out anyone interesting I think, its just too hard.  Much easier for those with the ideas to be an adviser or lead a think tank, get paid a lot more and be in the background.  That only gets the ideas so far though.

Not sure I entirely agree. 

 

Starmar I maybe do agree about - he certainly doesn't seem to have any real narrative to his thinking, he certainly can't convey any grand idea for the country, which is a shame for me as I felt like he was what we needed. I think he is earnest, honest, actually it's doing some good stuff hidden from view, but he's not been able to communicate effectively with the country. 

 

Maybe where I disagree a bit is that, if you look at the polls, Farage and Zack Polanski are both proving much better communicators, while not being grey middle of the road and boring. It may be my left wing bias but I think Zack has a broader, more coherent vision, whereas Farage relies on blaming foreigners for basically everything, and his sole idea in life seems to be reducing tax and regulation on the rich and business, but it's not really a coherent structured belief system in quite the same way. Either way though, they are both pulling in people into their competing visions in a way starmar hasn't. Boris also reached PM by being a personality. I tend to think personality is actually playing too big a part in the success of individuals these days. 

Edited 18 March by CornwallFox