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
My thoughts on the debate. Sunak over-performed and Starmer under-performed. Sunak clearly 'won' and his advisers (who I often scorn) had done a brilliant job in negotiating the nature of the debate and in coaching him. They could have (and maybe had) listened to Mr Campbell's advice on debate prep!
You would expect polls to be 60-40 a Sunak victory but bar YouGov they show heavy Starmer victories. Which shows we don't start from a level playing field. It is hard to win arguments if people have stopped listening to you.
Now the 'attack line' joins all those new policies in coming under examination. Like a budget initial positive reactions can rapidly boomerang if your castle is built on sand.
However, credit to Mr Sunak and No 10. If that had gone wrong then the campaign would have collapsed. Instead, Cons at last have a line to follow and at last have a bit of enthusiasm. It is enough to avoid a Survation scenario but to get us to a hung parliament? We remember the 2017 campaign and the 1960 US debates for a reason. They changed election results but that is as rare as hens teeth. If you've been around a while you know that.
Let's say it all works and we get to a hung parliament? Well then we get PM Starmer and a Lab party very receptive to Proportional Representation after a bruising experience. We wouldn't even need a referendum courtesy of the Mayoral/PCC election reforms. Be careful what you wish for!
The “toolmaker” story is contested. To some on the left his father was “Factory Owner of the Oxted Tool Company” - we simply don’t know as Companies House has no records. He may have been “owner” or “sole trader” - but if SKS wants to introduce this, he should expect scrutiny.
'Factory Owner of the OTS' is a suspiciously unbalanced expression. It could be an old garage or railway arch especially in the old days before the Thatcher years wrecked the metalbashing industries of the urban peripheries. And the fact that the name does not come up in Grace's Guide suggests that the business was either very small or non-existent.
I look forward to the election season 2039 when the inspiring young leader of Reform, set for a landslide according to the polls, repeatedly references her father's humble working class roots as a flint knapper - indeed one who was forced to increasingly moonlight as a war correspondent to make ends meet thanks to Labour increasing the VAT on stone-based sex aids.
As for SKS, I had a quick look out of curiosity at available newspaper reports on the BL database and found reports referring to the firm as named - but only two, the same story in sister local papers, a one-line level mention of a minor break-in as part of a report of a series of burglaries on a trading estate 1986. And no indication at all who was the owner.
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?
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.
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
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.
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
SHAME ON HER
Once again both leaders were dishonest about this. The true answer is that we are not going to do anything about Gaza because neither side gives a monkeys what we think and we have no influence.
Sunak came closest by saying that he backs the American plan but omitted the point that that will make precisely zero difference.
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.
To be fair to you, you made that point well last night.
I didn't. I often overreact to immediate political events. It's a problem – but I have learned not to bet until the dust settles.
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'.
Not enlightening, either.
Is some of it also “It’s June, so at 9pm people are more likely to be at restaurants, pubs etc, compared with a debate in November for a December election, where it’s colder and everyone is sat indoors” ?
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
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.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
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.
But it enables some folk to bump the queue full stop. The more important, the wealthier, and so on. That's the key role. One can think of some recent examples.
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
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.
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
Tax rises for the rich and property owners Spending cuts on the oldies and poor Increased productivity and delayed retirement for workers
Not everyone should take the same financial hit but everyone must take some.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Of course the Tories werent telling the truth, Srarner;s going to stick up taxes by £3500 not £2000
Not necessary as Starmer's dad owned a toolmaking factory.
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.
I do find the argument today on PB a bit pointless, we all know taxes will continue to rise as neither party wishes to rein back spending. Labour are moaning their first contact with challenges to their invisible plans are not fair, but its an election and you cant duck the issues all the time. Time to say something.
Starmer on campaign is surrounded by grinning sheep holding "change" banners but the only change on offer is with Farage or Galloway and possibly the Greens. everyone else is stacking their tanks on each others lawns.
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?
The FA have had those dates in for months, so it's the fault of the broadcasters. Absolutely amateurish scheduling. Inexcusable.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE eco-entrepreneur @DaleVince tells me he's now given £5m to Labour for its election war chest:
“it would be a mistake to vote Green, Labour is the only one of the two parties that can form a government that would be green in nature,” says the former @JustStop_Oil donor
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
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
There’s nothing like being in a city with no mains electricity to really make you appreciate… electricity
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?
South Africa regularly has power cuts AFAIK.
