Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
Meh - I see cyclists get knocked over like this almost every week, indeed a close friend of mine almost died a few months back from exactly this (someone turning right while they were hidden behind a bus). Any cyclist who does not cycle defensively at blind junctions is putting their life in a roulette wheel several times a day. The driver is in the wrong but the cyclist is the one who is at risk.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
By far the best posts on last night's debate are from people who didn't bother watching it.
Morning all. Its all gone a bit War of Jennifer's Ear this morning! It's a matter of perception whether SKS should have let this run to be rebutted today, I think not. The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
I think it would be hard to look at that debate and call it a Starmer win. I immediately said Sunak won and the polls agreed with me - just. I would have expected a higher margin but a win is a win I guess. Starmer improved a lot after the break.
On reflection I would say it might have slightly benefited Starmer. The £2000 tax was irrelevant. Everyone knows that if any services are going to be improved it'll have to come from somewhere and as no one specified where it was coming from it told viewers nothing they didn't know. Where I think it might have shifted the dial was National Service. As described it sounded spur of the moment and quite absurd. It told me that he knew he was not going to be in government and was just blowing smoke
Whilst 51-49 allows headlines like “Sunak won debate” the big gulf between them on who related/showed empathy and who did you trust to be telling the truth, are probably longer lasting shaping the actual opinion polls than the fact Sunak sneaked narrowest of wins.
Morale boost in Tory circles likely to be short lived. Could benefit labour too like a cold milkshake in the face after 2 days staring at those MRP. Starmer and his debate team can learn a lot from analysing this first leg, and perform better in the second leg, whilst Sunak has probably used up most his armoury and tactical surprises in this one.
The instant YouGov reaction poll didn't allow those front page headlines tonight, it was the perception of the journalists who watched Starmer and Sunak's performances during the debate that framed those headlines. And while the Labour leadership team will desperately be hoping that the reaction to it will be short lived in the GE media campaign cycle, its also clear Sunak and his team finally landed their biggest strategic attack goal when it comes to the fact that so far as we the public are concerned, we still don't have a clue what detailed policies Labour are going to introduce as a Government on a whole range of issues.
Two weeks into this GE and we discover that the manifesto's are not going to be published until the last minute allowing the public little or no scrutiny before we vote?! Now it won't surprise anyone on here that knows me that I won't be voting Labour, but a detailed policy heads up from the party who has been in Opposition for the last 14 years, and who according to the polls are heading for a record landslide victory in the GE in four weeks time of their plans for the country over the next 4/5 years would still be useful to all of us.
And as a footnote, the leadership debate tonight and Sunak's performance also totally knocked Farage's trip to Clacton and the milkshake incident off the front pages too. Its clear that Reform under Tice were simple not going to get the UK wide media coverage needed to paper over the gaps in their last minute on the ground individual constituency operations in many constituencies and Farage has been persuaded to stand & become party leader to try to make Reform seem more relevant in the UK political GE media cycle to compensate for that.
There you are everybody, I told you my analysis on PB is so balanced and fair it takes all these words from Tory supporters to try and say I have it wrong. 😇
Truth here, fitalass, is the debate wasn’t for benefit of journalists who love the Punch and Judy and headlines, it was for floating voters who are wondering, which of these two can I trust, which of these two understands the life I lead and problems in it - looking at it like that, gaps between Rishi and Starmer in the debate polling are huge and very stark.
What are the huge gaps in the polling between Rishi and Starmer?
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
Meh - I see cyclists get knocked over like this almost every week, indeed a close friend of mine almost died a few months back from exactly this (someone turning right while they were hidden behind a bus). Any cyclist who does not cycle defensively at blind junctions is putting their life in a roulette wheel several times a day. The driver is in the wrong but the cyclist is the one who is at risk.
It also depends where you are. Central London? I've noticed most drivers take a great deal of care because they have grown accustomed to the streets now flooded with cyclists.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
As I mentioned a while back, I had a near-incident on my bike in the village. I was turning out of a junction, where a car was waiting to turn right onto my road. He waved me on, and he (and I) missed the fact that another car was going in the other lane, legally undertaking the car turning right. I got halfway across the road when the other driver saw me (his vision blocked by the other car), and we both stopped a few feet away from a collision. Fortunately it was a 20MPH zone...
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
This is one reason I am sceptical of the Highway Code's new hierarchy of risks concerning giving priority to pedestrians crossing at junctions. Since it's me who will end up in the back of an ambulance, I'm not crossing until I'm sure the driver has seen me and is slowing, and it is often impossible to tell with cyclists or motorcyclists. Other pedestrians (and cyclists) will take it as an excuse to leap into the path of moving cars because that's their right.
The point of the hierarchy is to make it clear to car drivers the special responsibility they have in charge of a >1 tonne vehicle, but, of course, everyone else needs to act with due care and attention.
And also to make it clear to cyclists to look out for pedestrians.
Agree; even though two potential voters are absent due to sickness. It’s the vote on the day which counts, although the system ought to allow for such absentees.
Surely if two people are unwell, the opposition pairs them?
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt. She hit the cyclist, not the other way round.
Possibly also the bus driver? But I was always taught to ignore any lights/hand gestures - it remains your responsibility to ensure the road is clear.
When you say very fast - are we talking Tour de France or 15mph? When you say undertaking - do you mean filtering forward in the marked, fully segregated cycle lane as advised in the Highway Code?
Thanks
Very fast as in four grand bike and lycra caning it. Undertaking yes filtering. Which of course is legal/etc. He flew past and across a gap/junction in stationary traffic, which had waved my aunt across.
What could be the legal position. Is there a legal position? What about insurance.
I don't drive but as an expert viewer of dashcam channels, I've seen a few crashes following drivers being flashed or waved to move (or sometimes thinking they have, when it was aimed at someone else). Your aunt should have made her own observations, but just being waved on increases pressure on her to rush. The paradox is that drivers being nice often creates confusion and occasionally danger, as seems to have happened here.
At a guess your aunt was stationary, perhaps daydreaming rather than watching the traffic and wondering what has happened to the cyclist who has disappeared behind the bus, when the bus driver waved her on so she felt compelled to rush rather than hold everyone up.
