General News Thread

[foxes1988]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

Pay grows at slowest rate in more than five years

 

Pay has grown at its slowest rate in more than five years, according to the latest official figures.

Earnings - excluding bonuses - grew at an annual rate of 3.8% in the November to January period, down from the previous figure of 4.2%.

The unemployment rate remained unchanged at a near five-year high of 5.2%, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, but there was a rise in the number of workers on payrolls last month.

The ONS figures come ahead of the latest decision on interest rates from the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), which is expected to keep the cost of borrowing unchanged.

Despite the slowdown in pay growth, wages were still rising faster than the rate of price increases. Inflation fell to 3% in January, although the outbreak of the US-Israeli war with Iran has led many analysts to expect the rate to pick up in the months ahead.

 

more here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0z0x82r00o

It's rare that we've had wage growth above inflation much in recent times.  We desperately need it a bit more often if we are going to recover some of the disposable income lost over the last 16 years.

 

Thanks to Israel and USA though can't see this continuing. Fuel and food inflation again wonderful.

[Clogger_]

2 hours ago, LanguedocFox said:

Wilson told Lyndon Johnson repeatedly that the UK would not send military support to help the Americans in Vietnam, even when Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand joined in. And that was in the days when we still had a substantial military presence. 

Yes, a wise decision 

[leicsmac]

Hegseth is such an unconscionable and egotistical piece of excrement.

 

Using the line Vance used to Zelenskyy to refer to the whole world now. 

[davieG]

[danny.]

A second referendum doesn’t seem like a horrible idea. I reckon rejoin would win this time. 

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, danny. said:

A second referendum doesn’t seem like a horrible idea. I reckon rejoin would win this time. 

 

hmm… labor struggling in the polls a little bit recent and reform gaining.   This might not be the right time.  Could backfire. Risky move.

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

hmm… labor struggling in the polls a little bit recent and reform gaining.   This might not be the right time.  Could backfire. Risky move.

Thought Reform were going down in the polls? They’ve killed themselves off imho by becoming Tories 2.0. Labour need to take a risk to give themselves a shot at staying in government because I can’t see that happening atm without some noted improvement in people’s lives. 

[Sampson]

11 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

hmm… labor struggling in the polls a little bit recent and reform gaining.   This might not be the right time.  Could backfire. Risky move.

Labour are struggling because they lost all their voters to Greens and LibDems who are pro-EU parties not Reform. I’d say they’d personally win way more votes back from the pro-EU parties than lose to Reform and Labour aren’t going to win the next election if they don’t pull out big risks with big narratives like this anyway, I’d say things like this are exactly what Labour need to do in these times. Plus rejoin the EU has been about 15-20% ahead of stay out in the polls for years now. 
 

Regardless of rejoining the EU proper, it’s most of the public when polled think that Boris’ hard Brexit has been shit for the country and the world and Europe is a very different place than it was a decade ago - I hear Brits use “Europe” to refer to ourselves and the rest of the continent about 100x more since Putin invaded Ukraine - and rejoining the single market and transitioning to a soft Brexit would be popular according to polls.

Edited 19 March by Sampson

[bmt]

17 hours ago, danny. said:

The whole guy is a scam so I assume his new identity is too. 

Why is mentioning his hypnotic boobs silly? Says a lot about the man. 
 

I think their policies are infantile and not linked to reality. They come up with fantasy sound bites that sound amazing but will never happen, a luxury afforded to a party that will never be in power so can promise free money and “hope” to people. It’s the Disney version of politics based on gullible supporters and flat out lies when it comes to economics. 
 

Legalising all drugs is insane, as is wanting to abolish private landlords. And their love in with Islam is extremely dangerous, even if their own members have to jump through hoops of cognitive dissonance to justify the contradiction. 
 

I didn’t mention Farage or Badenoch. 

I wrote a long post in response to this that hasn't been approved. I see others have liked your post which is interesting. Ignoring the boobs part as it is a non story - consider that our last respected PM inserted his genitals into a dead pig's mouth. 

