Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on June 04, 2024, 09:22:42 pm
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
-
Sunak too shouty but Starmer doesn't have any answers so far. It's relegation battle stuff.
-
Stopped watching it, the chairperson lets Sunak interrupt at will and talk over her and shuts Starmer down sharpish, well out of her depth
-
Starmer refuses to ask question about pensioners state pension being taxed under him for the first time in this countries history.
-
Let's be fair, this is playing out almost exactly how we might expect.
Starmer not answering about pension tax...Sunak not answering about where ANY of the money is going to come from (unless I missed something?) and just used all his time on a labour attack instead.
Basically neither of them confirming anything that can be construed as negative, Starmer talking about the last 14 years, Sunak trying to deflect from it and attack labour instead.
It's the usual game of not trying to win any votes, but trying to make the other guy lose them (usually by talking over them).
-
This format is dogshit. How can anyone benefit from this? It's just 30 seconds bursts of shouting. Starmer is so slow and never gets to an answer and Sunak comes across as a whiny brat.
Reminds me of that 0-0 draw with Fleetwood at the Keepmoat about 10 years back.
-
If it were a boxing match the ref would have stopped it. I almost feel sorry for Keir Starmer.
-
This format is dogshit. How can anyone benefit from this? It's just 30 seconds bursts of shouting. Starmer is so slow and never gets to an answer and Sunak comes across as a whiny brat.
Reminds me of that 0-0 draw with Fleetwood at the Keepmoat about 10 years back.
Absolute worst form of television coverage of politics.
It's the result of the past 30 years of the media seeing politics as entertainment and their job being to try to force the politicians into mistakes.
No intention whatsoever to inform and educate the public on what the policy stances are.
-
This format is dogshit. How can anyone benefit from this? It's just 30 seconds bursts of shouting. Starmer is so slow and never gets to an answer and Sunak comes across as a whiny brat.
Reminds me of that 0-0 draw with Fleetwood at the Keepmoat about 10 years back.
Absolute worst form of television coverage of politics.
It's the result of the past 30 years of the media seeing politics as entertainment and their job being to try to force the politicians into mistakes.
No intention whatsoever to inform and educate the public on what the policy stances are.
It's not surprising that the best parts of this have been when they at least try to directly answer a question instead of throwing shade at each other.
-
Starmers govt is going to break the criminal smuggling gangs? Because he prosecuted some criminal cases?
He is going to say he will stop drug supply into the uk next.
The bloke is deluded and the voting public will see straight through him.
-
:thumbdown:That hit a raw nerve, Starmer didn’t say a word about Pensioners being taxed ! You know what that means!
-
Starmer was much better on the attack of the Tories record that really suited him. Sunak didn't really have positive ideas I thought though despite his points on labour weakness landing well.
I doubt it's gonna change people's minds, labour a bit of work to do to avoid the no plan, high tax narrative.
I watched it and felt no optimism from either person, quite frustrating.
-
As a tit for tat comment one could say that criminal smuggling gangs and drugs have been a problem for 14+ without being solved nr
-
Anyone who claims there was a clear winner on either side is exposing themselves as dishonest.
The format and the host were both shocking.
-
Labour no plan high taxes including taxing the State Pension! Chuffing Spiders!
-
Anyone who claims there was a clear winner on either side is exposing themselves as dishonest.
The format and the host were both shocking.
Exactly this. Reading a recap of it now and realising I'd missed half of the comments that were made because both of them and the host spent all night talking over one another.
-
Got to say Sunak won that hands down.
This format suits him - in a way speech making doesn't. He was confident, on top of his brief and had strong attack lines against his opponent.
Unfortunately in comparison Starmer seemed flustered, at times smug and whiny (for want of a better word).
A lack of eye-catching policy (whether right or wrong) didn't help Starmer in this '45 seconds to speak' contest either.
A format designed for soundbites that suits headline-making policies and garners headlines rather than an intelligent, in-depth analysis and challenge of policy - which the public are clearly thought too stupid/have too short an attention span for.
