If tories like you start sounding smug you’ll be heading for an even bigger landslide defeat.
We’ve had enough of the fuckers.
For what reason are you so tetchy this evening?
I’ve had a few drinks and didn’t watch the debate, but will take any opportunity afforded to wish your lot a thorough drubbing in the election. It’s overdue.
If Starmer was crap tonight he needs to up his game. Millions of Lib Dems are depending on him.
It’s worse than that. The Tory £2,000 Tax Attack is everywhere now, and it’s blown this election wide open. 1992 at all that.
From the moment Sunak threw the punch, look at all the PBers below in this live thread shouting, rebut it now Starmer, rebut it for goodness sake, you need to rebut it right now. …my God, he’s not rebutted it.
Game on.
Just so we’re clear, you are predicting a Tory win?
Answer to Farooq (sorry, having the "one character short" thing stopping me replying.)
Well, no sign of Farage's entry changing anything today. Admittedly, I was in one of our better areas, with the bulk being pensioners or close to pension age, but we were literally recording C after C after C after C. Really quite encouraging...
The real one? Usually at the spending review, about six months after the election….
Absolutely. But most likely Nov / early Dec.
An October election would have suggested a rollover SR ahead of supps and a real SR in the Spring.
A July election allows a CSR in the autumn.
I demur. I agree that an autumn election meant a one year roll over and an SR in autumn 2025, but I think this election means spring 2025, around the Budget, not this autumn. Gives them some space to do it properly.
The news package clips of the debate make Starmer come off a lot better than the actual debate did, I think.
There are usually 3 impacts from debates. 1. the impression of people actually watching (my - very Labour - wife saw it and was disappointed at Starmer’s insipid news but said Sunak was irritating), 2. the snap verdicts of the pollsters and journalists, which set the headlines, 3. The clips.
If the clips are OK then that might help dampen the effect on Labour.
I thought the housing issue (are people calling it crisis? Everything, apparently, is a crisis) could be readily sorted whilst showing the positive aspects of immigration.
All that needs to be done is import a bunch of Chinese Communist Party regional apparachiks and a couple of large Chinese property developers and give them carte blanche...
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Absolutely buzzing about being called bonkers by someone who thinks 5 more years of Tory rule is the answer. Someone's insane and I almost always think it's me. With good reason. It probably is...but the mental health waiting lists. And then there's the medication shortage. It's a wonderland of joy.
If tories like you start sounding smug you’ll be heading for an even bigger landslide defeat.
We’ve had enough of the fuckers.
For what reason are you so tetchy this evening?
I’ve had a few drinks and didn’t watch the debate, but will take any opportunity afforded to wish your lot a thorough drubbing in the election. It’s overdue.
If Starmer was crap tonight he needs to up his game. Millions of Lib Dems are depending on him.
It’s worse than that. The Tory £2,000 Tax Attack is everywhere now, and it’s blown this election wide open. 1992 at all that.
From the moment Sunak threw the punch, look at all the PBers below in this live thread shouting, rebut it now Starmer, rebut it for goodness sake, you need to rebut it right now. …my God, he’s not rebutted it.
Game on.
I thought VAT on private schools had blown the election wide open?
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I’ll be interested to see what Labour have in their manifesto for social care . Starmer mentioned they will be doing something about that .
Yet he specifically did not commit to the Dilnot style cap that is currently supposed to happen in 2025.
Sunak claims he would implement it as planned.
Labour talks about a national care plan but no details. They definitely will look at pay though - they plan social care to be first sector that has some new kind of sectoral national pay structure bargaining thing. We await details.
I am not expecting any concrete solutions from LAB or CON on social care.
Rishi Sunak and his team will be delighted with the front pages tonight, and also with portraying Keir Starmer as the man with no clear detailed policies he is ready to commit to on the important issues.
One more with Keir and Rishi only. Also two 7 party debates, one of which is on Friday and then 13 June.
Cheers. Are they all in that format? This is not a partisan point or another dig at the moderator (although she was shit), but I thought the format itself was hopeless.
Tom Baldwin @TomBaldwin66 · 24m Anything less than a knockout blow for Sunak was going to be a win for Starmer. A nil-nil away draw in a hostile stadium will be regarded by Labour as fine.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
The point is tonight the election campaign started in earnest with clear dividing lines
I expected Starmer to walk the debate tonight and he didn't
There are at least 2 more Sunak v Starmer debates and Starmer is going to have to up his game
Why did you expect Starmer to walk it? His entire strategy was the Geoff Boycott dead ball - keep deflecting until the opposition fail to gain the ground they need.
The election campaign did not start tonight. Again, come on. All the voters who the polls have unanimously shown have made up their minds - you expect a debate they will only see clips of to change the fundamentals?
Remember that I am not a Starmer partisan. I am running against the Labour Party just as much I am the Tories and SNP and hopefully Alba (come on Alex!). But saying "Labour will put up taxes" is just silly - the TORIES have put up taxes. People know their taxes have gone up because they can count. They aren't voting for the party who have put up their taxes and are now claiming they have cut their taxes.