 

Green Party supporter so wanted to come back on a couple of points from my original post (I've kept the language friendlier):

• 'Flat out lies when it comes to economics' - our economic policy has been based on empirically and academically disputed economics for as long as I can remember. Austerity, self-imposed fiscal rules, etc are all prefaced on untruths. Increased spending in difficult times (i.e. now) is probably now the pervasive view among academic economists, and has had support from revered economists such as Keynes for 90 years. In fact, the government multiplier effect (where government spending leads to a relatively higher impact in economic activity) has been proven empirically to be greater than even left wing economists thought. The issue is whether or not we would be allowed to borrow to fund it, as it goes against the institutionally accepted view. 
• 'Legalising all drugs' has to be seen within the context that despite headline drug abuse numbers coming slowly down, there is still a major drug issue (cocaine as most obvious example) which is a public health issue and also an issue for our prisons, which have been in a capacity crisis for the last few years, when treated as a crime. The easy decriminalisation example is Portugal, which despite some recent issues has still led to long term benefits on the two issues I have highlighted since inception. Moving the phrasing to legalising is interesting, and the point is that some level of controlled access could be possible to certain less-dangerous drugs and that addicts of some of the bigger hitters may be provided during their treatment. I'd even argue that this isn't that much of a departure from The Thistle in Glasgow, which is something that is already being tested. Moving from a criminal issue to a public health one makes sense imo.
• I don't know enough about private landlords to add much to the debate there, but I do know as a resident of London that it is currently exploitative and unaffordable here.
• On Islam, where specifically does the Green Party give Islam preferential treatment, or suggest legal exemptions for Islam over other religions? From what I can see, the issue is that the Green Party have decided to engage with a disengaged population on local issues within that context, and that the Green Party (as policy) disagree with the somewhat questionable approach of the state of Israel, which has been conflated into a 'love in' with Islam, in your words. Happy to hear more on how you think that is a realistic issue on a national scale.

 

A more general point. IMO the "Greens are insane/dangerous/infantile/gullible" narrative which voters of more right wing parties are currently using plays directly into our hands; you only need to look back to Brexit to see that people being described as dumb/stupid/uneducated further ingrains their belief, and making out that a party who many now see as a legitimate alternative is the home of 'insane' people is the same approach. People claiming they are superior because the other side is stupid breeds contempt. 

Edited 19 March by bmt

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, bmt said:

I wrote a long post in response to this that hasn't been approved. I see others have liked your post which is interesting. Ignoring the boobs part as it is a non story - consider that our last respected PM inserted his genitals into a dead pig's mouth. 

 

Green Party supporter so wanted to come back on a couple of points from my original post (I've kept the language friendlier):

• 'Flat out lies when it comes to economics' - our economic policy has been based on empirically and academically disputed economics for as long as I can remember. Austerity, self-imposed fiscal rules, etc are all prefaced on untruths. Increased spending in difficult times (i.e. now) is probably now the pervasive view among academic economists, and has had support from revered economists such as Keynes for 90 years. In fact, the government multiplier effect (where government spending leads to a relatively higher impact in economic activity) has been proven empirically to be greater than even left wing economists thought. The issue is whether or not we would be allowed to borrow to fund it, as it goes against the institutionally accepted view. 
• 'Legalising all drugs' has to be seen within the context that despite headline drug abuse numbers coming slowly down, there is still a major drug issue (cocaine as most obvious example) which is a public health issue and also an issue for our prisons, which have been in a capacity crisis for the last few years, when treated as a crime. The easy decriminalisation example is Portugal, which despite some recent issues has still led to long term benefits on the two issues I have highlighted since inception. Moving the phrasing to legalising is interesting, and the point is that some level of controlled access could be possible to certain less-dangerous drugs and that addicts of some of the bigger hitters may be provided during their treatment. I'd even argue that this isn't that much of a departure from The Thistle in Glasgow, which is something that is already being tested. Moving from a criminal issue to a public health one makes sense imo.
• I don't know enough about private landlords to add much to the debate there, but I do know as a resident of London that it is currently exploitative and unaffordable here.
• On Islam, where specifically does the Green Party give Islam preferential treatment, or suggest legal exemptions for Islam over other religions? From what I can see, the issue is that the Green Party have decided to engage with a disenfranchised population on local issues within that context, and that the Green Party (as policy) disagree with the somewhat questionable approach of the state of Israel, which has been conflated into a 'love in', in your words. Happy to hear more on how you think that is a realistic issue on a national scale.

