I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Morning Madam. Nice to see you back posting again.
' ...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. '
Isn't the problem that the public don't care, as long as they get the present Government out?
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Good to see the BJP losing their majority, though Modi will remain in power.
Meanwhile, the second biggest election in the world is on Sunday. In Germany CDU/CSU are obviously going to top the poll, but 2nd place could be the AfD or the SPD or the Greens. New party BSW are on about 6-7% in the polls, enough for a handful of MEPs.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
Exactly - demographics are a relatively minor problem for the NHS. Ultimately it's the last 12 months that cost the most on average, and that's the same if you die at 60 or at 90.
It's the 10+ years living with heart disease, dementia, diabetes or cancer that costs all the money, and rates of chronic conditions are increasing far faster than what our demographic profile would suggest.
The big issue no one likes to talk about is increasing child obesity - that could lead to someone living their entire adult life with a serious health condition.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Thank you. That sounds sane and sensible.
I see the price of NOM on Betfair dropped a couple of ticks, from 21 to 19, which would be in line with what you are saying.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Well that is what Labour are doing, for example no budget immediately post the election as they want the OBR to review it or the very limited pledges because they have very little budget. So will they be assured of your vote?
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
Starmer did have the best line around waiting lists and Rishi saying he was good at maths. Got a laugh, and it sounded off the cuff even though I'm sure it wasn't.
Sunak hit his core lines around tax raising and lack of plan hard, without quite overdoing it.
Sunak was correct to say it had started coming down, but he did not say it peaked after he made the pledge.
I think a bit unfair for him to be laughed at for that.
Political jibes are rarely fair. Was every line Sunak tried on Starmer fair?
Sunak needed to achieve his targets earlier or more time to see them obviously be succeeding - as it is few people will probably believe him on that point.
That's not casuation though.
Sunak's targets were imo chosen as things that were going to happen anyway - see for example energy prices and fuel prices falling out of the inflation rate calculation.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
You’re right to be optimistic. So many sudden advances are being made as technology gets to grips with priorly intractable medical problems - from cancer to dementia to obesity to basic ageing
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
If there is major movement (which I doubt) will the Tories necessarily benefit? Swing voters willing to consider starmer until now may go Lib Dem - or more likely Reform
Starmer did have the best line around waiting lists and Rishi saying he was good at maths. Got a laugh, and it sounded off the cuff even though I'm sure it wasn't.
Sunak hit his core lines around tax raising and lack of plan hard, without quite overdoing it.
Sunak was correct to say it had started coming down, but he did not say it peaked after he made the pledge.
I think a bit unfair for him to be laughed at for that.
Political jibes are rarely fair. Was every line Sunak tried on Starmer fair?
Sunak needed to achieve his targets earlier or more time to see them obviously be succeeding - as it is few people will probably believe him on that point.
That's not casuation though.
Sunak's targets were imo chosen as things that were going to happen anyway - see for example energy prices and fuel prices falling out of the inflation rate calculation.
Energy prices are going back up. It will feed through later this year. Starmer was right to mention that. Didn’t cut through.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Maybe voters should listen to the issues and the arguments with the same sense of duty they do in a criminal trial as part of a jury.
What's interesting is that, down the pub or over dinner, many do unpack them to an extended degree. But they won't watch politicians talk about them for long and get bored.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Well that is what Labour are doing, for example no budget immediately post the election as they want the OBR to review it or the very limited pledges because they have very little budget. So will they be assured of your vote?
It really isnt what they are doing. Their campaign's is very much nod and wink stuff, the underlying message is implicitly “we can’t possibly be worse than the other lot”. Which must folk take as everything will be better from day one. It’s vibes over substance.
Whichever way I end up voting it will be with deep reluctance. I will vote, but the choices before the electorate are terrible and have been for decades.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
I'm surprised that Labour didn't have a line ready for how much the Tories have put up taxes. With a bit of manipulation you could probably come up with a number higher than £2,000.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
I don't agree.
It's not true and Rishi needs more than lies.
SKS is a poor performer but at this point its anybody but the blue team for many people.
I think that the public under rates the risks of obesity as a cause of cancer. That effect on obesity may be the entire explanation for the drop in cancers, rather than any effect itself.
Anyway, forget last night's insipid contest. There's some real red meat for today for viewers of the Post Officer Inquiry. Alice Perkins (aka Mrs Jack Straw) is up. She was a key player, and faces two days of questioning. One of the more awkward answers followers of the saga will be seeking is why she excluded the PO's general counsel, Susan Crichton, from a crucial Board Meeting at which Crichton was due to present a paper in which she would almost certainly have put it to the Board that Horizon was known to have flaws, and therefore the convictions on which it was based were unsound. Vennells presented the paper instead. Crichton was made to sit outside. Crichton says she told Vennels about the failings with Horizon. Vennells denies this.
The result of this nonsense is that it was not spelled out to the Board in words of one syllable that Horizon was crap and that the PO was in deep shit. Of course it is obvious to anyone with some common that the Board knew this perfectly well already, it just didn't want it put to them in a way that would have obliged them to do something about it.
There should be much else of interest too, so I recommend looking in from time to time to see how Alice is doing. According to Nick Wallis, she is 'wooden and inarticulate', as one would expect of a highly paid senior executive in a major firm. I expect Jason Beer will be doing the questioning. If anyone can get any sense out of her, he can.
I didn’t watch it, therefore I declare myself the winner.
That said, it sounds like Starmer’s cautiousness slightly tripped him up. This should come as a surprise to nobody. Overwhelming cautiousness bordering on tedium has been the hallmark of his strategic approach since taking over. What's more surprising for a top lawyer is his apparent tactical weakness. You have to rebut, ideally with humour.
Here’s hoping he can build the case over these events. But will anyone still be watching by the end?