Shouting over the top of everyone to keep repeating that the sky is green will not persuade people that the sky is green.
If Labour are promising to make public services better, the voters know they will HAVE to put up taxes. Starmer confirmed no more Income Tax, NI, VAT rises (other than school fees). People aren't stupid; they know that is not a sustainable position. Worse, it looks inherently dishonest by Labour.
Rishi Sunak and his team will be delighted with the front pages tonight, and also with portraying Keir Starmer as the man with no clear detailed policies he is ready to commit to on the important issues.
If nothing else it will give the Cons a bit of a morale boost
Starmer had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Sunak the opposite. Not much happened.
Meanwhile in 2010 Clegg aced the debate, soared in the polls, but ended up losing seats.
Conclusion: 🤷
Clegg got 23% in 2010, the highest Liberal/SDP voteshare since 1983 and 57 seats, the second highest Liberal seat total since 1929
Charles Kennedy won 62 seats in 2005. Clegg lost seats. Something he perfected in 2015.
Kennedy did not lead the LDs into government. The debate also ensured the LDs kept almost all the seats that Kennedy did win in 2005 on an anti Iraq War and anti Blair protest vote even after Brown replaced Blair as UK PM and withdrew UK troops from Iraq
If tories like you start sounding smug you’ll be heading for an even bigger landslide defeat.
We’ve had enough of the fuckers.
For what reason are you so tetchy this evening?
I’ve had a few drinks and didn’t watch the debate, but will take any opportunity afforded to wish your lot a thorough drubbing in the election. It’s overdue.
If Starmer was crap tonight he needs to up his game. Millions of Lib Dems are depending on him.
It’s worse than that. The Tory £2,000 Tax Attack is everywhere now, and it’s blown this election wide open. 1992 at all that.
From the moment Sunak threw the punch, look at all the PBers below in this live thread shouting, rebut it now Starmer, rebut it for goodness sake, you need to rebut it right now. …my God, he’s not rebutted it.
Game on.
Just so we’re clear, you are predicting a Tory win?
One more with Keir and Rishi only. Also two 7 party debates, one of which is on Friday and then 13 June.
Cheers. Are they all in that format? This is not a partisan point or another dig at the moderator (although she was shit), but I thought the format itself was hopeless.
I assume the BBC will go with Bruce or Myrie. Should be better.
If tories like you start sounding smug you’ll be heading for an even bigger landslide defeat.
We’ve had enough of the fuckers.
For what reason are you so tetchy this evening?
I’ve had a few drinks and didn’t watch the debate, but will take any opportunity afforded to wish your lot a thorough drubbing in the election. It’s overdue.
If Starmer was crap tonight he needs to up his game. Millions of Lib Dems are depending on him.
It’s worse than that. The Tory £2,000 Tax Attack is everywhere now, and it’s blown this election wide open. 1992 at all that.
From the moment Sunak threw the punch, look at all the PBers below in this live thread shouting, rebut it now Starmer, rebut it for goodness sake, you need to rebut it right now. …my God, he’s not rebutted it.
Game on.
I thought VAT on private schools had blown the election wide open?
It got a big round of applause tonight. Funny old world!
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Rishi Sunak and his team will be delighted with the front pages tonight, and also with portraying Keir Starmer as the man with no clear detailed policies he is ready to commit to on the important issues.
If nothing else it will give the Cons a bit of a morale boost
I’ll be interested to see what Labour have in their manifesto for social care . Starmer mentioned they will be doing something about that .
Labour owe the nation a solution here after they fucked up May's solution with nothing of their own.
Oppositions and media attach government proposals, it's their job to overcome the attacks if it is a good policy, if they are not able to manage it it's still their failure.
One more with Keir and Rishi only. Also two 7 party debates, one of which is on Friday and then 13 June.
Cheers. Are they all in that format? This is not a partisan point or another dig at the moderator (although she was shit), but I thought the format itself was hopeless.
Sorry - I don't know the format of the debates still to come!
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
If I need to see a dentist - and as there are no NHS dentists taking on new patients in SNPland it would be private - the considers isn’t “does the bill contain VAT”. It’s “ow, how much”.
I disagree with private healthcare in principle btw. But I’m not going to suffer in pain on principle. That would be stupid.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
They either needed to keep it very broad, or be very detailed. It seems like they intended it to be the former, but then immediately got caught up in questions about sanctions and so on, and by choosing to rule things out or rather than try to just bat it off with that it would be part of the review process, it just laid bare all the other questions about it.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
When I say need, I mean employment/sports etc. I'm fine with expedited operations for someone about to die from a gunshot wound!
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
I’ll be interested to see what Labour have in their manifesto for social care . Starmer mentioned they will be doing something about that .
Labour owe the nation a solution here after they fucked up May's solution with nothing of their own.
Oppositions and media attach government proposals, it's their job to overcome the attacks if it is a good policy, if they are not able to manage it it's still their failure.
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
Its not a gotcha, they are different things with different impacts. I'm against private schools not on principle but because of the type of people who end up running the country and are ridiculously over promoted in organisations without doing much work or being particularly interested in much beyond self promotion. And I don't see why they are considered a charity for tax purposes or avoid VAT barring exceptional circumstances. I wouldn't ban them.