-
Starmer refuses to ask question about pensioners state pension being taxed under him for the first time in this countries history.
The state pension is already taxed, if you have money from another income, because Sunak didn't raise tax thresholds.
-
YouGov snap poll suggests Sunak 'won' debate, beating Stamer 51% to 49%
YouGov has released the results of a snap poll of people watching the debate. It suggests that Sunak won by a tiny margin
-
That was appalling. A rude over-entitled public schoolboy who thinks it's OK to shout over people v somebody who hasn't got anything to say.
Thank goodness there are only going to be two of these debates.
-
Labour are seemingly relying on 1) Taxing Nom Doms (good luck)
2) Taxing the state Pension!
3) Taxing Private Education ( throwing thousands of Kids into the overcrowded state system)
They seem to think Parents who scrimp and save to get their kids a Private education need to be punished!
4) Cancelling the Rwanda deportation scheme and chucking more money at the French will make it all go away!
-
YouGov snap poll suggests Sunak 'won' debate, beating Stamer 51% to 49%
YouGov has released the results of a snap poll of people watching the debate. It suggests that Sunak won by a tiny margin
Given the GE polls and the strong anti-Tory feelings amongst a majority of the public this would suggest to me that Sunak performed considerably the better of the two - which is how I saw it.
-
Labour are seemingly relying on 1) Taxing Nom Doms (good luck)
2) Taxing the state Pension!
3) Taxing Private Education ( throwing thousands of Kids into the overcrowded state system)
They seem to think Parents who scrimp and save to get their kids a Private education need to be punished!
4) Cancelling the Rwanda deportation scheme and chucking more money at the French will make it all go away!
Labour are not going to tax the state pension.
State schools are closing due to falling pupil numbers
Are you saying parents whose children go to state schools dont work hard? Or are bad parents.
-
They won't throw thousands into state education. That is a massive exaggeration.
Apart from anything else a huge proportion of private sector school children come from abroad and they aren't going to be finding places in UK state schools.
-
Labour are seemingly relying on 1) Taxing Nom Doms (good luck)
Sunak said the tories will do the same
2) Taxing the state Pension!
Proof required
3) Taxing Private Education ( throwing thousands of Kids into the overcrowded state system)
They seem to think Parents who scrimp and save to get their kids a Private education need to be punished!
Why should private education be VAT free?
4) Cancelling the Rwanda deportation scheme and chucking more money at the French will make it all go away!
The Rwanda scheme is not working is it and is wasting precious public money.
-
Starmer refuses to ask question about pensioners state pension being taxed under him for the first time in this countries history.
The state pension is already taxed, if you have money from another income, because Sunak didn't raise tax thresholds.
That’s right Wilts and I won’t be drawing mine as I am still working and you get 1.5% increase for every 3 months you don’t draw it! But this seems to be the message Labour will tax the state Pension so Oap’s who have it as their only source of income are in the Pooh! Why didn’t Starmer state otherwise? They clearly intend taxing the f#ck out of the Pensioners!
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
-
Stopped watching it, the chairperson lets Sunak interrupt at will and talk over her and shuts Starmer down sharpish, well out of her depth
Bury your head in the sand and get a sore Gee gee!
-
Starmer refuses to ask question about pensioners state pension being taxed under him for the first time in this countries history.
The state pension is already taxed, if you have money from another income, because Sunak didn't raise tax thresholds.
The state pension was already being taxed 1997 to 2010 if people had enough income from other sources.
-
Anyone who claims there was a clear winner on either side is exposing themselves as dishonest.
The format and the host were both shocking.
As borne out by the snap poll
-
Stopped watching it, the chairperson lets Sunak interrupt at will and talk over her and shuts Starmer down sharpish, well out of her depth
Bury your head in the sand and get a sore Gee gee!
Bloody Ref!
Oh bugger, wrong forum. :facepalm:
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when they are forced into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,500 teachers when the house of cards collapses!