I think Odessa has been without power for a while. It’s hard to tell. I get conflicting feedback from locals
Putin has wiped out all the power stations and substations. So the whole city appears to rely on diesel fuelled portable generators, and they keep conking out. Eg in my hotel today
On the other hand it’s a good excuse to get wasted by 11am because you know you’ll be in bed by 9.30pm and what else is there to do and it helps with the nerves
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?
The FA have had those dates in for months, so it's the fault of the broadcasters. Absolutely amateurish scheduling. Inexcusable.
One of the challenges for broadcasters is fitting their election programming in around coverage of the Euro 2024 football tournament, Glastonbury festival, and Wimbledon tennis championships - all of which are set to dominate the media in the final weeks of the campaign. BBC News’ deputy CEO Jonathan Munro told the Guardian the clash with other events was “quite a nightmare” and the broadcaster was operating at “maximum stretch” in terms of what it can cover.
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.
But it enables some folk to bump the queue full stop. The more important, the wealthier, and so on. That's the key role. One can think of some recent examples.
Would you stop paying for fast queues at airports ?
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.
But it enables some folk to bump the queue full stop. The more important, the wealthier, and so on. That's the key role. One can think of some recent examples.
Would you stop paying for fast queues at airports ?
You're missing the point. The Important People, In Charge, no longer have an incentive to sort things out for everyone else.
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?
The FA have had those dates in for months, so it's the fault of the broadcasters. Absolutely amateurish scheduling. Inexcusable.
One of the challenges for broadcasters is fitting their election programming in around coverage of the Euro 2024 football tournament, Glastonbury festival, and Wimbledon tennis championships - all of which are set to dominate the media in the final weeks of the campaign. BBC News’ deputy CEO Jonathan Munro told the Guardian the clash with other events was “quite a nightmare” and the broadcaster was operating at “maximum stretch” in terms of what it can cover.
Guardian live blog
I’m guessing they know their priorities, cub reporters on the election and the rest of the Beeb off to Glastonbury.
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
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
Tax rises for the rich and property owners Spending cuts on the oldies and poor Increased productivity and delayed retirement for workers
Not everyone should take the same financial hit but everyone must take some.
No exceptions.
Agreed. The tories keep screaming tax cuts exactly because they know they ruined the public finances for a decade and are on their way out. They are totally irresponsible. If they had a shred of decency they would have an honest conversation - namely that there are no easy ways forward. You cannot keep spending money you don't have and so like any household difficult decisions must be made. It isn't fun. But beyond flag waving and armistice day, this is what national duty and patriotism looks like. Doing what is right for the collective good of the nation. Fighting for your country when it gets hard.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
I agree. What we should be talking about is the level of necessary tax increases and where spending can be cut with the least possible impact. But we end up with this entirely fake debate about £2k over 4 years.
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Assuming Biden wins, when do we think Trump will stop being the Republican nominee? He's slowing down but the party is in thrall to him - he's got to be the early favourite for 2028 as well surely?
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?
The FA have had those dates in for months, so it's the fault of the broadcasters. Absolutely amateurish scheduling. Inexcusable.
One of the challenges for broadcasters is fitting their election programming in around coverage of the Euro 2024 football tournament, Glastonbury festival, and Wimbledon tennis championships - all of which are set to dominate the media in the final weeks of the campaign. BBC News’ deputy CEO Jonathan Munro told the Guardian the clash with other events was “quite a nightmare” and the broadcaster was operating at “maximum stretch” in terms of what it can cover.
Guardian live blog
All they needed to do was stage the debate Thursday night or early evening Friday – to engineer a direct clash with the football is incompetent in the extreme.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
Tax rises for the rich and property owners Spending cuts on the oldies and poor Increased productivity and delayed retirement for workers
Not everyone should take the same financial hit but everyone must take some.
No exceptions.
Agreed. The tories keep screaming tax cuts exactly because they know they ruined the public finances for a decade. They are totally irresponsible. You cannot keep spending money you don't have and so like any household difficult decisions must be made. It isn't fun. But beyond flag waving and armistice day, this is what national duty and patriotism means. Fighting for your country when it gets hard.
So they should not have paid furlough through the pandemic nor subsidised energy post Putin ?
Perhaps you should check how the debt built up and why Starmer would have made it bigger.