We are precisely 29 weeks from Christmas Day. You should buy your aunt a dashcam. Viofo seems to be the brand of choice, with discounts via some of the channels.
As I mentioned a while back, I had a near-incident on my bike in the village. I was turning out of a junction, where a car was waiting to turn right onto my road. He waved me on, and he (and I) missed the fact that another car was going in the other lane, legally undertaking the car turning right. I got halfway across the road when the other driver saw me (his vision blocked by the other car), and we both stopped a few feet away from a collision. Fortunately it was a 20MPH zone...
It's not a totally analogous situation, but I put 100% of the blame on me in that case. The first driver should not have waved me on (or at least, that's how I took the motion...), and the second car driver did have right-of-way. All three of us could have acted differently, but I put myself into a potentially dangerous situation.
Hopefully I've learnt from it.
I don't like this "The rules say I'm right!" mindset. We all need to be a little more defensive in our driving and riding; a little more courteous of other road users.
""Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day Who died Preserving His Right of Way.
He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong""
Indeed - you do need to take care in assuming others will do the right thing.
Myself, I routinely drive on the wrong side of the road, as you never know when you'll come across some stupid arsehole doing the same in the opposite direction. When that happens, I'll be safe, whereas all the mindless rule-takers who constantly criticise my approach will be screwed.
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
Meh - I see cyclists get knocked over like this almost every week, indeed a close friend of mine almost died a few months back from exactly this (someone turning right while they were hidden behind a bus). Any cyclist who does not cycle defensively at blind junctions is putting their life in a roulette wheel several times a day. The driver is in the wrong but the cyclist is the one who is at risk.
It also depends where you are. Central London? I've noticed most drivers take a great deal of care because they have grown accustomed to the streets now flooded with cyclists.
What's being defined as at high speed here? Anyone prepared to put it on mph?
Agree; even though two potential voters are absent due to sickness. It’s the vote on the day which counts, although the system ought to allow for such absentees.
Surely if two people are unwell, the opposition pairs them?
The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
That is the whole point.
It was a lie.
Richi knew it was a lie.
He was warned that it was a lie.
He lied.
The Treasury says he is a liar.
Not a bad days work for Starmer...
And that's the morning after he let everyone go to bed thinking 'Labour's Tax Bombshell yet again' THATS the point What's more off-putting to voters? Sunak misrepresented where the figures came from or the 'news' that Labour will pickpocket you again? This is an election campaign not PMQs, clever lawyerly gotchas are not the way to go
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
Meh - I see cyclists get knocked over like this almost every week, indeed a close friend of mine almost died a few months back from exactly this (someone turning right while they were hidden behind a bus). Any cyclist who does not cycle defensively at blind junctions is putting their life in a roulette wheel several times a day. The driver is in the wrong but the cyclist is the one who is at risk.
It also depends where you are. Central London? I've noticed most drivers take a great deal of care because they have grown accustomed to the streets now flooded with cyclists.
What's being defined as at high speed here? Anyone prepared to put it on mph?
A speed at which it's impossible to stop in time to prevent a collision, should someone pull out across the junction in front of you.
Excessive speed is situational (as even Dura might agree - though in his case it's defined as a speed which did cause you to prang it).
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
I suspect it comes down to where the cyclist hit / was hit by the car..
Nearside front wing. So mid-turn. Not broadside.
I look at that road layout and I can't instantly see the right thing to do.
Therefore, that is a bad layout.
Surely the right thing to do is to follow the highway code.
Rule 180, on turning right across traffic:
"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users"
Also rule 76 on cyclists going straight ahead:
"If you are going straight ahead at a junction, you have priority over traffic waiting to turn into or out of the side road"
Although the aunt is clearly at fault here, the cyclist does bear some responsibility. Also from rule 76:
"Watch out for drivers intending to turn across your path. Remember the driver ahead may not be able to see you, so bear in mind your speed and position in the road."
Very interesting. Thanks. Not sure it will get to the insurance/legal stage but v useful info. Which means speed is def a mitigating factor.
Yes although that doesn't make it a 50/50 situation on apportioning fault, given the the new hierarchy of road users. Rule H3 lays it out more explicitly:
You should not cut across cyclists... when you are turning into or out of a junction... just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist... going straight ahead to stop or swerve.
You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:
- approaching, passing or moving off from a junction - moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic
Yep - my understanding is that the cycle lane is effectively another lane - just because the first one was clear doesn't mean that she can assume the second lane is also clear. I see accidents like this quite often in Clapham where drivers just swing across the cycle lane, rather than looking at both lanes in sequential order.
The cyclist is stupid for not foreseeing this, but Topping's aunt is clearly at fault.
I think it's a bit harsh on a cyclist to call them 'stupid' for obeying the rules of the road. 'Reckless' to cycle at high speed, depending on how high, in crowded traffic might be nearer the mark.
Meh - I see cyclists get knocked over like this almost every week, indeed a close friend of mine almost died a few months back from exactly this (someone turning right while they were hidden behind a bus). Any cyclist who does not cycle defensively at blind junctions is putting their life in a roulette wheel several times a day. The driver is in the wrong but the cyclist is the one who is at risk.
It also depends where you are. Central London? I've noticed most drivers take a great deal of care because they have grown accustomed to the streets now flooded with cyclists.
What's being defined as at high speed here? Anyone prepared to put it on mph?
Aunt was quite shocked and the only thing she said to the guy was "you were going at quite some speed". I cycle around 40 miles a week in London and in that situation anything faster than a crawl is too fast. There is one junction (I've used my photo quota today) where there is a cycle lane but is blind to the cyclist and if there is a lorry stopped before the yellow box there I slow down to walking speed if not a complete halt.
I appreciate that this doesn't impact on the legal position.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
It’s a huge minus. With trust issues already there over Partygate lying, the last thing he should have done yesterday is tell such a whopper.
The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
That is the whole point.
It was a lie.
Richi knew it was a lie.
He was warned that it was a lie.
He lied.
The Treasury says he is a liar.