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
I don't agree.
It's not true and Rishi needs more than lies.
SKS is a poor performer but at this point its anybody but the blue team for many people.
As I pointed out to Marquee last night, for £2k tax rise to cut through you have to have a voter who is oblivious to the fact that the Tories have put up taxes already, that food and energy and housing bills have all shot up, and that they are worse off now than they were last time.
A few may be oblivious. But the reason why “cost of living” is such a big issue is that most voters know they are worse off.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Yes, I agree with every word of this. Another manifestation is how all politics is now tactical, bodering on micro-management. Nobody has the balls to look at and stick with strategic approaches. Instead we get meaningless slogans like stop the boats. As you say, the inevitable result of this dumbed down approach will be simplist extremism.
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.
Sunak is also very dishonest with his unfunded "tax cuts". These are in in part paid for by stealth taxes elsewhere. The "tax cut" for State Pensioners is by not including pensioners in the fiscal drag that the rest of us suffer for example.
Nor does he outline the spending cuts necessary to provide these "tax cuts", particularly to our collapsing public services. Then there's the small issue of our substantial deficit, on target to be £120 billion this year.
One of the reasons that Labour will stumble over the £2000 tax bill claim is that it is going to be hitting us anyway, whoever is in power as long as they make unfunded spending commitments like the triple lock.
Fun seeing the Tories trying to spin a Sunakgasm after the debate last night. After a torrid couple of weeks I don’t blame them. You’d grab hold of anything. I wonder how they will get on.
For my part, Starmer forgets one important thing, which is that elections are about the future not the past. Truss is relevant in so much as you can’t trust the Tories on tax, or indeed anything. They promised stability and low taxes last time, but delivered the highest taxes on record. Tories say one thing at elections and deliver another.
You can’t believe a word Sunak says. He can’t deliver. That’s the message.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
I'm afraid this hoary sentiment is ringing increasingly hollow. Effective policies that change peoples' lives for the better are not 'difficult' - they are however often stymied by a state and administrative structure that actively opposes their implementation, along with powerful corporate interests who also like things the way they are. Elected politicians have all the responsibility when things go wrong, and none of the power. Any Government that wishes to bring about positive change is going to have to take back the power to govern before they can do anything. Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are going to do that.
Good morning all. I watched the debate and I will watch the rest of them in the future. I admit I have voted for all the major parties in the past. So I accept Starmer will be next PM. I voted for Blair, After his stance on the Iraq war I went off him. However Starmer does not compare with him. He constantly criticises and does not make clear what his policies are.I find him very negative. I have watch him and the others in question time in parliament various times and have noted his way of behaviour.People say he is brillant on detail. He talks for England and I am not convinced he will actually do anything. Good at waffling. White man speaks with forked tongue sums him up. The nightmare scenario would be Trump and Starmer. Most of the people in his party loathe Trump so Donald would fall out with Keir. No doubt. I hope Biden stays. He would be better for our special relationship. Starmer is a solictor with no personality. A good backroom admin person. Give the people what they want. So we get him. Tony Blair. He does not come close to in any shape or form. I hope I am wrong and once he is in power he can improve the quality of life and morale for the majority of this country and make them happy. I mean that. However my gut feeling about this man is not good. We will see how he performs once he is in power.
5 live done a VAR on Lab tax rises claim. "Would need some strange assumptions for it to cost £2000 per household."
It's bollocks, but the important thing is Starmer didn't smack it down. This is the narrative for the next four weeks.
Labour have been disingenuous with their lack of tax and spend plans, but no more so than Sunak and the Tories, who have presumably cut headline taxes to scupper any future Labour Government. Imagine if Sunak's "knockout" (thank you Michael Gove) performance last night is enough for them to stay in Government. If you think they are unpopular now, just wait until Christmas.
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
That's very articulate, but the thing is the Tories actually came up with a simplistic policy and simplistic SOLUTION to our problems: import insane numbers of people: 2.4 million in 3 years, the most in our history by a huge distance, indeed almost unprecedented in the modern world outside wartime
Now they will see another "simple solution": being demolished in an election such that they might never recover. Good
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
Maybe voters should listen to the issues and the arguments with the same sense of duty they do in a criminal trial as part of a jury.
What's interesting is that, down the pub or over dinner, many do unpack them to an extended degree. But they won't watch politicians talk about them for long and get bored.
The contrast with how we used to do political debates is very marked. Politicians treated each other with respect, didn't attempt to shout down or over the other and were given time to expound their points.
Watch just a bit of Heath and Foot debating the Common Market here:
According to polls (before last night) only 11% of people knew SKS’s father was a toolmaker.
That’s the problem for pb folk, most people don’t live and breathe this stuff. The problem for the politicians is that people don’t watch the telly either
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
I don't agree.
It's not true and Rishi needs more than lies.
SKS is a poor performer but at this point its anybody but the blue team for many people.
As I pointed out to Marquee last night, for £2k tax rise to cut through you have to have a voter who is oblivious to the fact that the Tories have put up taxes already, that food and energy and housing bills have all shot up, and that they are worse off now than they were last time.
A few may be oblivious. But the reason why “cost of living” is such a big issue is that most voters know they are worse off.
Rishi's genius is he is sounding like the challenger whereas Starmer is painted as the incumbent responsible for 27 years of chaos. Will Sunak's knockout win according to Gove, Vine and Harry Cole be enough to swing it Rishi's way?
In Starmer's having to defend batting away made-up bullshit off the cuff is not easy. He probably prepared to respond to reality. A rookie error.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
I hope you're right - I haven't really looked into it. My assumption was in the short-term these drugs will cost money as they have to be continually taken to have the most effect, and might not be terribly cheap for a while, but maybe they will pay for themselves quickly.