Private healthcare is generally quicker for diagnostics and non urgent operations, but for anything life threatening or indeed things like covid vaccines we are all in the same boat anyway.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
The point is tonight the election campaign started in earnest with clear dividing lines
I expected Starmer to walk the debate tonight and he didn't
There are at least 2 more Sunak v Starmer debates and Starmer is going to have to up his game
Why did you expect Starmer to walk it? His entire strategy was the Geoff Boycott dead ball - keep deflecting until the opposition fail to gain the ground they need.
The election campaign did not start tonight. Again, come on. All the voters who the polls have unanimously shown have made up their minds - you expect a debate they will only see clips of to change the fundamentals?
Remember that I am not a Starmer partisan. I am running against the Labour Party just as much I am the Tories and SNP and hopefully Alba (come on Alex!). But saying "Labour will put up taxes" is just silly - the TORIES have put up taxes. People know their taxes have gone up because they can count. They aren't voting for the party who have put up their taxes and are now claiming they have cut their taxes.
Shouting over the top of everyone to keep repeating that the sky is green will not persuade people that the sky is green.
If Labour are promising to make public services better, the voters know they will HAVE to put up taxes. Starmer confirmed no more Income Tax, NI, VAT rises (other than school fees). People aren't stupid; they know that is not a sustainable position. Worse, it looks inherently dishonest by Labour.
It was one of his weaker parts. The Tories are not immune to the attack as they also promise a lot whilst promise to mostly not raise most taxes, but Labour do want to do more and not cut, so it is a fertile ground for criticism even if Sunak would get some blowback by Keir pointing out how much they have raised taxes too.
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What about people who shop at Waitrose instead of going to a foodbank like the rest of us?
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
The point is tonight the election campaign started in earnest with clear dividing lines
I expected Starmer to walk the debate tonight and he didn't
There are at least 2 more Sunak v Starmer debates and Starmer is going to have to up his game
Why did you expect Starmer to walk it? His entire strategy was the Geoff Boycott dead ball - keep deflecting until the opposition fail to gain the ground they need.
The election campaign did not start tonight. Again, come on. All the voters who the polls have unanimously shown have made up their minds - you expect a debate they will only see clips of to change the fundamentals?
Remember that I am not a Starmer partisan. I am running against the Labour Party just as much I am the Tories and SNP and hopefully Alba (come on Alex!). But saying "Labour will put up taxes" is just silly - the TORIES have put up taxes. People know their taxes have gone up because they can count. They aren't voting for the party who have put up their taxes and are now claiming they have cut their taxes.
Shouting over the top of everyone to keep repeating that the sky is green will not persuade people that the sky is green.
If Labour are promising to make public services better, the voters know they will HAVE to put up taxes. Starmer confirmed no more Income Tax, NI, VAT rises (other than school fees). People aren't stupid; they know that is not a sustainable position. Worse, it looks inherently dishonest by Labour.
Sure! Again, I am not a Starmer ramper. Dishonest. Yes. But you know what is more dishonest? Sunak. And the Tories. Because I’m less worried that Starmer may put up taxes when Sunak has already put up taxes. And bills. And my mortgage.
You can’t sit in government for 14 years and pretend to be the opposition. Like all of the damage you have done was someone else. Like “I am focused on the future” absolves you of your past.
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
If I need to see a dentist - and as there are no NHS dentists taking on new patients in SNPland it would be private - the considers isn’t “does the bill contain VAT”. It’s “ow, how much”.
I disagree with private healthcare in principle btw. But I’m not going to suffer in pain on principle. That would be stupid.
I agree, but it makes me feel almost sick. Going into an NHS registered dentist to get private work done when there are people in severe deprivation really struggling with their teeth...
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
It would though mean no 18 year olds can take a gap year.
Except of course they would find an exemption. For the children of Tory MPs.
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What about people who shop at Waitrose instead of going to a foodbank like the rest of us?
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
One more with Keir and Rishi only. Also two 7 party debates, one of which is on Friday and then 13 June.
Cheers. Are they all in that format? This is not a partisan point or another dig at the moderator (although she was shit), but I thought the format itself was hopeless.
I believe 2 more between Sunak and Starmer, one on BBC and one on Sky
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What about people who shop at Waitrose instead of going to a foodbank like the rest of us?
Waitrose? Pfft. That dump? Fortnums or nothing.
Booths - I'm sorry but Fortnums is good for treats but for day to day shopping Selfridges / Harrods food hall is better (and neither are that great).
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Yes. Radical idea. If you don’t want all the voters who are disinterested in politics to think that National Service is National Sevice, don’t call it National Service.
I don’t think Marquee has been to Bishop or Grimsby. The defence to “we’re not going to deliver that levelling up cash your town desperately needs as it’s paying for National Service” is “everyone now knows we’re not going to conscript your kids”.