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
I agree. What we should be talking about is the level of necessary tax increases and where spending can be cut with the least possible impact. But we end up with this entirely fake debate about £2k over 4 years.
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Rishi has a plan and Keir is sticking to it. There is no fresh thinking on offer atm.
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.
Not asking for commentary (given your role, that wouldn't be fair on you) but I can see how it will be significant if it goes through.
Yes I had better keep my thoughts on this proposal to myself.
I would point out, however, that if the person giving the statement shortly afterwards is observed to be distressed that can already provide corroboration.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
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.
"How did the £350m a week work out for you ?" is the response to that. Fall for the Tory lies again and get another decade of shit.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
Maybe we need definition of most
I doubt many will here in Wales
That's true, but only 3m in Wales.
Edit: I see Scotland are also playing Friday night. It gets worse!!
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.
"How did the £350m a week work out for you ?" is the response to that. Fall for the Tory lies again and get another decade of shit.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Just realised that Scotland are ALSO playing Friday night.
I have seen better scheduling at my local playgroup. FFS.
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
Does anyone know the actual process for a confidence vote in Wales?
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
I agree. What we should be talking about is the level of necessary tax increases and where spending can be cut with the least possible impact. But we end up with this entirely fake debate about £2k over 4 years.
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Rishi has a plan and Keir is sticking to it. There is no fresh thinking on offer atm.
The fresh thinking would be to say to the electorate: We are a nation, not a five year old child. We made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. The fact that the two main parties have to some how not level with the citizens suggests to me that we have become a child culture. What happened to the "carry on" ethos we prided ourselves on and the national solidarity that we are know for in hard times?
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.
To be fair to you, you made that point well last night.
I didn't. I often overreact to immediate political events. It's a problem – but I have learned not to bet until the dust settles.
Everyone interested in politics or psychology really should watch the whole debate, it’s fascinating as another definition of what does a good debate win look like is how they control their nerves. They both started very nervous, like footballers playing biggest game of their lives at Wembley, but as they started talking and feeling they were performing well, they got on top of their nerves, whenever they slipped up you could see the nerves come back, instantly.
I don’t think I would have started nervous. If you can’t have it all ready in your head for when election starts to just reel it off in interview or on doorstep fluently, you shouldn’t be in politics. You got to be 110% confident for politics. But if I felt I dropped the ball and made a mistake, I probably would struggle to ignore that moment and re focus. Realising I was dropping balls during the game would probably make me nervous.
Everyone on PB and in other media called the “performance” win for Rishi, but as the next day narrative has now become same old Tories always lying, it’s turned into a win for the Labour campaign.
Jim Pickard 🐋 @PickardJE eco-entrepreneur @DaleVince tells me he's now given £5m to Labour for its election war chest:
“it would be a mistake to vote Green, Labour is the only one of the two parties that can form a government that would be green in nature,” says the former @JustStop_Oil donor
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Many of you learnt nothing from the referendum did you? Even though Sunak’s figure is being debated and disproven, the discussion is all about *how much* extra tax Labour will levy. Starmer can’t say “taxes will not rise” and “the Tories will raise them too” just confirms he will himself. So the line has served its purpose.
The Tories can’t win this election, but they can improve their position, and to do that the only group they need to care about is their 2019 voters. This line will bring some home.
That’s the other fallacy btw - after a result like 2019 you stop caring about the whole population and concentrate only on the group that on you the last election. When judging the debate, look at the 2019 Tory numbers and nothing else.
It's interesting seeing people talk here and the general political environment discuss things like taxes or spending because the part yesterday when Starmer saw his biggest bump in approval (from both Labour and Tory voters) was when he talked about making the rich pay more in tax:
The average person may not like the idea of tax increases on themselves, but they do understand that they are hard done by a system that benefits the wealthy and tells them they have to accept a falling standard of living. If Starmer responded to the "£2000 tax rises" by saying something like "that's because the wealthy will see tax increases and you won't, so that's just an average" I think people would start to like the idea.
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
Does anyone know the actual process for a confidence vote in Wales?
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
It is not on the government but first minister so no effect on Senedd elections
There’s nothing like being in a city with no mains electricity to really make you appreciate… electricity
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?
As long as it takes.