Not a bad days work for Starmer...
And that's the morning after he let everyone go to bed thinking 'Labour's Tax Bombshell yet again' THATS the point What's more off-putting to voters? Sunak misrepresented where the figures came from or the 'news' that Labour will pickpocket you again? This is an election campaign not PMQs, clever lawyerly gotchas are not the way to go
There's still a chance the Tories will shoot themselves in the foot on this. Take the attached tweet from Kevin Hollinrake:
How many people reading that will come away thinking "ooh, Labour are going to charge me £2k more in tax" and how many are going to think "More GPs, 8,500 mental health professionals, bring back the family doctor, those all sound like good things." And "Ukraine support" is on there - implies Tories don't think we should support Ukraine.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
You do know the 7 way debate excludes Sunak and Starmer and instead has Mordaunt and Rayner representing their parties.
Tice was in yesterday's debate following the leaders one and it is possible he will be in the 7 leader debate rather than Farage but we will need to wait and see
Listening to Labour this morning am reminded of the Ronald Reagan quote ‘if you’re explaining you’re losing.’ The £2000 figure may be nonsense, but it’s working for the Tories
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
No, they'll just change the terms of the debate.
And in any event much of our political debate over the last four decades has been ridiculous. It's almost completely ignored, for example, the structural problems set up by Thatcher's period in government (and perpetuated under Blair/Brown).
No, the entire debate is going to change, the world will not be recognisable
There are some generational geopol challenges with a realistic chance of crystallising in the next parliament. US abandonment of nato and Russian test of Article V, use of a nuke in Ukraine, Chinese blockade / annexation of Taiwan. Then in part associated with these, there’s the risk of a proper collapse in the market for US Treasuries and loss of USD as global reserve currency.
But these are trivial in the context of AGI and formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth. The latter being more likely pre-2029 but both probably >50% chance in the next parliament. And then there’s there’s the chance for a tangible advance in age extension tech, only an outside bet for this parliament but presumably won’t lag AGI by too much.
Our political debate is tiresome, trivial and pointless in the context of all this and hardly anyone seems to grasp this.
When you say "formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth", can I check... you mean UFOs?
No, UFOs are not going to be the big story of the next parliament.
You are only saying this because you’re not paying attention.
The Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Amendment to the 2023 NDAA cleared the Senate last year (with Rubio’s backing) but was blocked by GOP House committee chairs. The legislation was re-introduced last week by Rep Garcia with tweaks to the offending language on eminent domain over non human tech.
Perhaps the tweaks don’t go far enough yet and it still needs a wide ranging amnesty for past misdeeds but there’s got to be a 50% or greater chance the Act gets through Congress if not this year then in the next few years.
And the Act essentially requires a presidential statement within 12mths of being passed, with a largely civilian panel (an economist, a sociologist, a psychiatrist among others) to inform how far the president goes with his/her statement. So good odds pre-2029.
We have already had informal disclosure of course from senior members of the intelligence establishment, from the likes of Jim Ratcliffe, David Grusch, the retired head of French intelligence Alain Juillet, most recently Karl Nell at the SALT Conference, and plenty of fairly blunt statements from gang of 8s such as Schumer and Rubio. But I know I am not going to convince anyone new without there being a presidential statement. But I do hereby reserve I told you so rights.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
It’s a huge minus. With trust issues already there over Partygate lying, the last thing he should have done yesterday is tell such a whopper.
Not so sure. Weeks of the £350m a week for the NHS lie did wonders for the leave campaign.
nobody cares about the semantics about how these costings are prepared. The Tories just want the message out there. The more people argue about it the more the £2000 figure is floating around.
Straight out of the Brexit Bus playbook.
Labour missed a trick yesterday. It’s OK - they’ll miss some, they and SKS are not perfect. As I say I suspect it will have relatively little impact.
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
And it's very likely that the Sun will (reluctantly) change it's mind on July 3rd / 4th because it wants to say it won it.
Isn't the printed press a much diminished thing. Who reads it now?
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
It’s a huge minus. With trust issues already there over Partygate lying, the last thing he should have done yesterday is tell such a whopper.
It becomes very easy to say that Sunak is no different to Boris and that they both lie all of the time.
Claire Coutinho did a good job on Today just now. Kept repeating the £2,000 line and actually made a reasonable fist of answering the “what are you proud of in the last 14 years”.
They briefly have their mojo back. Labour needs to find a similar £ accusation that the Tories struggle to rebut.
Starmer needed to shut it down when first raised. State it's a lie, set out to camera some pledges on tax (income tax and NI) and give some indication of tax raising measures (school VAT and non doms). Doesn't really matter at that point whether the sums add up.
It was a smart move from the Tories. Might save a few votes and gave Sunak a bit of the initiative.
Doubt it changes too much overall, but the red team needed to be better prepared for stuff like this as Starmer isn't great at thinking on his feet.
There are 2 more of these head to head debates (BBC and Sky) so let's see how they turn out
However, my opinion is that Sunak will have pleased his own side, and Starmer seemed at times unable to respond, but overall I do not expect a great poll bounce and Starmer will still be PM on the 5th July
I think that’s wrong. Only one more head to head.
The sky one is more head, than head to head.
Edit. I should explain that more clearly, one head at a time with interviewer in front an audience
Edit edit. I should explain that even more clearly. One head one interviewer one audience sequentially, in Grimsby.
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:
It really is chalk and cheese in terms of quality of debate, and moderation.
Yesterday’s debate was perfect example why British democracy was reluctant for so long to import this from US. And also why those with poll leads are reluctant to throw all that hard work and arguments won into a roulette wheel days before the actual voting.
One thing it does do, which very much grates with UK Democracy and any liberal democracy, is it frames the whole election and how you should vote, into a choice between just two parties. In that sense we should question more how just two leaders can get away with having their own debate.
Any debates should be between all parties fielding 326 candidates, asked to put forward one of those candidates to the debate.
There’s an argument that certain regional parties may wish to request regional debates, confined to the subjects on which those elected will have powers.
The whole thing is grossly complicated by the lack of an English Parliament.