A more general point. IMO the "Greens are insane/dangerous/infantile/gullible" narrative which voters of more right wing parties are currently using plays directly into our hands; you only need to look back to Brexit to see that people being described as dumb/stupid/uneducated further ingrains their belief, and making out that a party who many now see as a legitimate alternative is the home of 'insane' people is the same approach. People claiming they are superior because the other side is stupid breeds contempt. 

Also, we aren't in an election cycle and what Zack Polanski says is not necessarily official Green Party policy, so I've drawn my understanding from policies in the last manifesto, and a bit of more recent events (i.e. Gorton and Denton) and what senior members of the party have said. I'm sure a lot of policies will be ironed out before the GE, particularly with the surge in green party membership from people you would expect to be less 'radical'.

Edited 19 March by bmt

[kenny]

47 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Labour are struggling because they lost all their voters to Greens and LibDems who are pro-EU parties not Reform. I’d say they’d personally win way more votes back from the pro-EU parties than lose to Reform and Labour aren’t going to win the next election if they don’t pull out big risks with big narratives like this anyway, I’d say things like this are exactly what Labour need to do in these times. Plus rejoin the EU has been about 15-20% ahead of stay out in the polls for years now. 
 

Regardless of rejoining the EU proper, it’s most of the public when polled think that Boris’ hard Brexit has been shit for the country and the world and Europe is a very different place than it was a decade ago - I hear Brits use “Europe” to refer to ourselves and the rest of the continent about 100x more since Putin invaded Ukraine - and rejoining the single market and transitioning to a soft Brexit would be popular according to polls.

It's almost as though the Brexit vote wasn't properly honoured and we have remained geographically we we are isn't it? 

 

I would have gone for Britannia Major as our new continent name after the leave vote.

[bmt]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

This is good to see. A lot of people have avoided this as a topic as they think we have burned bridges with the EU. The EU would love the UK to rejoin, not only are we a major player economically but it would really help their stronger together narrative if a country who had left wanted to rejoin, and would be an example to others.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Labour are struggling because they lost all their voters to Greens and LibDems who are pro-EU parties not Reform. I’d say they’d personally win way more votes back from the pro-EU parties than lose to Reform and Labour aren’t going to win the next election if they don’t pull out big risks with big narratives like this anyway, I’d say things like this are exactly what Labour need to do in these times. Plus rejoin the EU has been about 15-20% ahead of stay out in the polls for years now. 
 

Regardless of rejoining the EU proper, it’s most of the public when polled think that Boris’ hard Brexit has been shit for the country and the world and Europe is a very different place than it was a decade ago - I hear Brits use “Europe” to refer to ourselves and the rest of the continent about 100x more since Putin invaded Ukraine - and rejoining the single market and transitioning to a soft Brexit would be popular according to polls.

 

Possibly a bit naive of you to look at it so simply.

 

it’s not like the brexiteers used a whole lot of honest campaigning to secure brexit previously so I wouldn’t expect a whole lot of honest campaigning should it come round again.

[MaidstoneFox]

1 hour ago, danny. said:

Thought Reform were going down in the polls? They’ve killed themselves off imho by becoming Tories 2.0. Labour need to take a risk to give themselves a shot at staying in government because I can’t see that happening atm without some noted improvement in people’s lives. 

I agree, but Starmer hasn't got the political instincts and only takes a stance once he's waded through all the evidence in his lawyer-like approach. A different leader like Raynor or Burnham would show more initiative and seize opportunities.

[Sampson]

19 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

Possibly a bit naive of you to look at it so simply.