As long as it takes to…. What? Neither side can win
Putin’s offensive is no more effective than Ukraine’s offensive last year. And arguably more costly
So a lot of people are dying for a war that seems to be going nowhere. My argument remains what it was last June. Seek an armistice. Divide Ukraine like Korea and then tool up so Putin doesn’t try this anywhere else
And coming to Odessa you realise
1. Thank god we have nukes. Build more nukes 2. We need to be spending 3-4% on defence. It’s just a fact. The world is a more dangerous neighbourhood. Cut the pensions of the grasping old boomers and send the asylum seekers to Ireland
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.
"How did the £350m a week work out for you ?" is the response to that. Fall for the Tory lies again and get another decade of shit.
Part of the difference... In 2016, people were inclined to believe Boris. It was why he was such a catch for Vote Leave. That might have been foolish, but there you go.
Sunak's problem is that nobody really trusts him- and that was before this morning's pallaver.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
Maybe we need definition of most
I doubt many will here in Wales
That's true, but only 3m in Wales.
Edit: I see Scotland are also playing Friday night. It gets worse!!
Nasty Nat Stephen Flynn will compound his nastiness by watching the Scotland game rather than the England one.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
I agree. What we should be talking about is the level of necessary tax increases and where spending can be cut with the least possible impact. But we end up with this entirely fake debate about £2k over 4 years.
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Rishi has a plan and Keir is sticking to it. There is no fresh thinking on offer atm.
The fresh thinking would be to say to the electorate: We are a nation, not a five year old child. We made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. The fact that the two main parties have to some how not level with the citizens suggests to me that we have become a child culture. What happened to the "carry on" ethos we prided ourselves on and the national solidarity that we are know for in hard times?
If you're told society does not exist, why should you suffer for it? We're sovereign individuals now.
Oh and the lie hasn’t been “exposed” or “taken down”. It has on here and in anti-Government echo chambers on social media, but not with the voters Sunak cares about.
There’s nothing like being in a city with no mains electricity to really make you appreciate… electricity
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?
As long as there’s still ice for the gin & tonic, quite a while.
That big dam that got blown up, and that big nuke power station that got taken over, that’s where Odessa’s electricity came from. Until those get fixed, they’ll be waiting for deliveries of diesel, and using it sparingly.
The process of fixing them starts when the enemy are expelled from their country, and we all need to do everything possible to expedite that outcome.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
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
Does anyone know the actual process for a confidence vote in Wales?
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
It is not on the government but first minister so no effect on Senedd elections
Ah okay. Does it compel him to resign?
Mr Gething should know all about close votes of confidence though, he scraped through one that I was involved in back in 1997.
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
Does anyone know the actual process for a confidence vote in Wales?
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
It is not on the government but first minister so no effect on Senedd elections
Ah okay. Does it compel him to resign?
Mr Gething should know all about close votes of confidence though, he scraped through one that I was involved in back in 1997.
He seems to think not but then he is just another politician lacking integrity
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
Does anyone know the actual process for a confidence vote in Wales?
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
It is not on the government but first minister so no effect on Senedd elections
Ah okay. Does it compel him to resign?
Mr Gething should know all about close votes of confidence though, he scraped through one that I was involved in back in 1997.
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?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Are there any other ladies on Friday or are the rest all blokes?
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.
I am fine with taxes going up, particularly for the wealthy and property owners. The assumption that low taxes is good is madness. The public credit cards are maxed out. The interest payments on national debt are a massive headwind on the economy. Waiting lists and a huge amount of people off sick is a massive economic head wind due to lost productivity. There is only one responsible way forward and that is higher taxes. Unless you think a Truss style strategy is going to work then this is the way. Get over it. You want a sustainable economy - financially sustainable - taxes have to be paid. There is no easy way forward and people have to get to terms with that. I think it compromises you if you think tax cuts are viable..... you will crash the economy if you get your way.
I agree. What we should be talking about is the level of necessary tax increases and where spending can be cut with the least possible impact. But we end up with this entirely fake debate about £2k over 4 years.
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Rishi has a plan and Keir is sticking to it. There is no fresh thinking on offer atm.
The fresh thinking would be to say to the electorate: We are a nation, not a five year old child. We made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. The fact that the two main parties have to some how not level with the citizens suggests to me that we have become a child culture. What happened to the "carry on" ethos we prided ourselves on and the national solidarity that we are know for in hard times?
If you're told society does not exist, why should you suffer for it? We're sovereign individuals now.
Neither Rishi or Starmer has a plan. More a light sprinkling of brightly coloured nonsense on top of the existing, institutionalised plan. The one that is what happens when you don't tell the machine to do anything different.