Listening to Labour this morning am reminded of the Ronald Reagan quote ‘if you’re explaining you’re losing.’ The £2000 figure may be nonsense, but it’s working for the Tories
The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
That is the whole point.
It was a lie.
Richi knew it was a lie.
He was warned that it was a lie.
He lied.
The Treasury says he is a liar.
Not a bad days work for Starmer...
And that's the morning after he let everyone go to bed thinking 'Labour's Tax Bombshell yet again' THATS the point What's more off-putting to voters? Sunak misrepresented where the figures came from or the 'news' that Labour will pickpocket you again? This is an election campaign not PMQs, clever lawyerly gotchas are not the way to go
There's still a chance the Tories will shoot themselves in the foot on this. Take the attached tweet from Kevin Hollinrake:
How many people reading that will come away thinking "ooh, Labour are going to charge me £2k more in tax" and how many are going to think "More GPs, 8,500 mental health professionals, bring back the family doctor, those all sound like good things." And "Ukraine support" is on there - implies Tories don't think we should support Ukraine.
Other outcomes are also possible, yes. I think the correct approach would have been to rebutt hard last night, but we will see
It is wrong (or at best, misleading) to describe all the figures in the Conservatives dossier, including the headline £38.5 billion / £2000, as "costed by Treasury officials" or "by independent, impartial civil servants"....
But I still don't think this is much of a 'gotcha' either, for three reasons...
On reflection, perhaps Starmer’s decision to let the Tory lie run for a news cycle was genius. What was left of Sunak’s (ill-deserved) reputation for honesty now in tatters…
It wasn’t genius, it was a mistake. But the end results going to be the same.
Sunak and the tory press built a fantastic sandcastle on the beach. It really did catch the eye.
Have we seen the YG VI Poll today I hear they have changed their methodology that should reduce the VI lead by a few points and be more in line with their MRP lead
I heard Sunak lied SKS was going to raise everyone's taxes by £2,000 and for 25 mins SKS didn't deny it?
Why not?
I here that claim was most probably not true but SKS can hardly rely on being the paragon of truth so
Whether Sunak/SKS won narrowly is a bit irrelevant when any other Labour leader would have had a 20% lead on who won!
This is the thing. To judge debate performance you probably need to re-weight by voting intention before the event or best leader etc. Given the VI polling, a draw or nearish loss is a result for Sunak.
There was, mostly, admirable impartiality here last night - I think we were focused on the question of who performed better rather than who we prefer. Also, I think many of us expected Sunak to be worse than he was, and expectation is also key.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
Only a VONC in him personally, I think, not his government?
So embarrassing but not Humza-style career ending.
The initial vote was on Humza personally. So it’s exactly the same surely?
There was another pending in his government though, as I recall? Don't think that's the case here although I'm happy to be corrected.
Only the one but in Humza’s case he was going to lose the first but not the second and so resigned first. I’m not sure that there is all that much difference in the scenarios. If Gething loses the vote then he ought to go.
My gut feeling is that Labour will be able to counter the '£2k tax rise' claim - suspect most will see it as dishonest - this side of the election. Labour can at least muddy the waters with this. Of course, taxes will go up in the next parliament, and it will presumably be a Labour government raising them, but that will be an issue in the future.
Sunak needs a direct response to the constant references to Liz Truss, and it seems to me that, on this topic (and perhaps on this topic alone), he may be able to make a good argument. Something like: 'in leadership debates I vociferously opposed Truss's economic assertions and was proven right, even though it cost me my job in government, and the leadership of my party at the time. You (SKS) supported Corbyn in two elections and served in his shadow cabinet for your own political interest, and only opposed him when it was in your personal interest.' I don't really understand why he does not make this argument, what he has to lose from saying this.
P.S. Is there a soul left in the kingdom who does not know what these two men's parents did for a living?
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
It’s a huge minus. With trust issues already there over Partygate lying, the last thing he should have done yesterday is tell such a whopper.
It becomes very easy to say that Sunak is no different to Boris and that they both lie all of the time.
Yes. Tories are so far behind in polls as voters have come to see them as liars. The foundations of this campaign should be to neutralise this perception, not turn up to the first set piece debate with a can of flammable liquid and box of matches
My gut feeling is that Labour will be able to counter the '£2k tax rise' claim - suspect most will see it as dishonest - this side of the election. Labour can at least muddy the waters with this. Of course, taxes will go up in the next parliament, and it will presumably be a Labour government raising them, but that will be an issue in the future.
Sunak needs a direct response to the constant references to Liz Truss, and it seems to me that, on this topic (and perhaps on this topic alone), he may be able to make a good argument. Something like: 'in leadership debates I vociferously opposed Truss's economic assertions and was proven right, even though it cost me my job in government, and the leadership of my party at the time. You (SKS) supported Corbyn in two elections and served in his shadow cabinet for your own political interest, and only opposed him when it was in your personal interest.' I don't really understand why he does not make this argument, what he has to lose from saying this.
P.S. Is there a soul left in the kingdom who does not know what these two men's parents did for a living?
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
The £2000 was not the only lie. He lied about Angela Raynor, and her nuclear disarmament stance. She clearly stated on tv she backed nuclear deterance, but in an ideal world would look for multilateral disarmament to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.. classic multilateral theory, beloved by Reagan, Thatcher and for that matter, me.
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
Is this evidence for a low turnout, or that broadcast TV media is obsolete, or simply that most have made their minds up already?
Neither Starmer nor Sunak have the 'star' quality, or legion of loyal fans, that Johnson and Corbyn had.
You could expect Johnson and Corbyn to perhaps say something entertaining or interesting (I cannot remember if they did or not...) I do not expect a debate between the current party leaders to be 'entertaining'.
Is this evidence for a low turnout, or that broadcast TV media is obsolete, or simply that most have made their minds up already?
Mixture of those I suspect plus the fact that nothing of any significance is gleaned from them and people have cottoned onto this.
It’s generated some talking points around the £2k today but you didn’t need to watch the debate to hear about that.
It’s a chunk of someone’s day that they could have used to do something far more entertaining/productive/insightful/useful/mentally stimulating than listen to two generally pretty uncharismatic figures chunter away about very little for over an hour.
