General News Thread

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly by marginalising, in every possible way, the movements and organisations that are using it maliciously. That's the way it was reclaimed in the late 80s/early 90's.

Sounds fair. Does that mean we should see it more outside of political displays?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Sounds fair. Does that mean we should see it more outside of political displays?

Absolutely, though people's definition of "political display" on this one may be pretty varied, sadly. 

[Foxdiamond]

Assuming John Healey is correct. How does government raise funds for increased defence spending?

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Assuming John Healey is correct. How does government raise funds for increased defence spending?

Also if he is right, how is it that the first time he has seen the defence investment plan was this week.

 

Why on earth would the treasury cook up the defence investment plan without the defence secretary being consulted.

[Foxdiamond]

5 minutes ago, kenny said:

Also if he is right, how is it that the first time he has seen the defence investment plan was this week.

 

Why on earth would the treasury cook up the defence investment plan without the defence secretary being consulted.

Very good point. Basically we surely can't afford NOT to spend more on defence 

[Blue-fox]

12 minutes ago, kenny said:

Also if he is right, how is it that the first time he has seen the defence investment plan was this week.

 

Why on earth would the treasury cook up the defence investment plan without the defence secretary being consulted.

My guess would be that they don’t want to spend money on it. And would rather spend it on net zero and welfare. 
 

 

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Assuming John Healey is correct. How does government raise funds for increased defence spending?

The UK’s working-age benefits bill was lower than for defence in the mid-1980s, but since 1990 welfare spending has been higher - often significantly so.

Working-age benefit spend is projected to rise to around 4.3% of GDP by the end of the decade, compared with the government’s , external"ambition" to hit 3% on defence in the next parliament.

 

Start here imo. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Assuming John Healey is correct. How does government raise funds for increased defence spending?

Yep. 

 

A point that needs to be made and repeated for emphasis for everyone here, is that no matter where you siphon from the budget, it will result in unnecessary suffering and harm to people who in no way deserve it. Either now or in the very near future.

 

There is no ideal solution besides doing something to increase the overall budget to be utilised, but that's hardly ideal in actually making it work. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

Does so much need spending on defence though? If anything has been learned from Ukraine and Iran, it's that drones costing thousands can take out ships and planes costing tens of millions.

[Trav Le Bleu]

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The UK’s working-age benefits bill was lower than for defence in the mid-1980s, but since 1990 welfare spending has been higher - often significantly so.

Working-age benefit spend is projected to rise to around 4.3% of GDP by the end of the decade, compared with the government’s , external"ambition" to hit 3% on defence in the next parliament.

 

Start here imo. 

So ...

 

We should spend more on killing people and less on looking after them?

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Does so much need spending on defence though? If anything has been learned from Ukraine and Iran, it's that drones costing thousands can take out ships and planes costing tens of millions.

True but we need comprehensive equipment etc

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Does so much need spending on defence though? If anything has been learned from Ukraine and Iran, it's that drones costing thousands can take out ships and planes costing tens of millions.

Additionally, I'm curious as to who exactly the UK would war with or need a highly expensive conventional deterrent from that could have a positive and not catastrophic outcome. 

 

Most of the big names mentioned have nuclear weapons, so does the UK, and any conventional conflict with them would inevitably escalate to that, so...

Edited Thursday at 17:21 by leicsmac

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

So ...

 

We should spend more on killing people and less on looking after them?

Defending our people is the first duty of a government 

[Innovindil]

Just now, Trav Le Bleu said:

So ...

 

We should spend more on killing people and less on looking after them?

Spending more in preparing the country for future conflicts absolutely. Personally, I'd rather we had the capacity but never any need to actually use it. 

 

 

[Zear0]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The UK’s working-age benefits bill was lower than for defence in the mid-1980s, but since 1990 welfare spending has been higher - often significantly so.

Working-age benefit spend is projected to rise to around 4.3% of GDP by the end of the decade, compared with the government’s , external"ambition" to hit 3% on defence in the next parliament.

 

Start here imo. 

Probably the last benefit that needs cutting. Need people working and if that goes they end up in unemployment benefits that are far more costly.

[Foxdiamond]

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Spending more in preparing the country for future conflicts absolutely. Personally, I'd rather we had the capacity but never any need to actually use it. 

 

 

Agree with the bolded here, but as per above that's what the SLBMs are for, not much else. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

Depends on who you talk to, but this is something that perhaps might be looked into more. 

[kenny]

10 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

Looking at buying an apartment for my brother at the moment and the mortgage plus service charge is around 60% of the rent being paid by the current tenant.

 

Yet the landlord wants out, which tells you they don't see it as a viable investment anymore. Id suggest the rents are high because they need to be to cover current costs many of which are government created.

 

The private rental sector is being handed to large venture capitalist landlords rather than small investors, I suspect this will increase rents rather than reduce them in the future.

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

Looking at buying an apartment for my brother at the moment and the mortgage plus service charge is around 60% of the rent being paid by the current tenant.

 

Yet the landlord wants out, which tells you they don't see it as a viable investment anymore. Id suggest the rents are high because they need to be to cover current costs many of which are government created.

 

The private rental sector is being handed to large venture capitalist landlords rather than small investors, I suspect this will increase rents rather than reduce them in the future.

Just wish there was more decent social housing and people charged reasonable rents. As for defence successive governments have neglected it. I think we will all have to contribute a bit more. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Assuming John Healey is correct. How does government raise funds for increased defence spending?

Evidently the hat went around the departments and no one was willing to give up any budget

 

i believe the dept of energy with its carbon capture budget is in the cross hairs but ed won’t play ball. (He also refused to be shuffled last time the music stopped).  Starmer looks weak!

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Evidently the hat went around the departments and no one was willing to give up any budget

 

i believe the dept of energy with its carbon capture budget is in the cross hairs but ed won’t play ball. (He also refused to be shuffled last time the music stopped).  Starmer looks weak!

Needless to say, Miliband is right to stick to his guns. Either the UK helps lead the way towards a future with less carbon emissions, or the UK will need a vastly larger military budget when even the most vital resources (such as potable water) become scarce and the fighting really starts. 

Edited Thursday at 18:14 by leicsmac

[Parafox]

11 hours ago, when_you're_smiling said:

It’s got very little to do with councils. They don’t have any power to stop shops opening before they’re open. It’s a capitalist society where anyone can set a business up and landlords there to make money own pretty much all the premises and rent them out to whoever is willing to pay. 

But I thought that if you were selling age restricted products such as tobacco, alcohol, vapes, you needed to be a licensed premises.

[when_you're_smiling]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

But I thought that if you were selling age restricted products such as tobacco, alcohol, vapes, you needed to be a licensed premises.

You don’t have to have a license to open a shop. Even if one gets revoked, the shop can stay open.

 

Even if a premises breaches repeatedly, the most police can do is close a shop for three months.

 

Councils can urge landlords to avoid certain people with histories of doing it, but ultimately it’s down to the landlord.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Does so much need spending on defence though? If anything has been learned from Ukraine and Iran, it's that drones costing thousands can take out ships and planes costing tens of millions.

Apparently £28 billion is needed just to function at the level they are now and so if the £13.5 billion figure is correct then there will be some huge cuts and  loss of capability.