This is isn't "The Blob" making policy. It's the inertia of trillions of pounds of government.
Of course the Tories werent telling the truth, Srarner;s going to stick up taxes by £3500 not £2000
Not necessary as Starmer's dad owned a toolmaking factory.
According to Ashcroft's biography, he actually rented a 1500 sq ft workshop on an industrial estate. Ashcroft considers that he may always have been a sole trader, and that if he did employ anyone else "he did so only on a small scale or on an ad hoc basis."
But obviously in certain quarters he's going to be described as a "factory owner" from now on.
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.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
The hypothesis to test here I think is that multiple tests are deemed not the best value use of a very limited budget. As you have plenty of spare money you are less constrained in your vfm calculation. So the question I think is whether multiple tests would be a good use of additional money being made available. I totally get your wanting the best for your daughter but someone aiming to get the best medical outcomes for a whole population needs to make trade offs. Treatment according to ability to pay rather on need undermines the objective of best medical outcomes for a population.
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.
1 in 9 or 10 eligible voters.
That's assuming no iuneligible folk watched it.
Probably an insignificant number of children and ineligible voters watched it.
Comments
⚠️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:
You would expect polls to be 60-40 a Sunak victory but bar YouGov they show heavy Starmer victories. Which shows we don't start from a level playing field. It is hard to win arguments if people have stopped listening to you.
Now the 'attack line' joins all those new policies in coming under examination. Like a budget initial positive reactions can rapidly boomerang if your castle is built on sand.
However, credit to Mr Sunak and No 10. If that had gone wrong then the campaign would have collapsed. Instead, Cons at last have a line to follow and at last have a bit of enthusiasm. It is enough to avoid a Survation scenario but to get us to a hung parliament? We remember the 2017 campaign and the 1960 US debates for a reason. They changed election results but that is as rare as hens teeth. If you've been around a while you know that.
Let's say it all works and we get to a hung parliament? Well then we get PM Starmer and a Lab party very receptive to Proportional Representation after a bruising experience. We wouldn't even need a referendum courtesy of the Mayoral/PCC election reforms. Be careful what you wish for!
As anyone who read PB between 2010 and 2016 will remember.
"Paying down the debt"
"Halved the bill"
Opros Politics 🇺🇦
@OprosUK
·
41m
Westminster Voting Intention (Wales):
LAB: 45% (+3)
CON: 18% (-2)
REF: 13% (+1)
PLC: 12% (-3)
LDM: 5% (-2)
GRN: 4% (+1)
via
@YouGov
, 30 May-3 Jun
Sunak came closest by saying that he backs the American plan but omitted the point that that will make precisely zero difference.
I didn't. I often overreact to immediate political events. It's a problem – but I have learned not to bet until the dust settles.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
Tut tut.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c977d35l7mjo
Not asking for commentary (given your role, that wouldn't be fair on you) but I can see how it will be significant if it goes through.
Spending cuts on the oldies and poor
Increased productivity and delayed retirement for workers
Not everyone should take the same financial hit but everyone must take some.
No exceptions.
I dont think he is accusing either Sunak or SKS of being homosexual TBH
Maybe you didnt look at the clip it was about a flyweight and a chubby heavyweight.
Starmer on campaign is surrounded by grinning sheep holding "change" banners but the only change on offer is with Farage or Galloway and possibly the Greens. everyone else is stacking their tanks on each others lawns.
Jim Pickard 🐋
@PickardJE
eco-entrepreneur
@DaleVince
tells me he's now given £5m to Labour for its election war chest:
“it would be a mistake to vote Green, Labour is the only one of the two parties that can form a government that would be green in nature,” says the former
@JustStop_Oil
donor
https://ft.com/content/7e80ea33-ba3b-4b6b-9147-96c29c27141f?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a#myft:notification:instant-email:contentvv
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1798263441406472678
Putin has wiped out all the power stations and substations. So the whole city appears to rely on diesel fuelled portable generators, and they keep conking out. Eg in my hotel today
On the other hand it’s a good excuse to get wasted by 11am because you know you’ll be in bed by 9.30pm and what else is there to do and it helps with the nerves
One of the challenges for broadcasters is fitting their election programming in around coverage of the Euro 2024 football tournament, Glastonbury festival, and Wimbledon tennis championships - all of which are set to dominate the media in the final weeks of the campaign. BBC News’ deputy CEO Jonathan Munro told the Guardian the clash with other events was “quite a nightmare” and the broadcaster was operating at “maximum stretch” in terms of what it can cover.