Look at it this way. I’m interested in politics and I turned it off half way through. If you’re not really holding my interest what hope do you have for people who aren’t?
The debate "worm" went airborne when Starmer mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker.
I think he should mention it more!
Rishi should preempt it and talk about business owners - 'your father owened a factory didn't he? Business ownership is a lifeblood of the middle classes' yadda yadda
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
It will be the Mordaunt v Rayner show
Both likely to be much better in the debate than Starmer and Sunak.
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
The £2000 was not the only lie. He lied about Angela Raynor, and her nuclear disarmament stance. She clearly stated on tv she backed nuclear deterance, but in an ideal world would look for multilateral disarmament to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.. classic multilateral theory, beloved by Reagan, Thatcher and for that matter, me.
All sides lie the job of the lied about is to refute it immediately not stand there dumbfounded for 25 minutes?
Labour are coming under pressure re the NHS waiting lists because their plan to ‘use the private sector’ to tackle the waiting lists holds no water, a private health CEO has even gone to the media to say so, and people are now demanding detail. It’s a policy with no sound basis
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
This probably explains the Labour line this morning, which is that Richi is a liar just like BoZo, the number is a lie, the story about how it was produced is a lie.
This is the problem with Sunak lying on national television. He got the immediate sugar rush of the stumbling Starmer response and this morning's adulatory Tory press headlines. Now he gets four weeks of the actual truth being shoved in his face. On balance, it's not a plus.
It’s a huge minus. With trust issues already there over Partygate lying, the last thing he should have done yesterday is tell such a whopper.
Not so sure. Weeks of the £350m a week for the NHS lie did wonders for the leave campaign.
No. Yesterday’s lie was much more easy to take down. It’s not even making it to lunchtime on following day without being universally known as a straightforward lie.
£350M a week wasn’t said by a deeply unpopular political party, with main reason for being unpopular is because of lying.
You stand better chance getting away with more lies when your reputation for being honest and straight with voters is better than this.
The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
That is the whole point.
It was a lie.
Richi knew it was a lie.
He was warned that it was a lie.
He lied.
The Treasury says he is a liar.
Not a bad days work for Starmer...
Interesting if he has to answer questions about telling lies for the next few weeks. Just listening to the news that seems to be todays topic. No one can accuse Rishi of being a lucky general
Actually looking forward to a Spicer Room Next Door video on the debate - "Refute the fucking £2k claim you wooden idiot!" etc. I got tired of them (didn't know he was still posting them) but the one on Sunak at the digger factory is quite fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHMYWsH36M8
The £2000 was not the only lie. He lied about Angela Raynor, and her nuclear disarmament stance. She clearly stated on tv she backed nuclear deterance, but in an ideal world would look for multilateral disarmament to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.. classic multilateral theory, beloved by Reagan, Thatcher and for that matter, me.
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
In 1959 their ex-syndicalist predecessor the Daily Herald backed Labour. In Feb 1974 the Sun backed the Tories, and in Oct 1974 they backed a GONU. If (Spartan) Labour are really going to win a landslide and make a Tory ELE a strong possibility, I'd expect the Sun to back Labour rather than the side that gets walloped. And probably they would make their support for Labour clear before Tue-Wed 2-3 July. They may be less important than they used to be, but we are still in my opinion in the epoch where the Sun always backs the winner. No-one younger than 67 has voted in a GE in which they didn't.
The chief Treasury civil servant wrote to Labour two days ago saying that the £38 billion/£2,000 tax attack “should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service”
Is this evidence for a low turnout, or that broadcast TV media is obsolete, or simply that most have made their minds up already?
I'm astonished it got that many. That's, what, nearly 1 in 14 of the population? I don't think I've spoken to anyone IRL who has admitted to watching it. But I'd agree with all three - people don't care, broadcast TV media is obsolete, and most have made their minds up already. Plus unless you're a politics geek it's really not entertaining.
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
No, they'll just change the terms of the debate.
And in any event much of our political debate over the last four decades has been ridiculous. It's almost completely ignored, for example, the structural problems set up by Thatcher's period in government (and perpetuated under Blair/Brown).
No, the entire debate is going to change, the world will not be recognisable
There are some generational geopol challenges with a realistic chance of crystallising in the next parliament. US abandonment of nato and Russian test of Article V, use of a nuke in Ukraine, Chinese blockade / annexation of Taiwan. Then in part associated with these, there’s the risk of a proper collapse in the market for US Treasuries and loss of USD as global reserve currency.
But these are trivial in the context of AGI and formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth. The latter being more likely pre-2029 but both probably >50% chance in the next parliament. And then there’s there’s the chance for a tangible advance in age extension tech, only an outside bet for this parliament but presumably won’t lag AGI by too much.
Our political debate is tiresome, trivial and pointless in the context of all this and hardly anyone seems to grasp this.
" formal disclosure of non human intelligence interacting with earth." Are you still persisting with this rubbish? There is nothing, NOTHING in what has come out in the last 18 months beyond the usual rubbish from MJ-12, Bluebook, Grudge etc. Its a collection of grifters grifting, telling the same old hackneyed stories and gulling in the gullable. Watch an episode of Skinwalker Ranch and you will realise the idiots that are behind all this.
Billy's saying I went in the chocolate tin and ate the chocolates and Jimmy saw me, but Jimmy didn't see me cos he was round Harry's with Billy when I ate the chocolates. I checked. Is SKS/Labour defence
The £2000 was not the only lie. He lied about Angela Raynor, and her nuclear disarmament stance. She clearly stated on tv she backed nuclear deterance, but in an ideal world would look for multilateral disarmament to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.. classic multilateral theory, beloved by Reagan, Thatcher and for that matter, me.
Yeah, Starmer should have slapped that down too - "My deputy is on the record as backing our nuclear deterrent and categorically rejects unilateral disarmament". Instead he just shook his head a bit as it was said and then didn't address it.