Good morning all. I watched the debate and I will watch the rest of them in the future. I admit I have voted for all the major parties in the past. So I accept Starmer will be next PM. I voted for Blair, After his stance on the Iraq war I went off him. However Starmer does not compare with him. He constantly criticises and does not make clear what his policies are.I find him very negative. I have watch him and the others in question time in parliament various times and have noted his way of behaviour.People say he is brillant on detail. He talks for England and I am not convinced he will actually do anything. Good at waffling. White man speaks with forked tongue sums him up. The nightmare scenario would be Trump and Starmer. Most of the people in his party loathe Trump so Donald would fall out with Keir. No doubt. I hope Biden stays. He would be better for our special relationship. Starmer is a solictor with no personality. A good backroom admin person. Give the people what they want. So we get him. Tony Blair. He does not come close to in any shape or form. I hope I am wrong and once he is in power he can improve the quality of life and morale for the majority of this country and make them happy. I mean that. However my gut feeling about this man is not good. We will see how he performs once he is in power.
I have the same rueful feeling about Starmer. He is certain to win and he is almost certain to disappoint, perhaps gravely, he simply doesn't have the imagination or creativity or even charisma to drive major change. I sincerely hope I am wrong, I want Britain to do better, obvs
As for Biden, did you see the Time interview with him? They won't release the audio and the transcript is "lightly edited" but even in that format you can sense his senility. He mistakes Xi for Putin, can't remember the name of the Warsaw Pact, gets Africa and America mixed up, makes mad claims about Israel, constantly loses his thread, forgets important words, mangles other crucial words, says old people in China are older than young people in Europe, and finally offers to have a fight with the interviewer to prove he's still energetic
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
I don't agree.
It's not true and Rishi needs more than lies.
SKS is a poor performer but at this point its anybody but the blue team for many people.
As I pointed out to Marquee last night, for £2k tax rise to cut through you have to have a voter who is oblivious to the fact that the Tories have put up taxes already, that food and energy and housing bills have all shot up, and that they are worse off now than they were last time.
A few may be oblivious. But the reason why “cost of living” is such a big issue is that most voters know they are worse off.
Rishi's genius is he is sounding like the challenger whereas Starmer is painted as the incumbent responsible for 27 years of chaos. Will Sunak's knockout win according to Gove, Vine and Harry Cole be enough to swing it Rishi's way?
In Starmer's having to defend batting away made-up bullshit off the cuff is not easy. He probably prepared to respond to reality. A rookie error.
The comedy from last night is the "look, the front pages have picked up on Starmer's £2k tax rise" shock.
Yes, because they had been briefed by the Tory Party that this is the attack line. Which is why the client newspapers had managed to produce P1 leads and detailed commentary and columnists articles on something which happened literally minutes before.
Its not a complaint - that is how the media works. But it wasn't in response to Sunak's performance. Written *in advance* of it...
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
I'm afraid this hoary sentiment is ringing increasingly hollow. Effective policies that change peoples' lives for the better are not 'difficult' - they are however often stymied by a state and administrative structure that actively opposes their implementation, along with powerful corporate interests who also like things the way they are. Elected politicians have all the responsibility when things go wrong, and none of the power. Any Government that wishes to bring about positive change is going to have to take back the power to govern before they can do anything. Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are going to do that.
Well complex and difficult aren’t the same thing. I’m afraid the Trussite conspiracy theory to pretend that she and other politicians aren’t simply inadequate is incredibly stupid. There’s a kernel of truth that all institutions are susceptible to groupthink, but there are intelligent ways of dealing with that. Pretending that the institutions of government are vast conspiracies against politicians might comfort the terminally inadequate but I’m afraid they are just another iteration of the simplistic narrative approach.
Fun seeing the Tories trying to spin a Sunakgasm after the debate last night. After a torrid couple of weeks I don’t blame them. You’d grab hold of anything. I wonder how they will get on.
For my part, Starmer forgets one important thing, which is that elections are about the future not the past. Truss is relevant in so much as you can’t trust the Tories on tax, or indeed anything. They promised stability and low taxes last time, but delivered the highest taxes on record. Tories say one thing at elections and deliver another.
You can’t believe a word Sunak says. He can’t deliver. That’s the message.
Good morning all. I watched the debate and I will watch the rest of them in the future. I admit I have voted for all the major parties in the past. So I accept Starmer will be next PM. I voted for Blair, After his stance on the Iraq war I went off him. However Starmer does not compare with him. He constantly criticises and does not make clear what his policies are.I find him very negative. I have watch him and the others in question time in parliament various times and have noted his way of behaviour.People say he is brillant on detail. He talks for England and I am not convinced he will actually do anything. Good at waffling. White man speaks with forked tongue sums him up. The nightmare scenario would be Trump and Starmer. Most of the people in his party loathe Trump so Donald would fall out with Keir. No doubt. I hope Biden stays. He would be better for our special relationship. Starmer is a solictor with no personality. A good backroom admin person. Give the people what they want. So we get him. Tony Blair. He does not come close to in any shape or form. I hope I am wrong and once he is in power he can improve the quality of life and morale for the majority of this country and make them happy. I mean that. However my gut feeling about this man is not good. We will see how he performs once he is in power.
I am not a Starmer fan and will not be voting Labour, but when he is PM (as seems near certain in a month's time), I think we will see his strengths. He did much better second half where his slower, more thoughtful style came through. Ironically this was best in the Football question, in which we got a glimpse of the real man. He leant forward and engaged with the questioning speaking intelligently about Southgates tournament strategy.
Sadly I think his limitations will also show in office. Starmer is a Southgate not a Guardiola or Klopp. He can demolish lesser opposition but doesn't have the imagination or flexibility to innovate or think on his feet, so won't bring home the cup.