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
Why is state education such a mess?
''The National Audit Office estimates that over £11 billion is needed to repair the school estate.Mar 27, 2024''
https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/article-listing/government-must-increase-funds-for-school-repairs.html#:~:text=These%20schools%20should%20not%20have,to%20repair%20the%20school%20estate.
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
-
Dumbed down debate for a dumbed down electorate.
What a waste of an hour, we learnt absolutely nothing that we didn't already know.
Nothing to be gained from this type of TV froth.
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
So a straining state school sector could be about to be invaded by thousands of ex public school kids.
That will really help the progress of a great many kids who are in schools that are already feeling the pinch.
Would it not have helped these kids to have the additional burden not imposed on them by a poor law that will have greater consequences than it will alleviate.
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
My kids went through state schools but as I said I know lots of folks on my pay band who sent their kids to private schools and if you’re on £50k per annum that’s a tight budget!
-
The debate summed up why Labour will win by a landslide.
The Tories have a shit record even Tories think is shit, let alone anyone else, and people just want them out. The end!
Owen Jones - appears to be the pundit of choice for some posters here
https://x.com/OwenJones84/status/1798101461659763150
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
My kids went through state schools but as I said I know lots of folks on my pay band who sent their kids to private schools and if you’re on £50k per annum that’s a tight budget!
So what's the problem?
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
So a straining state school sector could be about to be invaded by thousands of ex public school kids.
That will really help the progress of a great many kids who are in schools that are already feeling the pinch.
Would it not have helped these kids to have the additional burden not imposed on them by a poor law that will have greater consequences than it will alleviate.
Not according to Wilts , in the leafy affluent part of England where he lives schools are shutting down due to lack of pupils, that isn’t the case in south Yorks most schools are over subscribed!
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
My kids went through state schools but as I said I know lots of folks on my pay band who sent their kids to private schools and if you’re on £50k per annum that’s a tight budget!
So what's the problem?
sorry Syd what do you mean?
-
78 applicants for 30 places at the school my kids go to for next year's reception take and they're about to start building hundreds of houses here aswell (which the local councillor told me labour would never allow apparently).
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
My kids went through state schools but as I said I know lots of folks on my pay band who sent their kids to private schools and if you’re on £50k per annum that’s a tight budget!
So what's the problem?
sorry Syd what do you mean?
I mean that private schooling is voluntary, if you can't afford to send your kids there, then don't.
-
This comment has more sober analysis than anything in that car crash of a "debate" tonight.
https://x.com/phil_tinline/status/1798109678162837614
-
Syd there is a Private school in Donny say they have to close because most of the pupils are no longer able to attend as the parents who are not millionaires can’t afford the new fees, the kids will get soaked up by the best schools in Donny who will readily accept them as it will push up their academic scores, my Grandaughter is in such a school ,if she gets pushed down from the top group into a lower group she will not be receiving the same education as she was , likewise all the other kids who are not as academic will also be pushed down the ladder and alsowill lose out! That’s what I am getting at.
My own experience of school was going to a Comprehensive that was a merged Grammar and secondary modern, the teachers has clearly lost interest and we suffered, the fact that 60% of the lads didn’t give a toss as they were content to tread water and go down the Pit was also an issue!
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
Yes a lot of sense there,Starmer not addressing the £2,000 tax hike is right!
-
If it were a boxing match the ref would have stopped it. I almost feel sorry for Keir Starmer.
You can tell that the Tories are doing horrific in the polls when we've basically watched a 0-0 with 4 red cards and 2 injured players each and they're claiming the win.
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
Yes a lot of sense there,Starmer not addressing the £2,000 tax hike is right!
He said the figure was fabricated. He said tax rises only for the wealthy.
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
Yes a lot of sense there,Starmer not addressing the £2,000 tax hike is right!
He said the figure was fabricated. He said tax rises only for the wealthy.
If you believe that, then vote for him.