That’s even worse. No cash to do up the town. Instead your kids get conscripted into a mandatory volunteer army who spend their weekends doing litter picking in the ruins of the town centre, supervised by a company whose owner is mysteriously a Tory donor.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
It's worse - forced labour for free, with no National Security element. At least in Israel you are defending your family and country from an existential threat.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
The point is tonight the election campaign started in earnest with clear dividing lines
I expected Starmer to walk the debate tonight and he didn't
There are at least 2 more Sunak v Starmer debates and Starmer is going to have to up his game
Why did you expect Starmer to walk it? His entire strategy was the Geoff Boycott dead ball - keep deflecting until the opposition fail to gain the ground they need.
The election campaign did not start tonight. Again, come on. All the voters who the polls have unanimously shown have made up their minds - you expect a debate they will only see clips of to change the fundamentals?
Remember that I am not a Starmer partisan. I am running against the Labour Party just as much I am the Tories and SNP and hopefully Alba (come on Alex!). But saying "Labour will put up taxes" is just silly - the TORIES have put up taxes. People know their taxes have gone up because they can count. They aren't voting for the party who have put up their taxes and are now claiming they have cut their taxes.
Shouting over the top of everyone to keep repeating that the sky is green will not persuade people that the sky is green.
If Labour are promising to make public services better, the voters know they will HAVE to put up taxes. Starmer confirmed no more Income Tax, NI, VAT rises (other than school fees). People aren't stupid; they know that is not a sustainable position. Worse, it looks inherently dishonest by Labour.
It was one of his weaker parts. The Tories are not immune to the attack as they also promise a lot whilst promise to mostly not raise most taxes, but Labour do want to do more and not cut, so it is a fertile ground for criticism even if Sunak would get some blowback by Keir pointing out how much they have raised taxes too.
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What about people who shop at Waitrose instead of going to a foodbank like the rest of us?
Waitrose? Pfft. That dump? Fortnums or nothing.
Booths - I'm sorry but Fortnums is good for treats but for day to day shopping Selfridges / Harrods food hall is better (and neither are that great).
Bizarre that, being so cultish, he allows Streeting to be so sensible on the topic of NHS-as-religion.
Starmer is crackers to say that. Whilst I haven't personally had to go private and do not have private health insurance, I have close family who have and they were right to do so.
If you are in pain and have cash, you go private. You absolutely shouldn't have to, but you do.
Is VAT chargeable on private healthcare? I don't know, as I've only ever had it through work.
No clue. I've never even gone private for dentistry. Not because of ideological purity reasons, I rarely need medical intervention. But just to be clear, I would if I had to.
I would be interested in the PB venn diagram of "people who disagree with private education on principle" and "people who would get private healthcare if they could afford it" irrespective of the VAT question, tbh.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
I think private healthcare can fill a niche where treatment is essential for employment - a tradesman with a bad shoulder or something. I have a doctor friend who went private because her knee was stopping her from working on an orthopaedic ward, and the waiting list was about 2 years long. IMO the NHS should never weight people by need or status so I think that works as a fudge.
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
What about people who shop at Waitrose instead of going to a foodbank like the rest of us?
Good luck to them if they can go to Waitrose. Good luck if they can go private and so they should. We going to knock people for working a job that earns them more cash tham average?
Hmmm. Skimming the front pages, I am afraid Labour now have to spend a day being questioned over “their” tax rises. You should and could have killed it Starmer.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
What was the problem with Starmer? Maybe he was a bit stiff and humourless I suppose.
Awful performances from both Sunak and Starmer. But the narrative hasn’t changed - Labour on course for a massive majority; the Tories will be lucky if they get 150 seats.
Some of the comments on here bringing up 1992 and the like are pretty unhinged.
I spent today in the abject North end of Greenwich peninsula.
It’s the worst sort of example of urban planning. A zone seemingly dedicated to the car yet not remotely easy to drive in, which considers pedestrians a real nuisance to be kettled into specific areas, and necessitates huge detours to get from A to B by foot or pedal. Private land, barriers, dead ends, tiny verges, bleak windswept vistas, desultory landscaping.
It’s not alone in this. Most developing country CBDs are as bad or worse. As is much of the USA outside the North East. Yet for millennia we knew how to design urban centres for humans.
Awful. The next government should legislate to outlaw road layouts like these.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
The point is tonight the election campaign started in earnest with clear dividing lines
I expected Starmer to walk the debate tonight and he didn't
There are at least 2 more Sunak v Starmer debates and Starmer is going to have to up his game
Why did you expect Starmer to walk it? His entire strategy was the Geoff Boycott dead ball - keep deflecting until the opposition fail to gain the ground they need.
The election campaign did not start tonight. Again, come on. All the voters who the polls have unanimously shown have made up their minds - you expect a debate they will only see clips of to change the fundamentals?
Remember that I am not a Starmer partisan. I am running against the Labour Party just as much I am the Tories and SNP and hopefully Alba (come on Alex!). But saying "Labour will put up taxes" is just silly - the TORIES have put up taxes. People know their taxes have gone up because they can count. They aren't voting for the party who have put up their taxes and are now claiming they have cut their taxes.