Might not really matter as most people probably had no clue who Sunak was talking about, but making it clear that Sunak was outright lying frequently would not have been a bad thing. "That's a lie". "That's a lie". "That's another lie". He can't do it in parliament, but should have done it in the debate.
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
The £2000 was not the only lie. He lied about Angela Raynor, and her nuclear disarmament stance. She clearly stated on tv she backed nuclear deterance, but in an ideal world would look for multilateral disarmament to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.. classic multilateral theory, beloved by Reagan, Thatcher and for that matter, me.
All sides lie the job of the lied about is to refute it immediately not stand there dumbfounded for 25 minutes?
Labour are coming under pressure re the NHS waiting lists because their plan to ‘use the private sector’ to tackle the waiting lists holds no water, a private health CEO has even gone to the media to say so, and people are now demanding detail. It’s a policy with no sound basis
Yes, considering that a large percentage of private hospital work is elective NHS work (skewed to the daycase/short-stay and minimal other morbidity cases, it may well be that potential is pretty much maxed out already. As indeed is employing NHS staff at weekends on overtime in NHS hospitals.
Streetings plans don't really hold up, though he is right that in the short term there is a no other way to bridge the capacity gap.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
I'm sceptical private healthcare improves the overall provision. If a system is capacity constrained anyone bumped up the queue ipso facto pushes everyone else back. Possibly private medicine brings more money and investment into the system. Overall people care that they get the treatment and it's affordable and probably don't care whether they fund it through taxation or pay for it separately.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Listening to Labour this morning am reminded of the Ronald Reagan quote ‘if you’re explaining you’re losing.’ The £2000 figure may be nonsense, but it’s working for the Tories
Now, if Starmer had used it in the debate last night.....it was sent the day before the debate - poor prep, or slow on his feet?
Minor point, but I think "If you're explaining you're losing" is very widely misattributed to Reagan but was actually coined by the journalist, George Will (a close Reagan ally).
Reagan is one of those, like Churchill or Wilde, who unfortunately hoovers up quote misattributions and it really takes hold on the internet. One person sexes it up a bit by saying it's Reagan (as it's more interesting than saying it's a less well known figure in his orbit) and it becomes lore.
Anyone who thinks or believes that a Labour government will only increase taxes by £500 a year needs their head examined.
Hunt has increased taxes by massively more than that and would continue to do so in the vanishingly unlikely scenario he remained Chancellor. Sunak is flat out lying when he says they will cut taxes. We borrowed more than £20bn in a single month in April. We have a huge structural deficit. We need to cut spending AND increase taxes.
The whole “debate” about this is being conducted with fundamental dishonesty on all sides and is simply not being honest with the public.
Just watched a clip audience member asked what the 2 leaders were going to do about the situation in Gaza
⚠️UTTERLY SHOCKING BIAS⚠️
An audience member asks a question about #Gaza.
The host, @julie_etch , summarises by describing October 7th as an "atrocitiy" and the Israeli slaughter as simply "what unfolded after".
Engineered famine, ethnic cleansing, bombing hospitals and refugee camps and schools, the murder of thousands of children, allowing babies to die in incubators as doctors are forced to abandon them, the bombing of aid convoys, the shooting of white flag waving civilians and the destruction of every university are also atrocities, @ITV
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
In 1959 their ex-syndicalist predecessor the Daily Herald backed Labour. In Feb 1974 the Sun backed the Tories, and in Oct 1974 they backed a GONU. If (Spartan) Labour are really going to win a landslide and make a Tory ELE a strong possibility, I'd expect the Sun to back Labour rather than the side that gets walloped. And probably they would make their support for Labour clear before Tue-Wed 2-3 July. They may be less important than they used to be, but we are still in my opinion in the epoch where the Sun always backs the winner. No-one younger than 67 has voted in a GE in which they didn't.
I thought the Sun's trick was to work out which party was going to win and then back that party.
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
And it's very likely that the Sun will (reluctantly) change it's mind on July 3rd / 4th because it wants to say it won it.
The Wednesday is more important than the Thursday. It's possible they will only come out in favour of voting Labour just before election day, but my feeling is that if the polls stay constant (which they won't) they'll be backing Labour somewhat earlier.
But they won't say they won it. They got their fingers rapped for saying that.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
The debate on Friday clashes directly with the England football match, which is live on terrestrial TV and after which Southgate has to name his final squad. Which utter clown is responsible for such moronic scheduling?
As HY, BigG and Ms Rabbit have pointed out, a clear win for Sunak
Again you are being silly
Sunak won and the bigger issue is 85% support from 2019 conservative voters
Question. Please compare and contrast: a) the snap YouGov poll showing that 85% of the 2019 Tory vote is still on board, and b) every other poll including yesterday's YouGov MRP showing the Tories getting demolished
I know it would be helpful to PB Tories and fellow travellers if 2019 Tories all went back home. But in reality we know they are not. You know. Even Sunak knows.
Come on.
As tonight's Yougov was AFTER the debate, every other poll was BEFORE the debate.
I expect Labour's poll lead to narrow by the end of the week after this debate
I wouldn’t go that far. The likeable and in touch in the poll above is quite massive.
How are we going to measure the impact on the polls?
How about the sky tracker, currently Con on 23.4 tonight.
What do you think the result will be (in terms of seats) roughly?
Conservatives between 100 and 180.
But imo it’s impossible to be more accurate than that because of 3 impossible to know variables.
How would you answer your own question tonight?
I think the only thing to watch from now to the last polls will be the Tory share in the poll. If it doesn’t moves more than 3% up from the 24% Sky tracker has it right now, it can’t be more than 180, likely closer 100.
Conservatives struggle to squeeze Reform so don’t get much swingback, struggle with the numbers stay at home former voters, and/or hit by pin point tactical voting - polling and analysis cannot be accurate on those three questions, anyone who calls it right was just guessing too many variables.
Fair answer, thanks. I still think the Tories will do better than that and think there is some value in that 150-200 range. I’ll take a look at the markets tomorrow. G’night.
Also from me - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour, the attack will easily be dismantled and fall apart in the coming days. It may have been calculated by the Treasury, but it depends what they were ask to calculate, much like a computer, if you put garbage in you get garbage out.