Guardian live blog
Ideally, the cuts would not only reduce the deficit but increase capacity for capital spending on infrastructure to boost productivity and growth. But we are already in fantasy land.
Whether it will reach Corbyn 2019 levels very unlikely but might be enough to move the Polls a few points
SKS still long odds on for a Lab Maj IMO no matter how right wing the papers get
Whether SKS is resilient enough to stand up to the personal crap?
Even though I am not an SKS fan I hope he is.
I doubt many will here in Wales
Perhaps you should check how the debt built up and why Starmer would have made it bigger.
https://x.com/tomhunt1988/status/1797617028771319983
I would point out, however, that if the person giving the statement shortly afterwards is observed to be distressed that
can already provide corroboration.
Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Fall for the Tory lies again and get another decade of shit.
Edit: I see Scotland are also playing Friday night. It gets worse!!
I can also report that WE ARE STILL LOVED. Just been asked where I’m from
“England.”
Bar girl, looking genuinely amazed and delighted:
“England??! Wow! I love your country!!”
So coming here you have a 1.3% chance of being droned by Putin BUT it’s good for your national morale
I have seen better scheduling at my local playgroup. FFS.
I assume it doesn’t lead to an immediate dissolution, but rather a period of time for a second confidence vote to be held.
The optics of not allowing members who are sick to be ‘paired’, isn’t good for the opposition parties.
I don’t think I would have started nervous. If you can’t have it all ready in your head for when election starts to just reel it off in interview or on doorstep fluently, you shouldn’t be in politics. You got to be 110% confident for politics. But if I felt I dropped the ball and made a mistake, I probably would struggle to ignore that moment and re focus. Realising I was dropping balls during the game would probably make me nervous.
Have you heard the more or less take down of Rishi’s performance yet? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001zv06
Everyone on PB and in other media called the “performance” win for Rishi, but as the next day narrative has now become same old Tories always lying, it’s turned into a win for the Labour campaign.
@DaleVince
doesn't support voting for the @TheGreenParty, we're the only party that would tax his wealth.
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
The Tories can’t win this election, but they can improve their position, and to do that the only group they need to care about is their 2019 voters. This line will bring some home.
That’s the other fallacy btw - after a result like 2019 you stop caring about the whole population and concentrate only on the group that on you the last election. When judging the debate, look at the 2019 Tory numbers and nothing else.
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1798297597482009078
The average person may not like the idea of tax increases on themselves, but they do understand that they are hard done by a system that benefits the wealthy and tells them they have to accept a falling standard of living. If Starmer responded to the "£2000 tax rises" by saying something like "that's because the wealthy will see tax increases and you won't, so that's just an average" I think people would start to like the idea.
Putin’s offensive is no more effective than Ukraine’s offensive last year. And arguably more costly
So a lot of people are dying for a war that seems to be going nowhere. My argument remains what it was last June. Seek an armistice. Divide Ukraine like Korea and then tool up so Putin doesn’t try this anywhere else
And coming to Odessa you realise
1. Thank god we have nukes. Build more nukes
2. We need to be spending 3-4% on defence. It’s just a fact. The world is a more dangerous neighbourhood. Cut the pensions of the grasping old boomers and send the asylum seekers to Ireland
Sunak's problem is that nobody really trusts him- and that was before this morning's pallaver.
And given his track record, why should they?
Many people will be thinking £2000 over 4 years isn't as bad as their feared - that was Mrs Eek's reaction..
That big dam that got blown up, and that big nuke power station that got taken over, that’s where Odessa’s electricity came from. Until those get fixed, they’ll be waiting for deliveries of diesel, and using it sparingly.
The process of fixing them starts when the enemy are expelled from their country, and we all need to do everything possible to expedite that outcome.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Mr Gething should know all about close votes of confidence though, he scraped through one that I was involved in back in 1997.
This is isn't "The Blob" making policy. It's the inertia of trillions of pounds of government.
Of course it is likely that the many people to which it is a lot won't be the ones paying it.
But obviously in certain quarters he's going to be described as a "factory owner" from now on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz7cJqEVMYk
By the way 6 out of 1000 is 0.6% not 0.06%.
0.6% it is!