Shouting over the top of everyone to keep repeating that the sky is green will not persuade people that the sky is green.
If Labour are promising to make public services better, the voters know they will HAVE to put up taxes. Starmer confirmed no more Income Tax, NI, VAT rises (other than school fees). People aren't stupid; they know that is not a sustainable position. Worse, it looks inherently dishonest by Labour.
It was one of his weaker parts. The Tories are not immune to the attack as they also promise a lot whilst promise to mostly not raise most taxes, but Labour do want to do more and not cut, so it is a fertile ground for criticism even if Sunak would get some blowback by Keir pointing out how much they have raised taxes too.
It's a real Thing on the doorsteps.
But presumably the pensioners on your doorsteps still want gold standard health and social care treatment. Paid for by taxes on other people.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
What was the problem with Starmer? Maybe he was a bit stiff and humourless I suppose.
Before the break, he couldn’t get a response in half the time. If the moderator doesn’t stop the other guy ranting then you have to shout, take the law into your own hands a bit. He didn’t. He was vastly better second half (and will learn rapidly from the experience) but Sunak was craftier before the break, noting Etchingham’s weakness and taking advantage!
This is an election in which women's rights are ignored, anyone raising them is accused of fomenting a "culture war" & a leading member of the Shadow Cabinet calls them a "distraction". Political forums completely ignore women's rights or dismiss them with contempt. ....
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
I don’t think the £2000 tax figure changes things much even if Starmer should have rebutted it better in the debate. Whether that was dealt with or not the Tories were always going to run some sort of ‘tax bombshell’ campaign this time round like they do every election.
I think the biggest error from Starmer was the private healthcare for family one which just sounded nonsensical and untrue. He should have said “yes, but most people won’t have that luxury thanks to 14 years of tories etc”
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
I don’t think the £2000 tax figure changes things much even if Starmer should have rebutted it better in the debate. Whether that was dealt with or not the Tories were always going to run some sort of ‘tax bombshell’ campaign this time round like they do every election.
I think the biggest error from Starmer was the private healthcare for family one which just sounded nonsensical and untrue. He should have said “yes, but most people won’t have that luxury thanks to 14 years of tories etc”
Then he would have been attacked from the other direction. To be honest, I don’t think it’s the moderator’s role to ask “gotchas”, I thought the whole format was weird.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
What was the problem with Starmer? Maybe he was a bit stiff and humourless I suppose.
Before the break, he couldn’t get a response in half the time. If the moderator doesn’t stop the other guy ranting then you have to shout, take the law into your own hands a bit. He didn’t. He was vastly better second half (and will learn rapidly from the experience) but Sunak was craftier before the break, noting Etchingham’s weakness and taking advantage!
Sunak did (I think) what his handlers (technical, not political overlords) told him to do: take a man-bite-dog approach, to stifle & stymie Starmer (mission accomplish) AND also to demonstrate some grit, gumption and (last but not least) a touch of ruthlessness.
He was aided by the rookie moderator, and also by (I think) Starmer and HIS handlers underestimating an opponent in apparent free-fall.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
He thinks it shows he's a man of the people and loyal to the state system, but I think he's out of touch with how things have moved on socially.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
What was the problem with Starmer? Maybe he was a bit stiff and humourless I suppose.
Before the break, he couldn’t get a response in half the time. If the moderator doesn’t stop the other guy ranting then you have to shout, take the law into your own hands a bit. He didn’t. He was vastly better second half (and will learn rapidly from the experience) but Sunak was craftier before the break, noting Etchingham’s weakness and taking advantage!
Sunak did (I think) what his handlers (technical, not political overlords) told him to do: take a man-bite-dog approach, to stifle & stymie Starmer (mission accomplish) AND also to demonstrate some grit, gumption and (last but not least) a touch of ruthlessness.
He was aided by the rookie moderator, and also by (I think) Starmer and HIS handlers underestimating an opponent in apparent free-fall.
Agreed although Etchingham is no rookie. She did however have a bad day at the office.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
I think the "NHS as national religion" model explains this very well. It's a lot easier to pretend to be moderately religious from a place of agnosticism than fundamentalist from a place of moderation. And he knows (or thinks he knows) that Labour need to be, if not fundamentalist, then at least pretty damn happy clappy.
Corally of this though is once he is in power Wes is gonna find it a lot simpler politically to get reforming...
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
For you PB political junkies, in June 6, 2024 primaries, polls will close in one hour in New Jersey and District of Columbia, at 8pm Eastern = 1am UK,
Thanks, I am interested in this.
IF you are truly gung ho, you can stay up till 4am your time, when polls close in Montana, New Mexico and western South Dakota.
By the way, in the Dakotas which are split at the Missouri River between Central and Mountain time zones, folks refer to "slow time" and "fast time". Which I'm sure would intrigue Albert Einstein.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
Yo, fitalass! Good to see you now, and hopefully a bit more though the GE.
Is it possible that Starmer's ''no" was sincere? Though PBers from all sides appear find that non-credible, if not incredible.
OR is it that he also has a base problem, albeit far less serious than Sunak's?
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
@Fitalass, welcome back. It has been a while, I think.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
My only complaint about the Appalachian Trail, which yours truly has also walked (at least 100 yards) is that it only passes through the easternmost - and least Appalachian - part of THE Appalachian State, on the mountain ridge above the Shenandoah River near Harper's Ferry.
For you PB political junkies, in June 6, 2024 primaries, polls will close in one hour in New Jersey and District of Columbia, at 8pm Eastern = 1am UK,
Thanks, I am interested in this.
IF you are truly gung ho, you can stay up till 4am your time, when polls close in Montana, New Mexico and western South Dakota.
By the way, in the Dakotas which are split at the Missouri River between Central and Mountain time zones, folks refer to "slow time" and "fast time". Which I'm sure would intrigue Albert Einstein.
I'm interested in Wash DC because I visited the city for the first time in March this year for 3 days. (I almost broke the law within a few minutes of arriving by drinking a bottle of water on the subway system. I looked up to see a notice saying it wasn't allowed to drink anything on the system, which I found astonishing given how hot it gets there sometimes).
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
@Fitalass, welcome back. It has been a while, I think.
Thanks viewcode, yes its been quite a while. I just realised that I think it was nearly twenty years ago now that I first dipped my toes into PB and became a regular poster for a long time.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
@Fitalass, welcome back. It has been a while, I think.
Thanks viewcode, yes its been quite a while. I just realised that I think it was nearly twenty years ago now that I first dipped my toes into PB and became a regular poster for a long time.
For you PB political junkies, in June 6, 2024 primaries, polls will close in one hour in New Jersey and District of Columbia, at 8pm Eastern = 1am UK,
Thanks, I am interested in this.
IF you are truly gung ho, you can stay up till 4am your time, when polls close in Montana, New Mexico and western South Dakota.
By the way, in the Dakotas which are split at the Missouri River between Central and Mountain time zones, folks refer to "slow time" and "fast time". Which I'm sure would intrigue Albert Einstein.
I'm interested in Wash DC because I visited the city for the first time in March this year for 3 days. (I almost broke the law within a few minutes of arriving by drinking a bottle of water on the subway system. I looked up to see a notice saying it wasn't allowed to drink anything on the system, which I found astonishing given how hot it gets there sometimes).
Have done zero research, but feel confident recommending a bet on Elizabeth Holmes Norton being renominated and subsequently re-elected as Delegate to US House from Our Nations Capital.
Damn shame she does NOT have a vote. Nevertheless she wields more clout in Congress than many who do.
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
My only complaint about the Appalachian Trail, which yours truly has also walked (at least 100 yards) is that it only passes through the easternmost - and least Appalachian - part of THE Appalachian State, on the mountain ridge above the Shenandoah River near Harper's Ferry.
But guess we were lucky to get included at all!
I am not going to lie, I worried the whole time they were walking the trail, especially when they would often go through a few days with no phone signal to keep in touch. Luckily, within the first few weeks they met two American lads who had also just finished Uni and the four of them did the rest of of it together with visits and support along the way from the two American lads families and our American relatives stepping in for us. It was lovely a couple of years later to host them over here when they visited.
I still cannot get over the friendliness and generosity of those that live along the trail, particularly in the South towards those that were walking it. My son even now still has a healthy dislike of the timber rattlesnake after encountering a few on the trail, and all sightings of black bears were from a healthy distance which seemed to be as much the choice of the bears as it was for them.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
Whilst 51-49 allows headlines like “Sunak won debate” the big gulf between them on who related/showed empathy and who did you trust to be telling the truth, are probably longer lasting shaping the actual opinion polls than the fact Sunak sneaked narrowest of wins.
Morale boost in Tory circles likely to be short lived. Could benefit labour too like a cold milkshake in the face after 2 days staring at those MRP. Starmer and his debate team can learn a lot from analysing this first leg, and perform better in the second leg, whilst Sunak has probably used up most his armoury and tactical surprises in this one.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
The simple point about this is that *everyone* with an ounce of sense expects their taxes or costs to go up in some way - people aren't idiots. Hence why attacks on taxes on private schooling don't land. It's smallest violin stuff. Those on PAYE on middle incomes just think Labour are not taking them as much for fools as Rishi Sunak is claiming when he says he's cutting their taxes when our payslips say the opposite.
I know Labour aren't taxing me £2,000 extra a year because it is simply not there for them to tax. If they are doing that to anyone, I know it's someone much wealthier than me. If it's £40 a month - well that goes on the student loan when I earn more or rent wand other living costs hen it goes up anyway. One can but hope that those who can afford it more easily contribute slightly more to fixing things, rather than the fantasies the Tories promise that everyone knows aren't true unless you happen to be a millionaire with investments.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
Whilst 51-49 allows headlines like “Sunak won debate” the big gulf between them on who related/showed empathy and who did you trust to be telling the truth, are probably longer lasting shaping the actual opinion polls than the fact Sunak sneaked narrowest of wins.
Morale boost in Tory circles likely to be short lived. Could benefit labour too like a cold milkshake in the face after 2 days staring at those MRP. Starmer and his debate team can learn a lot from analysing this first leg, and perform better in the second leg, whilst Sunak has probably used up most his armoury and tactical surprises in this one.
Yes, and a lesson for the Conservatives too with the laughter at National Service. 3 weeks of increasingly mad policies will not work.
What I find most fascinating is that “we’re going to not give your run-down town the money you promised because we’re going to conscript your kids” is expected to save the Tories in Bishop and Grimsby.
Because everyone now knows we are not going to "conscript your kids". Too much outrage overreach is killing the impact.
Well that's what's being proposed.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
Children have the chance to join the armed forces for a year. There is no conpulsion.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
One of our lads joined the OTC throughout his time at University and it remains one of the most enjoyable experiences he had and he got paid for it as well. He made some great friends he is still close to now, and they ended up going off and climbing a few Munros during that time too among a lot of other opportunities they would not normally have got the chance to do. One of the first things he did after he finished Uni was to go walk the Appalachian trail with one of those friends, an amazing experience which they managed in five and half months, but without his time in the OTC I don't think he would gone off and done it. He was really struck by the welcome and hospitality of those they met who live along the trail, particular in the Southern States.
My only complaint about the Appalachian Trail, which yours truly has also walked (at least 100 yards) is that it only passes through the easternmost - and least Appalachian - part of THE Appalachian State, on the mountain ridge above the Shenandoah River near Harper's Ferry.
But guess we were lucky to get included at all!
I am not going to lie, I worried the whole time they were walking the trail, especially when they would often go through a few days with no phone signal to keep in touch. Luckily, within the first few weeks they met two American lads who had also just finished Uni and the four of them did the rest of of it together with visits and support along the way from the two American lads families and our American relatives stepping in for us. It was lovely a couple of years later to host them over here when they visited.
I still cannot get over the friendliness and generosity of those that live along the trail, particularly in the South towards those that were walking it. My son even now still has a healthy dislike of the timber rattlesnake after encountering a few on the trail, and all sightings of black bears were from a healthy distance which seemed to be as much the choice of the bears as it was for them.
Folks in the Appalachian and Allegheny Mountains are PROUD of the Appalachian Trail. That's in addition to native hospitality (especially south of the Mason-Dixon line) and the economic benefits, which are not inconsiderable for small communities near the AT. Plus meeting interesting people from around the globe, same as for the hikers.
Hope you get to visit this great part of the USA someday. NOT necessary to hike, you can also drive around, for example on Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway. And/or visit Smokey Mountain NP or head up the railroad to the Top of Mt Washington. Or soak in a hot springs (George Washington was partial to Berkeley Hot Springs WV) or visit the birthplace of the Duchess of Windsor at Blue Ridge Summit PA, or visit with Dolly Parton at Dollywood!
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
It doesn't work as anyone sane with a middle income paycheque knows that it is an absurd thing to say. Starmer might be many things but he is not going to raise the taxes you pay a year by a quarter or a fifth.
In DC, the AP has called the Democrat primary race for Delegate (with 44% reporting) for incumbent Elizabeth Holmes Norton currently with 82.6% of Dem vote.
Comments
https://x.com/mrtomgray/status/1798070187465552334?
Well, no sign of Farage's entry changing anything today. Admittedly, I was in one of our better areas, with the bulk being pensioners or close to pension age, but we were literally recording C after C after C after C. Really quite encouraging...
If the clips are OK then that might help dampen the effect on Labour.
All that needs to be done is import a bunch of Chinese Communist Party regional apparachiks and a couple of large Chinese property developers and give them carte blanche...
Someone's insane and I almost always think it's me. With good reason.
It probably is...but the mental health waiting lists. And then there's the medication shortage.
It's a wonderland of joy.
Not a dig at you personally, by the way! I just think it's a fascinating question. And even more fascinating if, say, VAT is charged on healthcare at the moment but not on schools (I'd VAT exempt it on both, personally).
But how many PB'ers do we think sit in the middle of the venn diagram, against private schools but for private healthcare (possibly paid for by their employers as a perk of the job). I'd venture there's at least one or two.
A mixed TV debate performance by the Labour leader will not change the course of this campaign.
By Andrew Marr"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/06/the-advantage-is-still-with-keir-starmer
@TomBaldwin66
·
24m
Anything less than a knockout blow for Sunak was going to be a win for Starmer. A nil-nil away draw in a hostile stadium will be regarded by Labour as fine.
https://x.com/TomBaldwin66/status/1798113680405786975
Go to your room, the lot of you.
I’m doing Emmerdale now 🙋♀️
I considered going private for my operation - same surgeon, same op. But I got chatting to someone in the waiting room who was about 9 months ahead of me on the waiting list, had a similar issue and was having a miserable time. I couldn't live with myself if I skipped past her, so I waited despite having the means not to.
The only reason its not going to happen is they're not going to be re-elected. But if you don't want your policy taken at face value, don't propose it!
I supported that policy too.
Also - proposal for a new and different format. Clive Marie gives them all quick fire questions in the Mastermind chair on the BBC.