In relation to the tax attack, I am not all that ignorant of 1992 election. What was different in 1992 was Labours Shadow budget actually did promise tax rises. They could have rebutted the attacks much better - rather than world ending tax hikes they were only resetting to 1988, when Tory tax cuts undid the “economic miracle” and sent inflation and economy into boom and bust. But Labour chose not to fight as they believed electorate would vote for more money for public services, as £25 a month in pocket ain’t valuable when you are lying in pain in hospital corridor for 24 hrs or in pain for months waiting for operation.
One thing you can’t do anymore Anabobs is keep posting TRUSS. Starmer reached for “TRUSS” in tonight’s debate, and it bombed 🤭
The Trussterfuck is one of the main things that has put Labour into a strong position in the polls. But maybe it’s too away in history now, to reach for so often in this campaign? What Starmer was actually meaning by it, he can make the same point in a different phrasing.
When I posted this last night,
“ - the £2000 tax which won Sunak the debate tonight, and judging by the front pages, Tory press and Conservative campaign will now attempt to run with, imo it’s clearly fabricated, it’s not based on any clear policy or manifesto commitments from Labour”
I was actually wrong, it is actually based on labour policy commitments, so I need to put my hand up and admit that.
As explained on today’s more or less, it is promises, but fed into the treasury super computer in a particularly bent way to get garbage result out.
When I said it would fall apart in a couple of days, I was wrong on that too, it won’t even make it to this lunchtime before Rishi is proved a fraud for using it. 🤦♀️
I enjoyed your postings last night (and today) and think they were fair and balanced. It will be interesting to see how this day goes and who wins the news cycle.
I called the debate clearly for Sunak but the three snap polls overall give it easily to Starmer, so maybe I was wrong about that.
I guess we'll see if it has much effect on VI.
It’s a case of what does good look like, what defines big debate win? These same snap polls are giving Starmer huge wins over Sunak on things like most trustworthy, understands me and my problems, was giving thoughtful answers.
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
Comments
It's a matter of perception whether SKS should have let this run to be rebutted today, I think not. The lie has spread around the world before the truth got its pants on.
I’m baffled, I thought Sunak won
It was a lie.
Richi knew it was a lie.
He was warned that it was a lie.
He lied.
The Treasury says he is a liar.
Not a bad days work for Starmer...
However unfair the tactics are, at least the tories are asking for a mandate to impose savage austerity to deliver tax cuts.
Liz Truss's strategy wasn't legitimate, Sunak/Hunt's approach, is.
Still dodgy, but just about legitimate, imo.
Myself, I routinely drive on the wrong side of the road, as you never know when you'll come across some stupid arsehole doing the same in the opposite direction. When that happens, I'll be safe, whereas all the mindless rule-takers who constantly criticise my approach will be screwed.
Anyone prepared to put it on mph?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Weatherill#Member_of_Parliament
THATS the point
What's more off-putting to voters? Sunak misrepresented where the figures came from or the 'news' that Labour will pickpocket you again?
This is an election campaign not PMQs, clever lawyerly gotchas are not the way to go
Excessive speed is situational (as even Dura might agree - though in his case it's defined as a speed which did cause you to prang it).
I appreciate that this doesn't impact on the legal position.
https://x.com/kevinhollinrake/status/1798113326993723466
How many people reading that will come away thinking "ooh, Labour are going to charge me £2k more in tax" and how many are going to think "More GPs, 8,500 mental health professionals, bring back the family doctor, those all sound like good things." And "Ukraine support" is on there - implies Tories don't think we should support Ukraine.
Tice was in yesterday's debate following the leaders one and it is possible he will be in the 7 leader debate rather than Farage but we will need to wait and see
The £2000 figure may be nonsense, but it’s working for the Tories
https://x.com/jonsopel/status/1798253168381591908
Now, if Starmer had used it in the debate last night.....it was sent the day before the debate - poor prep, or slow on his feet?
The Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Amendment to the 2023 NDAA cleared the Senate last year (with Rubio’s backing) but was blocked by GOP House committee chairs. The legislation was re-introduced last week by Rep Garcia with tweaks to the offending language on eminent domain over non human tech.
Perhaps the tweaks don’t go far enough yet and it still needs a wide ranging amnesty for past misdeeds but there’s got to be a 50% or greater chance the Act gets through Congress if not this year then in the next few years.
And the Act essentially requires a presidential statement within 12mths of being passed, with a largely civilian panel (an economist, a sociologist, a psychiatrist among others) to inform how far the president goes with his/her statement. So good odds pre-2029.
We have already had informal disclosure of course from senior members of the intelligence establishment, from the likes of Jim Ratcliffe, David Grusch, the retired head of French intelligence Alain Juillet, most recently Karl Nell at the SALT Conference, and plenty of fairly blunt statements from gang of 8s such as Schumer and Rubio. But I know I am not going to convince anyone new without there being a presidential statement. But I do hereby reserve I told you so rights.
Straight out of the Brexit Bus playbook.
Labour missed a trick yesterday. It’s OK - they’ll miss some, they and SKS are not perfect. As I say I suspect it will have relatively little impact.
This isn't 1992.
The sky one is more head, than head to head.
Edit. I should explain that more clearly, one head at a time with interviewer in front an audience
Edit edit. I should explain that even more clearly. One head one interviewer one audience sequentially, in Grimsby.
Correct me where wrong.
There’s an argument that certain regional parties may wish to request regional debates, confined to the subjects on which those elected will have powers.
The whole thing is grossly complicated by the lack of an English Parliament.
“Civil Servants were not involved in the production or presentation” of what Tories claimed was a Treasury assessment of Labour plans.
So the Tory claim is a lie.
Hard to see what other word to use
I think the correct approach would have been to rebutt hard last night, but we will see
Why not?
I heard Sunak lied SKS was going to raise everyone's taxes by £2,000 and for 25 mins SKS didn't deny it?
Why not?
I here that claim was most probably not true but SKS can hardly rely on being the paragon of truth so
Whether Sunak/SKS won narrowly is a bit irrelevant when any other Labour leader would have had a 20% lead on who won!