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
Yes a lot of sense there,Starmer not addressing the £2,000 tax hike is right!
He said the figure was fabricated. He said tax rises only for the wealthy.
Ah the wealthy who pay lots of money to pay less tax and who have successfully done so for decades.
He would be better off taxing all Motorcars with a 2.0 litre engine of higher by £3 k a year that would bring in some revenue.
-
If it were a boxing match the ref would have stopped it. I almost feel sorry for Keir Starmer.
You can tell that the Tories are doing horrific in the polls when we've basically watched a 0-0 with 4 red cards and 2 injured players each and they're claiming the win.
Just seen this!
I realise now that you are oblivious to the truth even when it is presented right in front of your eyes.
It was like the positions were reversed. Starmer's performance was of a desperate PM way down in the polls, whereas Sunak's performance was of a PM in waiting, although he obviously won't be.
-
If it were a boxing match the ref would have stopped it. I almost feel sorry for Keir Starmer.
You can tell that the Tories are doing horrific in the polls when we've basically watched a 0-0 with 4 red cards and 2 injured players each and they're claiming the win.
Just seen this!
I realise now that you are oblivious to the truth even when it is presented right in front of your eyes.
It was like the positions were reversed. Starmer's performance was of a desperate PM way down in the polls, whereas Sunak's performance was of a PM in waiting, although he obviously won't be.
2% difference in the polling on tonight. Close battle. Simple.
-
2% in whose favour?
-
FFS, just like 2 bald fella's fighting over a comb.
More folk watching that will just think "I'm staying at home".
At least Mick Lynch was on Newsnight talking some sense;
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1798107772879323136/pu/vid/avc1/1280x712/DAtaK3he3ek8xvJq.mp4?tag=12
Yes a lot of sense there,Starmer not addressing the £2,000 tax hike is right!
He said the figure was fabricated. He said tax rises only for the wealthy.
Exactly.
He specifically said that and it's true.
The Tories have pulled a fast one on this. They have, against all the rules, instructed civil servants to cost up what the Tory party have claimed Labour's spending will be. And they instructed the civil servants when doing so to make some highly dubious assumptions about growth under Labour.
Then they claim this is an independent analysis!
Then Labour gets criticised for not addressing these numbers in detail.
-
Where the f**king hell has BST got this info from?
-
Syd there is a Private school in Donny say they have to close because most of the pupils are no longer able to attend as the parents who are not millionaires can’t afford the new fees, the kids will get soaked up by the best schools in Donny who will readily accept them as it will push up their academic scores, my Grandaughter is in such a school ,if she gets pushed down from the top group into a lower group she will not be receiving the same education as she was , likewise all the other kids who are not as academic will also be pushed down the ladder and alsowill lose out! That’s what I am getting at.
My own experience of school was going to a Comprehensive that was a merged Grammar and secondary modern, the teachers has clearly lost interest and we suffered, the fact that 60% of the lads didn’t give a toss as they were content to tread water and go down the Pit was also an issue!
I read a lot about "red meat" being thrown to "swivel eyed loons" on the right. This schools policy is red meat for the hard of thinking of the left. Even The Guardian think its a crap idea.
Leaving aside ideological argument about perceived inequality craated by the presence of independent schools, the policy itself won't create any money and it won't reduce inequality. Surely if Labour were actually intent of doing something that genuinely would make a difference, they'd either ban independent schooling full stop or alternatively do something along the lines of insisting that private schools take on (and subsidise) 20% of pupils from backgrounds that can't afford it? The effect would still be to increase the fees for those that can afford it but it would be more akin to lifting more children up, rather than dragging down the private schools or the parents who do indeed make sacrifices to send their kids there.
At present, most private schools offer a bursary system anyway and in addition open up their very impressive facilities for the local community. I'd presume that is their nod to being "charitable". Presumably those efforts will disappear after this policy comes in. The majority of private schools will become even more exclusive and the divide even greater. Most kids are there on family money anyway. The parents who scrimp and save are the minority.