1) Small enough to be plausible to most voters. Probably what it takes to fix the NHS. 2) Big enough to be painful to most voters. That a month's salary. 3) Everyone is hyper sensitive to additional costs due to cost of living 4) Lobs the ball into the Starmer's half of the court for the first time in weeks
Time for a big Labour policy announcement to kick it out of the news.
I don’t think the £2000 tax figure changes things much even if Starmer should have rebutted it better in the debate. Whether that was dealt with or not the Tories were always going to run some sort of ‘tax bombshell’ campaign this time round like they do every election.
I think the biggest error from Starmer was the private healthcare for family one which just sounded nonsensical and untrue. He should have said “yes, but most people won’t have that luxury thanks to 14 years of tories etc”
Then he would have been attacked from the other direction. To be honest, I don’t think it’s the moderator’s role to ask “gotchas”, I thought the whole format was weird.
I miss the 2010 format with 3 debates on 3 different areas (domestic, foreign and economic), it allowed for slightly more cohesive debates. This was all over the place.
Fun seeing the Tories trying to spin a Sunakgasm after the debate last night. After a torrid couple of weeks I don’t blame them. You’d grab hold of anything. I wonder how they will get on.
For my part, Starmer forgets one important thing, which is that elections are about the future not the past. Truss is relevant in so much as you can’t trust the Tories on tax, or indeed anything. They promised stability and low taxes last time, but delivered the highest taxes on record. Tories say one thing at elections and deliver another.
You can’t believe a word Sunak says. He can’t deliver. That’s the message.
Not at all @Casino_Royale. To be rattled, I would have to be surprised.
If I feel anything, it’s frustration that we have to endure a month of this , we’re not even halfway. The way elections, despite my best efforts, slip into my consciousness is really annoying. I’d much rather be enjoying the summer than riding this rollercoaster.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
One problem I think Rishi will find is a £2000 tax rise (over 4 years so £500 a year) doesn’t sound that bad when you want public services and the NHS to be improved.
The story about weight loss drugs and cancer is fascinating. For me it's further evidence of the critical importance of high quality diet and how we facilitate and encourage that as a country. All debates about UPF's, access to fruit and veg, good food habits and associated farming policies are one of the biggest issues we face as a country.
I didn't watch the debate, but as Tory, and not seeing anything in print about Starmer making a mistake, it has to be a win for Starmer. Major was as dull as ditchwater....
The story about weight loss drugs and cancer is fascinating. For me it's further evidence of the critical importance of high quality diet and how we facilitate and encourage that as a country. All debates about UPF's, access to fruit and veg, good food habits and associated farming policies are one of the biggest issues we face as a country.
The next few decades could be amazing. On point, the economics of the nhs might radically change in our favour. Science not politics is the answer.
The “toolmaker” story is contested. To some on the left his father was “Factory Owner of the Oxted Tool Company” - we simply don’t know as Companies House has no records. He may have been “owner” or “sole trader” - but if SKS wants to introduce this, he should expect scrutiny.
I wouldn't dream of wasting an hour of my time on the Sunak v Starmer snooze fest. I have seen the key clips, and my pre-event analysis was accurate. Starmer was very wooden (we knew that) Sunak was overbearing and hectoring. So my take was a nil, nil draw with Starmer losing on penalties. The winning penalty was Sunak's dreamed up £2000 tax bill from Labour. I say dreamed up because Sunak could have plucked any figure from the ether. It may well cut through because it does expose the Labour lie that taxes cut by the Tories are both affordable AND services can get better. More interestingly Sunak quietly admitted that in order to keep his current giveaways and add a few more, austerity can't be ruled out.
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
I’m also assuming there’s no point wasting an hour watching this debate, and another hour or more reading through 1,000 comments on the subject here. Reading the headlines it appears that neither man said anything stupid, and it’s unlikely that many minds were changed.
Ten minutes would have disabused you of thar notion. Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Ha ha very true. I’m sure they were both talking bollocks for an hour, because that’s all politicians ever do at these set-piece events.
I gave up after 20 mins. It's exactly the sort of Punch and Judy politics I hate. So I am grateful for the Daily Express and Daily Mail for telling me that it was a comprehensive win for Sunak.
What would we do without them?
5 live says win for Sunak too.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
Labour should be concerned. Their £2,000 extra tax "position" is off and running, whilst Starmer didn't appear to know how to tie his laces.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
Some severe fact checking from the BBC this morning. The £2k figure is apparently calculated over four years (who does that ?), and in any event based on some deeply questionable assumptions.
They also used civil servants to do some* of the work.
*A genuine civil service report would have been considerably less otiose.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
It also is in denial of the polling. Women poll more strongly in favour of Trans rights than men. So she does not speak for all women, and is rather arrogant to do so.
"When it comes whether someone can change their legal gender status, men tend to be opposed, by 42% to 36%. Women remain in favour, although only a plurality of 44% say so, with 32% opposed.
Much of the contention around trans rights has focused on transgender women and their access to women’s spaces. It is pertinent to note, therefore, that in all cases women are notably more relaxed about the prospect of a trans woman in a woman’s space than men are.
The degree to which women are comfortable sharing their space with trans women does differ, however, depending on the venue.
While women tend to think that trans women should be allowed to use women’s refuges for victims of rape or assault by 45% to 30%, and women’s toilets by 45% to 34%, allowing trans women in women’s changing rooms is more divisive, with 40% in favour but 37% opposed."
I am in Switzerland currently so did not see the debate. The only clip of it I have seen is of the audience laughing at Sunak about NHS waiting lists. There are probably other clips available but I have not seen them.