My tuppence on the Treasury letter... 🤔
It is wrong (or at best, misleading) to describe all the figures in the Conservatives dossier, including the headline £38.5 billion / £2000, as "costed by Treasury officials" or "by independent, impartial civil servants"....
But I still don't think this is much of a 'gotcha' either, for three reasons...
https://x.com/julianHjessop/status/1798288197195047098
Sunak and the tory press built a fantastic sandcastle on the beach. It really did catch the eye.
Tides come in on it.
With @TSE indisposed, is there someone else to email an article to?
I have one brewing.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1798290438258139329
Last YG VI 25% LEAD
Last YG MRP 18% lead
Expect 20 to 22?
There was, mostly, admirable impartiality here last night - I think we were focused on the question of who performed better rather than who we prefer. Also, I think many of us expected Sunak to be worse than he was, and expectation is also key.
https://x.com/krishgm/status/1798277994739585038?t=GFBpCudFMqiXc_UCIb5kZQ&s=19
Is this evidence for a low turnout, or that broadcast TV media is obsolete, or simply that most have made their minds up already?
I think he should mention it more!
Sunak needs a direct response to the constant references to Liz Truss, and it seems to me that, on this topic (and perhaps on this topic alone), he may be able to make a good argument. Something like: 'in leadership debates I vociferously opposed Truss's economic assertions and was proven right, even though it cost me my job in government, and the leadership of my party at the time. You (SKS) supported Corbyn in two elections and served in his shadow cabinet for your own political interest, and only opposed him when it was in your personal interest.' I don't really understand why he does not make this argument, what he has to lose from saying this.
P.S. Is there a soul left in the kingdom who does not know what these two men's parents did for a living?
🚨 NEW: Tory candidate Tom Hunt is considering defecting to Reform UK after a row with party chairman Richard Holden
@Steven_Swinford"
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1798274739389018523
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
https://x.com/EveningStandard/status/1798286354649911641
At least he didn't try to get his wife to take the points, so there is that.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1798291845081919894?s=46
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv224x3pmv9o
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
Balanced
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/25/andy-burnham-fined-six-penalty-points-speeding-m62
Manchester mayor ordered to pay £1,984 after admitting doing 78mph in section where limit had been cut to 40mph
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
You could expect Johnson and Corbyn to perhaps say something entertaining or interesting (I cannot remember if they did or not...) I do not expect a debate between the current party leaders to be 'entertaining'.
Not enlightening, either.
them and people have cottoned onto this.
It’s generated some talking points around the £2k today but you didn’t need to watch the debate to hear about that.
It’s a chunk of someone’s day that they could have used to do something far more entertaining/productive/insightful/useful/mentally stimulating than listen to two generally pretty uncharismatic figures chunter away about very little for over an hour.
Look at it this way. I’m interested in politics and I turned it off half way through. If you’re not really holding my interest what hope do you have for people who aren’t?
Taxes are going up in any situation - its just a matter of who will pay more and what the money will be spent on.
Not to mention that we're continually told that people are happy to pay more taxes.
Labour are coming under pressure re the NHS waiting lists because their plan to ‘use the private sector’ to tackle the waiting lists holds no water, a private health CEO has even gone to the media to say so, and people are now demanding detail. It’s a policy with no sound basis
£350M a week wasn’t said by a deeply unpopular political party, with main reason for being unpopular is because of lying.
You stand better chance getting away with more lies when your reputation for being honest and straight with voters is better than this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHMYWsH36M8
https://x.com/georgegalloway/status/1798122427085431177
Under current Tory plans the tax take will peak as a percentage of GDP in 28-29. This is not a tax cutting plan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68494168
Governments of all stripes have done this since the beginning of time.
But I'd agree with all three - people don't care, broadcast TV media is obsolete, and most have made their minds up already. Plus unless you're a politics geek it's really not entertaining.
🚨🚨🚨
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%)
That's before the story broke...
Is SKS/Labour defence
Might not really matter as most people probably had no clue who Sunak was talking about, but making it clear that Sunak was outright lying frequently would not have been a bad thing. "That's a lie". "That's a lie". "That's another lie". He can't do it in parliament, but should have done it in the debate.
https://inglesp.github.io/apogee/
Billy is a liar.
Jimmy says so.
That's the defence.
Streetings plans don't really hold up, though he is right that in the short term there is a no other way to bridge the capacity gap.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Eg. No traffic lights
My hotel’s private generator packed in this morning so we’ve had no power since 9am. No idea when it is returning
How long can a society function like that?
Reagan is one of those, like Churchill or Wilde, who unfortunately hoovers up quote misattributions and it really takes hold on the internet. One person sexes it up a bit by saying it's Reagan (as it's more interesting than saying it's a less well known figure in his orbit) and it becomes lore.
Hunt has increased taxes by massively more than that and would continue to do so in the vanishingly unlikely scenario he remained Chancellor. Sunak is flat out lying when he says they will cut taxes. We borrowed more than £20bn in a single month in April. We have a huge structural deficit. We need to cut spending AND increase taxes.
The whole “debate” about this is being conducted with fundamental dishonesty on all sides and is simply not being honest with the public.
⚠️UTTERLY SHOCKING BIAS⚠️
An audience member asks a question about #Gaza.
The host,
@julie_etch
, summarises by describing October 7th as an "atrocitiy" and the Israeli slaughter as simply "what unfolded after".
Engineered famine, ethnic cleansing, bombing hospitals and refugee camps and schools, the murder of thousands of children, allowing babies to die in incubators as doctors are forced to abandon them, the bombing of aid convoys, the shooting of white flag waving civilians and the destruction of every university are also atrocities,
@ITV
SHAME ON HER
He therefore knows how to spend more money without increasing taxes or something.
What he's going to spend extra money on isn't yet revealed.
But we do know that Starmer is going to cut the number of new teachers recruited.
I expect public sector middle managers will do well.
But they won't say they won it. They got their fingers rapped for saying that.
Sunak’s pitch post Johnson/Truss was a focus on integrity ..now his latest Johnsonian move humiliatingly exposed: