Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What’s tonight’s debate going to this betting market? – politicalbetting.com

17810121323

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,287

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,544
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,333
    edited June 4
    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Conservative 2019 voters who viewed the #ITVdebate think Sunak won by 85% to 15%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798102719993184499

    Game-changer.
    A worrying wobble for Labour.
    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?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,864

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629

    nico679 said:

    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.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096
    "The advantage is still with Keir Starmer
    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
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402
    edited June 4

    How many more debates are there?

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096

    How many more debates are there?

    No.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited June 4
    fggg
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,324
    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.

    https://x.com/TomBaldwin66/status/1798113680405786975
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,287

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,207
    fitalass said:

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,185
    edited June 4
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    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

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,347

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Conservative 2019 voters who viewed the #ITVdebate think Sunak won by 85% to 15%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798102719993184499

    Game-changer.
    A worrying wobble for Labour.
    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?
    Tory landslide nailed on, I fancy!
    You are all getting silly now.

    Go to your room, the lot of you.

    I’m doing Emmerdale now 🙋‍♀️
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891

    How many more debates are there?

    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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402
    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    Conservative 2019 voters who viewed the #ITVdebate think Sunak won by 85% to 15%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798102719993184499

    Game-changer.
    A worrying wobble for Labour.
    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!
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    nico679 said:

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412
    edited June 4
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,819

    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!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,565

    fitalass said:

    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
    FIVE MORE YEARS!!!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402
    Andy_JS said:

    How many more debates are there?

    No.
    :D I have sympathy with that response Andy!!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,759
    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    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.

    I supported that policy too.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891
    Are they getting interviewed by Andrew Neil this time?

    Also - proposal for a new and different format. Clive Marie gives them all quick fire questions in the Mastermind chair on the BBC.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,629

    How many more debates are there?

    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!
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,776
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,759

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,287

    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?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412
    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402
    edited June 4
    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.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891
    kle4 said:

    WillG said:

    nico679 said:

    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.

    I supported that policy too.
    NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
  • The 350-399 Labour seats quote on Betfair at 6.6 looks decent value now in comparison to the above 400 quote..🤑
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,566
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,759

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,176
    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,776

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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...
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,703

    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.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891

    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,287

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,743

    How many more debates are there?

    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
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    biggles said:

    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,776

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412
    edited June 4

    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.

    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
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,287
    kle4 said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891
    eek said:

    biggles said:

    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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).
    I’m on the Foie gras and claret diet.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,322

    Eabhal said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    carnforth said:

    Per twitter, not the first time Starmer has talked about refusing private care:

    https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1464253544593346568

    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?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,891
    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096

    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.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    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.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,703
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,185
    edited June 4
    39% of under 50s think Sunak won the debate, 57% of over 50s did too.

    73% of Leavers thought Sunak won and 35% of Remainers.
    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Debate2f.pdf
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096
    HYUFD said:

    39% of under 50s think Sunak won the debate, 57% of over 50s did too.

    73% of Leavers though Sunak won and 35% of Remainers.
    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Debate2f.pdf

    That 39% figure will be quite encouraging for the Tories. They need to build on that somehow.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,703

    kle4 said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,268
    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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402
    Andy_JS said:

    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!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Cyclefree tweets:

    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?
  • vinovino Posts: 169
    No one commentating about the result of todays local by-election in POWYS UA; Rhiwcynon (Ind resigned)

    Con 352
    PC 286
    Ind 110
    LD 74
    Lab 25
    Ref 18
    Gr 13
    Ind 4
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292
    edited June 4

    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.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    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”
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
    What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    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,
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,268
    fitalass said:

    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.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,268
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 768
    fitalass said:

    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...
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,347

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,402

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    fitalass said:

    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?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851
    edited June 4

    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
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,743
    fitalass said:

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    fitalass said:

    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!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096
    edited June 4

    Andy_JS said:

    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).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,743
    fitalass said:

    viewcode said:

    fitalass said:

    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.
    Indeed. Where does the time go... ☹️
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,347

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
    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.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292

    fitalass said:

    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.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,347
    Roger said:

    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.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,721
    Roger said:

    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.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,412

    Roger said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096
    We need to see some polls conducted since Farage's announcement.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    fitalass said:

    fitalass said:

    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!
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,721

    HYUFD said:

    Who was more...

    Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 49%
    Likeable: Sunak 34% / Starmer 50%
    In touch: Sunak 17% / Starmer 66%
    Prime Ministerial: Sunak 43% / Starmer 40%

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798104621736665407

    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.

    https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-poll-tracker-will-labour-or-the-conservatives-win-12903488
    I don't expect it to show in the polls yet
    It will show up in the exit poll....

    😁
    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    New Jersey numbers coming in fast & furious

    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


  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    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.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,347
    Eabhal said:

    Roger said:

    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.
    I should have mailed the “aspiration” argument to the Marx Bothers, for amount of damage Sunak made when the VAT on private schools question did come up. All Rishi could think about tonight was tax. If the last question was on favourite takeaway meal, Sunak would have used it to argue against Labours fast food tax.

    “If you are thinking of voting for this man, prepare to find your whopper taxed.”
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,429
    edited June 5
    The widespread prescription of these drugs (assuming the longer term safety data holds up) is likely to save health services a lot of money.

    ‘Enormous potential’: weight-loss drugs cut cancer risk by a fifth, research shows
    Experts believe injections such as Wegovy could play a big role in preventing and treating the disease
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/04/weight-loss-drugs-cut-cancer-risk-fifth-research-wegovy
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,292

    Roger said:

    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.
    The instant YouGov reaction poll didn't allow those front page headlines tonight, it was the perception of the journalists who watched Starmer and Sunak's performances during the debate that framed those headlines. And while the Labour leadership team will desperately be hoping that the reaction to it will be short lived in the GE media campaign cycle, its also clear Sunak and his team finally landed their biggest strategic attack goal when it comes to the fact that so far as we the public are concerned, we still don't have a clue what detailed policies Labour are going to introduce as a Government on a whole range of issues.

    Two weeks into this GE and we discover that the manifesto's are not going to be published until the last minute allowing the public little or no scrutiny before we vote?! Now it won't surprise anyone on here that knows me that I won't be voting Labour, but a detailed policy heads up from the party who has been in Opposition for the last 14 years, and who according to the polls are heading for a record landslide victory in the GE in four weeks time of their plans for the country over the next 4/5 years would still be useful to all of us.

    And as a footnote, the leadership debate tonight and Sunak's performance also totally knocked Farage's trip to Clacton and the milkshake incident off the front pages too. Its clear that Reform under Tice were simple not going to get the UK wide media coverage needed to paper over the gaps in their last minute on the ground individual constituency operations in many constituencies and Farage has been persuaded to stand & become party leader to try to make Reform seem more relevant in the UK political GE media cycle to compensate for that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,429
    I guess his role was redundant.

    Google's chief privacy officer is out after 13 years at the company.

    Google is also retiring the role.

    Matthew Bye, Google’s head of competition law, is also gone after 15 years..

    https://x.com/iblametom/status/1798057422940230060
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,096
    Banknotes featuring King Charles will be circulating from today.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    Andy_JS said:

    Banknotes featuring King Charles will be circulating from today.

    So when he gets asked for identification, he can simply whip out a fiver? Nice!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,514
    NYT - NJ Primary

    AP has called Democratic primary race for US House 8th District for Rob Menendez, son of Senator Bob Mendendez, who is currently on trial, and who did NOT file for reelection BUT has recently announced he plans to run as an Independent.

    For US Senate AP has called Dem primary for Andy Kim (as noted here previously. AND has called the Republican primary for the NOT-endorsed by Trump candidate, Curtis Bashaw (head of NJ Right to Life) who currently (46% reporting) has 54.7% versus 30.5% for DJT's pick Christine Serrano Glassner.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,361
    Andy_JS said:

    Banknotes featuring King Charles will be circulating from today.

    What are banknotes?
This discussion has been closed.