Starmer's great weakness is that he is the has always been the one asking the questions. He is not good at thinking on his feet when questioned himself. All the reports suggest this was exposed, at least to an extent, last night. I am not sure it matters that much in terms of being able to do the job of PM but it is a problem when you are seeking to communicate. And that is basically what an election campaign is all about. He and his team were right to avoid anything beyond the bare minimum of debates. I think he'll do better in interviews where he has time to construct an argument. But, again, how many people watch those?
That said, like me, most people will not have seen the debates and most people do not get their news from the Tory press. It could be that the price of an hour of claiming a £2000 Labour tax rise is incoming will be paid for by four weeks of everyone outside the Tory press - including, crucially, the broadcasters - explaining why it's not true. You can get away with that kind of thing when you have the benefit of the doubt but Sunak and the Tories squandered that a long time ago. I can see why Sunak pressed the claim but I'm not convinced it will turn out to be anything like a gamechanger.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
You’re right to be optimistic. So many sudden advances are being made as technology gets to grips with priorly intractable medical problems - from cancer to dementia to obesity to basic ageing
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
That would undoubtedly be a great thing in many ways - assuming people realised it couldn't all be added onto their retirement. Would rather delay the predictions of global population starting to decline.
Mr. Romford, I think Sunak and the Conservatives would definitely take that result. It's way above the Con polling, whereas the Starmer 44% is in line with Labour's.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
It also is in denial of the polling. Women poll more strongly in favour of Trans rights than men. So she does not speak for all women, and is rather arrogant to do so.
"When it comes whether someone can change their legal gender status, men tend to be opposed, by 42% to 36%. Women remain in favour, although only a plurality of 44% say so, with 32% opposed.
Much of the contention around trans rights has focused on transgender women and their access to women’s spaces. It is pertinent to note, therefore, that in all cases women are notably more relaxed about the prospect of a trans woman in a woman’s space than men are.
The degree to which women are comfortable sharing their space with trans women does differ, however, depending on the venue.
While women tend to think that trans women should be allowed to use women’s refuges for victims of rape or assault by 45% to 30%, and women’s toilets by 45% to 34%, allowing trans women in women’s changing rooms is more divisive, with 40% in favour but 37% opposed."
My wife is more engaged in this topic than I am, and she is strongly supportive of trans rights. She sees this debate as just the latest iteration of homophobia.
So no, the idea this is trans-women versus women is not borne out in our household at least.
Have you made any calculations on how it will save a lot of money? Because it seems to me that postponing death and disease isn't necessarily going to save any money - it might do the opposite.
Living longer isn't the problem. Living your last years with chronic disease (or cancer) is what really costs the NHS. Not everyone costs the NHS massive amounts in their final years.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
You’re right to be optimistic. So many sudden advances are being made as technology gets to grips with priorly intractable medical problems - from cancer to dementia to obesity to basic ageing
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
That would undoubtedly be a great thing in many ways - assuming people realised it couldn't all be added onto their retirement. Would rather delay the predictions of global population starting to decline.
We are on the precipice of multiple transformations, which will render much of our political debate trivial if not ridiculous
I think that the public under rates the risks of obesity as a cause of cancer. That effect on obesity may be the entire explanation for the drop in cancers, rather than any effect itself.
It's certainly a very significant part of it. But data from the other trials suggests there are positive effects which go beyond those you'd expect from weight loss alone. (Also the mechanisms which cause some of the negative effects of obesity aren't fully understood.)
Of course it's very early days, and there will be a lot more known in two to three years time.
(Also I'm sure you know most of this better than I do.)
Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law. The fact that we are still having to explain why we have a legitimate political interest in our own legal definition, that you don’t just get to give it away to other ‘more important’ people because they want it, and that we have every right to defend our own political interests without being called mean witches, is, I will always maintain, one of the greatest demonstrations of sexism I have ever witnessed in my life.
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
It also is in denial of the polling. Women poll more strongly in favour of Trans rights than men. So she does not speak for all women, and is rather arrogant to do so.
"When it comes whether someone can change their legal gender status, men tend to be opposed, by 42% to 36%. Women remain in favour, although only a plurality of 44% say so, with 32% opposed.
Much of the contention around trans rights has focused on transgender women and their access to women’s spaces. It is pertinent to note, therefore, that in all cases women are notably more relaxed about the prospect of a trans woman in a woman’s space than men are.
The degree to which women are comfortable sharing their space with trans women does differ, however, depending on the venue.
While women tend to think that trans women should be allowed to use women’s refuges for victims of rape or assault by 45% to 30%, and women’s toilets by 45% to 34%, allowing trans women in women’s changing rooms is more divisive, with 40% in favour but 37% opposed."
That data is 2 years old. This was the headline then:
There has been an erosion in support for trans rights since 2018
The penny is dropping that, much as men like to frame this as a “Trans rights” issue (therefore a tiny minority, don’t bother your silly little heads) this is also a women’s rights issue - a bit over half the population, so it’s not going away, however much some men might wish it would.
Mr. Romford, I think Sunak and the Conservatives would definitely take that result. It's way above the Con polling, whereas the Starmer 44% is in line with Labour's.
True, though the subsidiaries are nearly all wipeouts for Starmer.
TLDR is 'Sunak didn't lose the debate but people don't like him or his ideas'. Which is fair enough. Why should winning a debate make one fit to be Prime Minister?
Morning all, at least we are one day closer to it all being over; election wise and at a cosmic level! I’m beginning to wonder if the mess politics has got itself into is a toxic relationship between politicians and the electorate. The politicians pretending that incredibly complex issues have simplistic solutions and the voters responding by demanding even more areas of policy are subjected to oversimplification. The end result is that a sizeable chunk of the electorate give up on the whole process and another chunk get seduced by the pied piper of the most egregiously simplistic and counterproductive policies.
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
I'm afraid this hoary sentiment is ringing increasingly hollow. Effective policies that change peoples' lives for the better are not 'difficult' - they are however often stymied by a state and administrative structure that actively opposes their implementation, along with powerful corporate interests who also like things the way they are. Elected politicians have all the responsibility when things go wrong, and none of the power. Any Government that wishes to bring about positive change is going to have to take back the power to govern before they can do anything. Neither Starmer's Labour nor Sunak's Tories are going to do that.
I didn't watch the debate, but as Tory, and not seeing anything in print about Starmer making a mistake, it has to be a win for Starmer. Major was as dull as ditchwater....
He was certainly focused on not making a mistake and emphasising 14 wasted years. He knows he's got this. But May knew she had it too when she tried to make an entire campaign out of strong and stable. People get both bored and disenchanted with that form of campaigning.
The proportion of losses caused by drone strikes is just incredible. No army from any country is going to be able to go into the field without both fleets of offensive drones and some form of protection from them. Our current army is no longer really fit for purpose.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
Whilst I tend to think that defence spending should rise, I don’t think the absolute level of spending is the entire ball game. How you spend money is just as important as how much money you spend. A genuine strategic defence and security review, not a mislabelled cost cutting exercise, should be conducted. It is clear the risks and threats to peace and security are growing not shrinking and look likely to be persistent over the medium term horizon and that requires a robust response and a retuning of posture.
I wonder how many of their polling sample even watched it. In fact, do we have a number for how many watched it? I think this polling reflects the current polling where Starmer is streets ahead. I don't agree with their conclusion on the debate but actually this result is more significant. Starmer remains comfortably ahead in the public's perception.
The story about weight loss drugs and cancer is fascinating. For me it's further evidence of the critical importance of high quality diet and how we facilitate and encourage that as a country. All debates about UPF's, access to fruit and veg, good food habits and associated farming policies are one of the biggest issues we face as a country.
The next few decades could be amazing. On point, the economics of the nhs might radically change in our favour. Science not politics is the answer.
Also on the tech front (and directly relevant to Rishi's bogus £2k figure), Wes Streeting should have a look at these new low cost scanners. They can't do everything the existing very expensive ones which use superconducting magnets, but could substitute for them in a large number of cases.
I can report that downtown Odessa is weirdly idyllic on a fresh, warm, cloudless summer morning. I've set up my office on my hotel balcony, so I can get a good view of any missiles though it's probably not ideal in terms of shrapnel. We had an air raid warning early morning, everyone ignored it. I am staring down Alexandrovsky street, three blocks from Potemkin Steps
War produces oddities. Last night I discovered a very high class supermarket next to my hotel which offers jamon iberica de bellota shaved newly from the bone (and a superb variety of cheeses, charcuterie, amazing fresh fruit, fine wines). I can't work out if Odessa still has a concentration of rich people, somehow, or this is luxury demanded by returning soldiers (can't blame them)
And at night Odessa is rhapsodically quiet. Curfew kicks in around 11pm, much of the portable generated electricity is switched off. There are no cars, no engines, nothing, it is quieter than Venice, the street-trees whisper under the stars. And you can hear birdsong half a mile away, as the rosy Odessan dawn arrives, the slant light shining on the pale green Italianate terraces. Peculiar yet blissful
That said, like me, most people will not have seen the debates and most people do not get their news from the Tory press. It could be that the price of an hour of claiming a £2000 Labour tax rise is incoming will be paid for by four weeks of everyone outside the Tory press - including, crucially, the broadcasters - explaining why it's not true. You can get away with that kind of thing when you have the benefit of the doubt but Sunak and the Tories squandered that a long time ago. I can see why Sunak pressed the claim but I'm not convinced it will turn out to be anything like a gamechanger.
Wasn't the lesson of the Brexit campaign that the more you try to explain away a numerical "lie" from the other side, the more you amplify the original claim, and the more you reinforce its fundamental message?
The last thing Labour want to do for the next four weeks is to spend that time earnestly explaining that tax rises will only be £1000, or £200, or whatever other figure that people won't trust, but will just take the message that Labour will put up taxes.
Comments
Me? I'd rather the NHS worked, children were educated, there were more bobbies on the beat and the roads were pot hole free. Was I left more inclined to Sunak, and less to Starmer? No, but the PB Tories left happy which is good.
Meanwhile… https://www.404media.co/google-contractor-used-admin-access-to-leak-private-nintendo-youtube-video/
Google’s contractors were using admin accounts, to spy on and leak private Youtube videos being used internally by Nintendo to discuss future releases.
Morning Madam. Nice to see you back posting again.
' ...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. '
Isn't the problem that the public don't care, as long as they get the present Government out?
Unless you meant "made any major blunders" ?
Meanwhile, the second biggest election in the world is on Sunday. In Germany CDU/CSU are obviously going to top the poll, but 2nd place could be the AfD or the SPD or the Greens. New party BSW are on about 6-7% in the polls, enough for a handful of MEPs.
I'm making assumptions, I acknowledge, but it already seems quite likely that these drugs reduce the incidence of both those things (there also seems to be an effect on dementia).
It's too soon to make calculations - and the costs of the drugs before they go generic will be a big factor - but organisations like NICE will be getting very interested.
What would we do without them?
The debates and social media are symptomatic of this trend as politicians are now being asked to boil policy down to fit in a 45 second debate response or a 30 second TikTok video. It’s not healthy, it’s not even sane. The consequence is that politicians are expected to be able to walk in and solve national problems simply by showing up and when that doesn’t happen because it’s unrealistic voters turn with savage ferocity. Hence the stunning reverse the Tories are subject to at this election, their promises last time were entirely unrealistic and that having transpired voters move on to the next snake oil salesman. The warning for Labour is clear that when they can’t deliver the new Jerusalem simply by getting elected the voters will turn on them savagely.
In this sense Farage isn’t an antidote to the problem, but a manifestation of the problem on steroids. Tub thumping populist offering the most simplistic analysis and policies possible, voters amenable to it because they are simply following the remorseless logic of the current structure of politics. Everyone needs to step back from this particular death spiral and embrace the virtue of complexity and nuance, and recognise that good outcomes require patience and determination and cannot be achieved 10seconds after passing a bill through parliament.
It's the 10+ years living with heart disease, dementia, diabetes or cancer that costs all the money, and rates of chronic conditions are increasing far faster than what our demographic profile would suggest.
The big issue no one likes to talk about is increasing child obesity - that could lead to someone living their entire adult life with a serious health condition.
Main reason appears to be SKS not shutting down lie about cost of his tax plans for 20 mins.
No knockout blows so Lab. won't be unduly concerned.
I see the price of NOM on Betfair dropped a couple of ticks, from 21 to 19, which would be in line with what you are saying.
In a "don't scare the horses" election where Labour has tried to say there is nothing between the two main parties on taxes, that is now a big difference for the voters to perceive.
Sunak's targets were imo chosen as things that were going to happen anyway - see for example energy prices and fuel prices falling out of the inflation rate calculation.
In ten years we could add twenty HEALTHY years to the average life
Didn't watch the debate. Don't plan on watching any of them.
What's interesting is that, down the pub or over dinner, many do unpack them to an extended degree. But they won't watch politicians talk about them for long and get bored.
Sir Keir’s Dad was a toolmaker.
Whichever way I end up voting it will be with deep reluctance. I will vote, but the choices before the electorate are terrible and have been for decades.
It's not true and Rishi needs more than lies.
SKS is a poor performer but at this point its anybody but the blue team for many people.
The result of this nonsense is that it was not spelled out to the Board in words of one syllable that Horizon was crap and that the PO was in deep shit. Of course it is obvious to anyone with some common that the Board knew this perfectly well already, it just didn't want it put to them in a way that would have obliged them to do something about it.
There should be much else of interest too, so I recommend looking in from time to time to see how Alice is doing. According to Nick Wallis, she is 'wooden and inarticulate', as one would expect of a highly paid senior executive in a major firm. I expect Jason Beer will be doing the questioning. If anyone can get any sense out of her, he can.
Start 9.45 am.
It just makes me think he's a tool.
That said, it sounds like Starmer’s cautiousness slightly tripped him up. This should come as a surprise to nobody. Overwhelming cautiousness bordering on tedium has been the hallmark of his strategic approach since taking over. What's more surprising for a top lawyer is his apparent tactical weakness. You have to rebut, ideally with humour.
Here’s hoping he can build the case over these events. But will anyone still be watching by the end?
Sunak keeps on about hismum being a pharmacist, as if that makes him just the sort of bloke who can sort out the NHS.
It's pathetic.
A few may be oblivious. But the reason why “cost of living” is such a big issue is that most voters know they are worse off.
Nor does he outline the spending cuts necessary to provide these "tax cuts", particularly to our collapsing public services. Then there's the small issue of our substantial deficit, on target to be £120 billion this year.
One of the reasons that Labour will stumble over the £2000 tax bill claim is that it is going to be hitting us anyway, whoever is in power as long as they make unfunded spending commitments like the triple lock.
For my part, Starmer forgets one important thing, which is that elections are about the future not the past. Truss is relevant in so much as you can’t trust the Tories on tax, or indeed anything. They promised stability and low taxes last time, but delivered the highest taxes on record. Tories say one thing at elections and deliver another.
You can’t believe a word Sunak says. He can’t deliver. That’s the message.
Labour have been disingenuous with their lack of tax and spend plans, but no more so than Sunak and the Tories, who have presumably cut headline taxes to scupper any future Labour Government. Imagine if Sunak's "knockout" (thank you Michael Gove) performance last night is enough for them to stay in Government. If you think they are unpopular now, just wait until Christmas.
Who knew? (Everyone - ed.)
Now they will see another "simple solution": being demolished in an election such that they might never recover. Good
Watch just a bit of Heath and Foot debating the Common Market here:
https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs?feature=shared
It really is chalk and cheese in terms of quality of debate, and moderation.
In Starmer's having to defend batting away made-up bullshit off the cuff is not easy. He probably prepared to respond to reality. A rookie error.
https://janeclarejones.com/2024/06/04/dear-men-on-the-left-reprise-sigh/
As for Biden, did you see the Time interview with him? They won't release the audio and the transcript is "lightly edited" but even in that format you can sense his senility. He mistakes Xi for Putin, can't remember the name of the Warsaw Pact, gets Africa and America mixed up, makes mad claims about Israel, constantly loses his thread, forgets important words, mangles other crucial words, says old people in China are older than young people in Europe, and finally offers to have a fight with the interviewer to prove he's still energetic
Not great
I mean, seriously. With everything that women have to put up with, the idea that a legal definition of womanhood is in any way the 'greatest demonstration of sexism' seems a rather silly thing to say.
Yes, because they had been briefed by the Tory Party that this is the attack line. Which is why the client newspapers had managed to produce P1 leads and detailed commentary and columnists articles on something which happened literally minutes before.
Its not a complaint - that is how the media works. But it wasn't in response to Sunak's performance. Written *in advance* of it...
Sadly I think his limitations will also show in office. Starmer is a Southgate not a Guardiola or Klopp. He can demolish lesser opposition but doesn't have the imagination or flexibility to innovate or think on his feet, so won't bring home the cup.
https://www.lordashcroft.com/2021/06/king-of-the-middle-class-radicals-that-was-grammar-school-educated-sir-keir-starmers-university-nickname/
1) Small enough to be plausible to most voters. Probably what it takes to fix the NHS.