I disagree with private healthcare in principle btw. But I’m not going to suffer in pain on principle. That would be stupid.
Doing public works one weekend a month - you think that is "CONSCRIPTION"? Really? Hardly Israel is it?
Private healthcare is generally quicker for diagnostics and non urgent operations, but for anything life threatening or indeed things like covid vaccines we are all in the same boat anyway.
You can’t sit in government for 14 years and pretend to be the opposition. Like all of the damage you have done was someone else. Like “I am focused on the future” absolves you of your past.
Except of course they would find an exemption. For the children of Tory MPs.
😁
I don’t think Marquee has been to Bishop or Grimsby. The defence to “we’re not going to deliver that levelling up cash your town desperately needs as it’s paying for National Service” is “everyone now knows we’re not going to conscript your kids”.
That’s even worse. No cash to do up the town. Instead your kids get conscripted into a mandatory volunteer army who spend their weekends doing litter picking in the ruins of the town centre, supervised by a company whose owner is mysteriously a Tory donor.
We are in a curious position of PB Tories defending kids being forced to work for the state for free: https://x.com/AnimarchyYT/status/1795642275634241640
Some of the comments on here bringing up 1992 and the like are pretty unhinged.
It’s the worst sort of example of urban planning. A zone seemingly dedicated to the car yet not remotely easy to drive in, which considers pedestrians a real nuisance to be kettled into specific areas, and necessitates huge detours to get from A to B by foot or pedal. Private land, barriers, dead ends, tiny verges, bleak windswept vistas, desultory landscaping.
It’s not alone in this. Most developing country CBDs are as bad or worse. As is much of the USA outside the North East. Yet for millennia we knew how to design urban centres for humans.
Awful. The next government should legislate to outlaw road layouts like these.
73% of Leavers thought Sunak won and 35% of Remainers.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Debate2f.pdf
This is an election in which women's rights are ignored, anyone raising them is accused of fomenting a "culture war" & a leading member of the Shadow Cabinet calls them a "distraction". Political forums completely ignore women's rights or dismiss them with contempt. ....
https://x.com/cyclefree2/status/1798089638357139914?
Con 352
PC 286
Ind 110
LD 74
Lab 25
Ref 18
Gr 13
Ind 4
I think the biggest error from Starmer was the private healthcare for family one which just sounded nonsensical and untrue. He should have said “yes, but most people won’t have that luxury thanks to 14 years of tories etc”
He was aided by the rookie moderator, and also by (I think) Starmer and HIS handlers underestimating an opponent in apparent free-fall.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13494229/BIG-TV-DEBATE-VERDICTS-Sarah-Vine-Stephen-Glover-Dan-Hodges-flawless-host-Rishi-real-fire-belly-won-day-keir-starmer.html
Corally of this though is once he is in power Wes is gonna find it a lot simpler politically to get reforming...
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
By the way, in the Dakotas which are split at the Missouri River between Central and Mountain time zones, folks refer to "slow time" and "fast time". Which I'm sure would intrigue Albert Einstein.
Is it possible that Starmer's ''no" was sincere? Though PBers from all sides appear find that non-credible, if not incredible.
OR is it that he also has a base problem, albeit far less serious than Sunak's?
But guess we were lucky to get included at all!
Damn shame she does NOT have a vote. Nevertheless she wields more clout in Congress than many who do.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
I still cannot get over the friendliness and generosity of those that live along the trail, particularly in the South towards those that were walking it. My son even now still has a healthy dislike of the timber rattlesnake after encountering a few on the trail, and all sightings of black bears were from a healthy distance which seemed to be as much the choice of the bears as it was for them.
Morale boost in Tory circles likely to be short lived. Could benefit labour too like a cold milkshake in the face after 2 days staring at those MRP. Starmer and his debate team can learn a lot from analysing this first leg, and perform better in the second leg, whilst Sunak has probably used up most his armoury and tactical surprises in this one.
I know Labour aren't taxing me £2,000 extra a year because it is simply not there for them to tax. If they are doing that to anyone, I know it's someone much wealthier than me. If it's £40 a month - well that goes on the student loan when I earn more or rent wand other living costs hen it goes up anyway. One can but hope that those who can afford it more easily contribute slightly more to fixing things, rather than the fantasies the Tories promise that everyone knows aren't true unless you happen to be a millionaire with investments.
Hope you get to visit this great part of the USA someday. NOT necessary to hike, you can also drive around, for example on Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway. And/or visit Smokey Mountain NP or head up the railroad to the Top of Mt Washington. Or soak in a hot springs (George Washington was partial to Berkeley Hot Springs WV) or visit the birthplace of the Duchess of Windsor at Blue Ridge Summit PA, or visit with Dolly Parton at Dollywood!
Biden is currently getting 90% or thereabout ; Trump uncontested.
For US Senate, Andy Kim is getting 80% in Dem primary.
For US House 8th District with 21% reporting
Rob Menendez*incumbent
6,494 49.7%
Ravinder Bhalla
5,363 41.1%
Kyle Jasey
1,203 9.2%
Total reported
13,060