 

it’s not like the brexiteers used a whole lot of honest campaigning to secure brexit previously so I wouldn’t expect a whole lot of honest campaigning should it come round again.

But they did that because they could offer what they like, because no one knew what being outside the eu looked like, we got the full on hard Brexit. The difference is people have seen it with their own eyes. Secondly the vote was extremely divided by age, 10 years have passed. I doubt all those under 55 now are suddenly going to change their mind enough for a 23 point swing. For the record, the last you gov poll last month was:

 

Rejoin EU 52%
Stay out 29%
Undecided 19%

 

Thirdly, Labour aren’t going to win the election as it stands. It’s big plays like this which will help them. I don’t really get the opposition to it, polls show it’s popular with voters, especially 2024 Labour voters who’ve changed to Greens and LibDems. Electorally I don’t see how it can get any worse for Labour right now, so I don’t get why it’s naive at all. 

[MPH]

Just now, Sampson said:

But they did that because they could offer what they like, because no one knew what being outside the eu looked like, we got the full on hard Brexit. The difference is people have seen it with their own eyes. Secondly the vote was extremely divided by age, 10 years have passed. I doubt all those under 55 now are suddenly going to change their mind enough for a 23 point swing. For the record, the last you gov poll last month was:

 

Rejoin EU 52%
Stay out 29%
Undecided 19%

 

Thirdly, Labour aren’t going to win the election as it stands. It’s big plays like this which will help them. I don’t really get the opposition to it, polls show it’s popular with voters, especially 2024 Labour voters who’ve changed to Greens and LibDems. Electorally I don’t see how it can get any worse for Labour right now, so I don’t get why it’s naive at all. 

we’ll get all  the scare stories and right wing propagandists getting airtime just like before. All the misinformation about how much the NHS would lose  and how must it would cost us and keep Britain British, etc.

 

 

i just think that if Labour want to get elected they need to keep quiet on it for a bit… the Green Party, no matter how much they would support another referendum, are not going to encourage their supporters to vote anything other than green  so unless labour can claw back some of their or even Lib Dem  votes, then it’s not going to happen. Green will quite rightly bring other policies than just  brexit into the equation.  
 

Labour’s one hope appears to be that the right wing vote now also appears to be split 3 ways between the tories, reform and a new party  called ‘ Restore Britain’ . Already has more members than the tories and is backed by Elon Musk. They’ve grown very rapidly and  make  reform look moderate in comparison. Watch out for them.  They could be dangerous.

[filthyfox]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

hmm… labor struggling in the polls a little bit recent and reform gaining.   This might not be the right time.  Could backfire. Risky move.

Labour sat on the fence all the way through Brexit.

Imagine if Corbyn had stated clear and obviously that Labour would cancel Brexit in the Bojo election.

THAT may well have changed history.

Edited 19 March by filthyfox

[danny.]

1 hour ago, bmt said:

I wrote a long post in response to this that hasn't been approved. I see others have liked your post which is interesting. Ignoring the boobs part as it is a non story - consider that our last respected PM inserted his genitals into a dead pig's mouth. 

 

Green Party supporter so wanted to come back on a couple of points from my original post (I've kept the language friendlier):

• 'Flat out lies when it comes to economics' - our economic policy has been based on empirically and academically disputed economics for as long as I can remember. Austerity, self-imposed fiscal rules, etc are all prefaced on untruths. Increased spending in difficult times (i.e. now) is probably now the pervasive view among academic economists, and has had support from revered economists such as Keynes for 90 years. In fact, the government multiplier effect (where government spending leads to a relatively higher impact in economic activity) has been proven empirically to be greater than even left wing economists thought. The issue is whether or not we would be allowed to borrow to fund it, as it goes against the institutionally accepted view. 
• 'Legalising all drugs' has to be seen within the context that despite headline drug abuse numbers coming slowly down, there is still a major drug issue (cocaine as most obvious example) which is a public health issue and also an issue for our prisons, which have been in a capacity crisis for the last few years, when treated as a crime. The easy decriminalisation example is Portugal, which despite some recent issues has still led to long term benefits on the two issues I have highlighted since inception. Moving the phrasing to legalising is interesting, and the point is that some level of controlled access could be possible to certain less-dangerous drugs and that addicts of some of the bigger hitters may be provided during their treatment. I'd even argue that this isn't that much of a departure from The Thistle in Glasgow, which is something that is already being tested. Moving from a criminal issue to a public health one makes sense imo.
• I don't know enough about private landlords to add much to the debate there, but I do know as a resident of London that it is currently exploitative and unaffordable here.
• On Islam, where specifically does the Green Party give Islam preferential treatment, or suggest legal exemptions for Islam over other religions? From what I can see, the issue is that the Green Party have decided to engage with a disengaged population on local issues within that context, and that the Green Party (as policy) disagree with the somewhat questionable approach of the state of Israel, which has been conflated into a 'love in' with Islam, in your words. Happy to hear more on how you think that is a realistic issue on a national scale.