2) Big enough to be painful to most voters. That a month's salary.
3) Everyone is hyper sensitive to additional costs due to cost of living
4) Lobs the ball into the Starmer's half of the court for the first time in weeks
Time for a big Labour policy announcement to kick it out of the news.
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1798234488335671400?s=61
If I feel anything, it’s frustration that we have to endure a month of this , we’re not even halfway. The way elections, despite my best efforts, slip into my consciousness is really annoying. I’d much rather be enjoying the summer than riding this rollercoaster.
You may have missed this thread from Cyclefree:
https://x.com/cyclefree2/status/1798089638357139914?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e_tI3ovN5jK-RrDPCpCy2lEtnX7XJaAHGF2zPMps11w/edit?pli=1#gid=0
🚨🚨🚨
NEW: Starmer beats Sunak in televised debate overnight poll
Who won the debate:
Starmer (44%)
Sunak (39%)
Don't Know (17%)
1,153 UK adults, 4-5 June
https://twitter.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676
The £2k figure is apparently calculated over four years (who does that ?), and in any event based on some deeply questionable assumptions.
They also used civil servants to do some* of the work.
*A genuine civil service report would have been considerably less otiose.
"When it comes whether someone can change their legal gender status, men tend to be opposed, by 42% to 36%. Women remain in favour, although only a plurality of 44% say so, with 32% opposed.
Much of the contention around trans rights has focused on transgender women and their access to women’s spaces. It is pertinent to note, therefore, that in all cases women are notably more relaxed about the prospect of a trans woman in a woman’s space than men are.
The degree to which women are comfortable sharing their space with trans women does differ, however, depending on the venue.
While women tend to think that trans women should be allowed to use women’s refuges for victims of rape or assault by 45% to 30%, and women’s toilets by 45% to 34%, allowing trans women in women’s changing rooms is more divisive, with 40% in favour but 37% opposed."
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/43194-where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights-1
Starmer's great weakness is that he is the has always been the one asking the questions. He is not good at thinking on his feet when questioned himself. All the reports suggest this was exposed, at least to an extent, last night. I am not sure it matters that much in terms of being able to do the job of PM but it is a problem when you are seeking to communicate. And that is basically what an election campaign is all about. He and his team were right to avoid anything beyond the bare minimum of debates. I think he'll do better in interviews where he has time to construct an argument. But, again, how many people watch those?
That said, like me, most people will not have seen the debates and most people do not get their news from the Tory press. It could be that the price of an hour of claiming a £2000 Labour tax rise is incoming will be paid for by four weeks of everyone outside the Tory press - including, crucially, the broadcasters - explaining why it's not true. You can get away with that kind of thing when you have the benefit of the doubt but Sunak and the Tories squandered that a long time ago. I can see why Sunak pressed the claim but I'm not convinced it will turn out to be anything like a gamechanger.
Last night Sunak repeated his commitment to 2.5% of GDP for defence and Starmer refused, again, to match it. In the short term, as we catch up with the evolution of warfare in Ukraine, the question has to be whether 2.5% is enough.
So no, the idea this is trans-women versus women is not borne out in our household at least.
But data from the other trials suggests there are positive effects which go beyond those you'd expect from weight loss alone.
(Also the mechanisms which cause some of the negative effects of obesity aren't fully understood.)
Of course it's very early days, and there will be a lot more known in two to three years time.
(Also I'm sure you know most of this better than I do.)
There has been an erosion in support for trans rights since 2018
The penny is dropping that, much as men like to frame this as a “Trans rights” issue (therefore a tiny minority, don’t bother your silly little heads) this is also a women’s rights issue - a bit over half the population, so it’s not going away, however much some men might wish it would.
NEW: Starmer beats Sunak in televised debate overnight poll
Who won the debate:
Starmer (44%)
Sunak (39%)
Don't Know (17%)
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676
NEW: Starmer beats Sunak on every major issue and personality-based question in overnight poll
Who came across as most honest (Starmer 54%, Sunak 29%)
Who gave most thoughtful answers (Starmer 53%, Sunak 35%)
Who remained the calmest (Starmer 51%, Sunak 36%)
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798241264225427534
TLDR is 'Sunak didn't lose the debate but people don't like him or his ideas'. Which is fair enough. Why should winning a debate make one fit to be Prime Minister?
I didn’t expect you would agree though.
“Signed off by the Treasury perm sec” apparently - so the civil service are supporting the Tory campaign.
Starmer looked timid and should have bullied Sunak a bit. He'll have to do better next time.
scanners. They can't do everything the existing very expensive ones which use superconducting magnets, but could substitute for them in a large number of cases.
MRI Sheds Its Shielding and Superconducting Magnets
A cheaper, smaller scanner uses AI to match other MRIs' image quality
https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/mri-2668213587
War produces oddities. Last night I discovered a very high class supermarket next to my hotel which offers jamon iberica de bellota shaved newly from the bone (and a superb variety of cheeses, charcuterie, amazing fresh fruit, fine wines). I can't work out if Odessa still has a concentration of rich people, somehow, or this is luxury demanded by returning soldiers (can't blame them)
And at night Odessa is rhapsodically quiet. Curfew kicks in around 11pm, much of the portable generated electricity is switched off. There are no cars, no engines, nothing, it is quieter than Venice, the street-trees whisper under the stars. And you can hear birdsong half a mile away, as the rosy Odessan dawn arrives, the slant light shining on the pale green Italianate terraces. Peculiar yet blissful
The last thing Labour want to do for the next four weeks is to spend that time earnestly explaining that tax rises will only be £1000, or £200, or whatever other figure that people won't trust, but will just take the message that Labour will put up taxes.