It's a poorly thought out, crass policy but it plays well for the masses.
-
2% in whose favour?
Sunak, as you already know. Not quite the demolition job you believe happened.
-
I'm cured
Debates between 2 people who might be PM in a month
Debates that won't change the way I think NOR more importantly the way I will vote
No doubt many on here , in the City , in the County and the Country will think the same so I am cured of watching them.
I wonder what percentage of the Electorate watched it ?
I wonder how many of the 13 million non Voters will have watched as they are classed as "the Electorate" even though they don't / won't bother
-
Syd there is a Private school in Donny say they have to close because most of the pupils are no longer able to attend as the parents who are not millionaires can’t afford the new fees, the kids will get soaked up by the best schools in Donny who will readily accept them as it will push up their academic scores, my Grandaughter is in such a school ,if she gets pushed down from the top group into a lower group she will not be receiving the same education as she was , likewise all the other kids who are not as academic will also be pushed down the ladder and alsowill lose out! That’s what I am getting at.
My own experience of school was going to a Comprehensive that was a merged Grammar and secondary modern, the teachers has clearly lost interest and we suffered, the fact that 60% of the lads didn’t give a toss as they were content to tread water and go down the Pit was also an issue!
I read a lot about "red meat" being thrown to "swivel eyed loons" on the right. This schools policy is red meat for the hard of thinking of the left. Even The Guardian think its a crap idea.
Leaving aside ideological argument about perceived inequality craated by the presence of independent schools, the policy itself won't create any money and it won't reduce inequality. Surely if Labour were actually intent of doing something that genuinely would make a difference, they'd either ban independent schooling full stop or alternatively do something along the lines of insisting that private schools take on (and subsidise) 20% of pupils from backgrounds that can't afford it? The effect would still be to increase the fees for those that can afford it but it would be more akin to lifting more children up, rather than dragging down the private schools or the parents who do indeed make sacrifices to send their kids there.
At present, most private schools offer a bursary system anyway and in addition open up their very impressive facilities for the local community. I'd presume that is their nod to being "charitable". Presumably those efforts will disappear after this policy comes in. The majority of private schools will become even more exclusive and the divide even greater. Most kids are there on family money anyway. The parents who scrimp and save are the minority.
It's a poorly thought out, crass policy but it plays well for the masses.
Labour are not banning fee paying schools they are levelling up the tax system. It doesn't matter how many poor kids are given free places there are still only 7% of education provided by fee paying schools therefore the number of bursaries must be infinitely small. It plays well for me and labour are on the cards to win, suck it up.
-
So another poll has Starmer winning 44 - 39 - and coming across as more honest than Sunak 54 - 29. That will have some of the Tory fan boys choking on their cornflakes:
https://x.com/Peston/status/1798244480186786030
-
Yeh people who send their kids to £48,000 a year private schools are really scrimping and scraping.
I know lots of people who borrow money to get their kids into Private Education. What you don’t understand is they are all top band achievers so when that are forces into the state schools system what happens to the kids who are a bit behind them academically? They will get pushed down the ladder. Our state schools are struggling as it is, Labour will not be able to fund his 6,50o teachers when the house of cards collapses!
You know lots of people in the top 7% of society (which is who go to public school) what a world you move in.
As I said earlier some schools have been forced to close due to pupil numbers falling across the country. The more children who go to a school the more money that school gets to fund extra teachers/ta's.
What do you think happens now with children of different academic abilities in the same school?
So a straining state school sector could be about to be invaded by thousands of ex public school kids.
That will really help the progress of a great many kids who are in schools that are already feeling the pinch.
Would it not have helped these kids to have the additional burden not imposed on them by a poor law that will have greater consequences than it will alleviate.
Not according to Wilts , in the leafy affluent part of England where he lives schools are shutting down due to lack of pupils, that isn’t the case in south Yorks most schools are over subscribed!