 

A more general point. IMO the "Greens are insane/dangerous/infantile/gullible" narrative which voters of more right wing parties are currently using plays directly into our hands; you only need to look back to Brexit to see that people being described as dumb/stupid/uneducated further ingrains their belief, and making out that a party who many now see as a legitimate alternative is the home of 'insane' people is the same approach. People claiming they are superior because the other side is stupid breeds contempt. 

Thanks for the long reply, but unfortunately you lost me at scamming people via hypno-boobs being a non issue. If you're a die hard Green supporter I don't think we're going to find much common ground on the sanity of their policies. Fortunately I don't think most of the country consider them too sane either. Watch the "interview" with a trans woman asking Ali questions about his stance on LGBT to see the total farce and living contradiction that the Green/Islam alliance is, although it will likely win you a lot of seats at the next election, until they have no use for you anymore.

[Sampson]

14 minutes ago, MPH said:

we’ll get all  the scare stories and right wing propagandists getting airtime just like before. All the misinformation about how much the NHS would lose  and how must it would cost us and keep Britain British, etc.

 

 

i just think that if Labour want to get elected they need to keep quiet on it for a bit… the Green Party, no matter how much they would support another referendum, are not going to encourage their supporters to vote anything other than green  so unless labour can claw back some of their or even Lib Dem  votes, then it’s not going to happen. Green will quite rightly bring other policies than just  brexit into the equation.  
 

Labour’s one hope appears to be that the right wing vote now also appears to be split 3 ways between the tories, reform and a new party  called ‘ Restore Britain’ . Already has more members than the tories and is backed by Elon Musk. They’ve grown very rapidly and  make  reform look moderate in comparison. Watch out for them.  They could be dangerous.

I really don’t understand your argument- the Labour have lost 33%+ of their 2024 votes to Greens and LibDems, both vocal pro-eu parties with party policy to rejoin the eu - the polls have shown for 4 years an overwhelming favour of rejoining, so it’d be too risky for Labour to do, because of… Reform? A party they’ve lost about 7% of their 2024 voters and who get votes largely in only one specific demographic (men over 60) because they’ll bring out lines again which everyone knows now are false?
 

Labour have way more than “one hope” - if they actually promoted big ideas and a coherent vision there’s plenty of people who vote for them. People have no idea what the stand for, because they can’t decide their position on anything and go back and forth between growth and taxes and are ducking around the edges with tax policy at a time where the world order is rupturing bigger than any time since WW2. Big institutional ideas like that are what voters are crying out for.

[bmt]

38 minutes ago, danny. said:

Thanks for the long reply, but unfortunately you lost me at scamming people via hypno-boobs being a non issue. If you're a die hard Green supporter I don't think we're going to find much common ground on the sanity of their policies. Fortunately I don't think most of the country consider them too sane either. Watch the "interview" with a trans woman asking Ali questions about his stance on LGBT to see the total farce and living contradiction that the Green/Islam alliance is, although it will likely win you a lot of seats at the next election, until they have no use for you anymore.

Okay my point was more its a news story about a person more than a political issue. And most leaders have had bad stories about them. I am a long term green supporter but dont agree on all their policies or on all issues.

 

On the bold, Green party now second biggest party by voter intention and growing much more quickly than others, so not sure I agree.

 

Will have a look at the interview and come back on it, but I disagree with the concept that theres a Green/Islam alliance at a national level.

 

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my reply and just using sanity as your argument again.

 

 

[DJW1]

19 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

do you know much about Restore Britain? Very new Party. Make reform look like the Labour Party. They’ve gained members very quickly since forming a couple of months ago. Currently have similar membership numbers to the Conservatives party, but I don’t think that’s too difficult. The concern is that the hard right form a coalition.. especially as some estimates  are saying that reform has more members than the Labour Party.

Although when there is more than one party in a particular sector of the political spectrum standing in a constituency, the FPTP system means that they will both suffer, perhaps allowing another party to win the seat. The same may well happen with the Lab-LD-Green sector

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, davieG said:

More reliable than USA

[danny.]

10 minutes ago, bmt said:

Okay my point was more its a news story about a person more than a political issue. And most leaders have had bad stories about them. I am a long term green supporter but dont agree on all their policies or on all issues.

 

On the bold, Green party now second biggest party by voter intention and growing much more quickly than others, so not sure I agree.

 

Will have a look at the interview and come back on it, but I disagree with the concept that theres a Green/Islam alliance at a national level.

 

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my reply and just using sanity as your argument again.

You're spot on that leaders often have some dirt on them, although scamming people isn't a great look for any political leader. I'd suggest if someone has that in their past they are unfit to be a leader, let alone PM. Not that that stops us in this country and we elect all kinds of idiots wholly unsuited for leading a country (Johnson/Truss etc). I just can't take the guy seriously, not sure you would either if he was in another party.

We're so far out from an election that the polls are kind of meaningless still, for a while it looked like Reform were nailed on for 400 seats and now they look like fizzling out into something representing way less seats.

Who knows on a national level? We will have to wait and see, we only have one by-election so far in this political cycle, and there demonstratively was in Gorton and Denton.

Sorry for ignoring the rest of your message, I was out and on my phone, but I'll respond now:

- Re: economics, I took particular issue with this broadcast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxt4HCjd7VA where he claimed some people go to sleep and while they are asleep they earn more "than an entire neighbourhood earns in a year". Assume on the very low end a neighbourhood is 500 houses, and assume that only one person in each house works, and they earn £30k a year (less than the national average), that's £15m a year. If someone earns that every night they are earning ~£5.5bn a year, say they have a 10% return rate that means they have ~£55bn of assets. There isn't a single person the UK with those assets. And even if there was they wouldn't be earning money for sleeping, they would have a large business employing thousands. It's just made up nonsense to demonise billionaires. If he wanted to make a point using some real figures would have been far more convincing, but it just comes across as economically illiterate.

 

Let me also say, I HATE the idea of billionaires, it's obscene people having that money while others can't afford food or heat, obscene. But demonising them and trying to tax them even more will just result in them leaving, we know this because there are lots of examples in other countries of wealth taxes and rich people just leave, they already are leaving the UK in droves. And then people say "let them go" well, we can't afford that because they pay all the tax. Most people in the UK do not contribute - the government spends £17k/person/year, so on average anyone paying less tax than that (ie earning less than £75k/year salary) is a tax burden not contributor. If only one person in a family of 4 earns that need they need to be paying £68k/year (~£180k/year salary) in tax. Obviously I have left off things like VAT and fuel duty etc. so reduce those numbers to compensate, but the point stands. Whether we like it or not we NEED the wealthy in this country because they pay the majority of the tax.

- I don't have a massive opinion on drugs other than they ruin lives and supplying drugs to addicts is not a cheap exercise - who pays for that?

- If you have an issue paying your rent in London now, wait until everything is owned by the likes of BlackRock, are you expecting them to give you discount? There are lots of brilliant private landlords around that provide a service people need.

 

[Sly]

 

[Foxdiamond]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

 

What a wonderful diplomatic answer. What a dangerous buffoon