Better go tell the Daily Heil then, there was a 9% drop in Primary School numbers in Doncaster this year:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13296979/areas-risk-school-closure-map-district-drop-birth-rate-funding.html
Around 90 primary school are currently less than 2/3rds full and at risk of closure:
https://edexec.co.uk/more-than-90-primary-schools-at-risk-of-closure-due-to-lack-of-pupils/
-
As stated earlier in this thread, Sunak's repeated claims regarding Labour's costings is dodgy:
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1798252445321343456?t=d7sd9eB_D7GqAN_lqlL1Qg&s=19
-
Please can someone explain exactly how I will be paying £2000 more tax under Labour?
Which taxes are due to rise? Tell me and I will look at that information and judge for myself.
Which party has frozen the tax threshold for years thereby effectively raising tax anyway?
-
Please can someone explain exactly how I will be paying £2000 more tax under Labour?
Which taxes are due to rise? Tell me and I will look at that information and judge for myself.
Which party has frozen the tax threshold for years thereby effectively raising tax anyway?
Nobody can tell you that as the £2,000 figure was manufactured by the Conservative party. Anyone who claims to know that Labour will increase your bills by £2,000, or any other figure for that matter, at this stage is lying.
Labour's manifesto is out this week, at which point I'm sure there will be independent analysis of the costs involved.
-
Awful to watch, Sunak was allowed to ride rough shod over Starmer and the presenter. His tactic was to drum over what they think we will all be taxed, and not let anyone get a word in.
Sunak was confident, but has had prior experience, they showed a clip of him a few years back, and he looked a nervous wreck. So you can see he knew what to expect and how to handle it.
We cannot allow the tories to get back in, from Brexit, Boris(ye gods) May and possibly the biggest country wrecker Truss, the country is ruined, if not broken and skint beyond belief.
They are only calling an election because they don’t want to be in government when we all have to pay for the blood scandal and post office scam. There will be zero money for anything. Taxes will go up whoever gets in, there is no option but too.
Just been found the tories are lying about the tax and presented by the bbc and itv.
-
The easy tax will be cost per mile on travel, fuel duty on petrol and diesel to give EV's an advantage as private sales and second hand sales are tanking.
Increasing local rates on property especially in whoever is in opposition areas so the sitting government takes the flack, I wouldn't be surprised if VAT on certain foods not taxed at the moment is introduced and increased on takeaway's and restaurants as the health effect of fast food is publicised and the excuse. Alcohol duty increased especially on wine Ulez more widely used by local government to protect their pensions, Parking charges if VAT is not imposed now to be included a nominal charge to attend doctors and A&E. increased prescription charges, you name it they will tax it.
What will increase is the use of cloned number plates and consequently lots of illegal drivers insurance wise on the roads already the Ulez introduced in London has a fines dept of nearly £300 million in uncollected fines with difficulty of tracing correct owners of vehicles, if you add the Deptford tunnel its over half a billion £ good luck with that.
-
Got any proof of those suggested tax rises, or just your opinion.?
-
There is going to be a second leaders’ debate on tv isn’t there?
Perhaps Starmer has more ammunition up his sleeve for then, or at least we will have seen their manifestos by then?
-
Just my opinion what I would do for maximum income for little cost.
The small payment to attend doctors surgery and A&E is the main reason most European countries have shorter waiting lists and you can see a doctor, never mentioned when figures are compared with those countries by politicians and could be a big income stream for the NHS.
By the way I never saw the debate, but every broadcaster I have listened to says Sunak ripped Starmer a new backside. The debate I would like them to take on would be against Galloway and Farage in the same set up. my advice to both would be don't turn up.
-
Regardless of the nonsense and froth that was gleaned from the debate last night.
What concerned me most was that a relatively lightweight political operator like Sunak was able to manufacture a situation where the prospective PM of this country was made to look like a startled rabbit in the headlights, slow witted and very lacking in presence and stature.
We all know contests like this have little bearing on any outcome (bar an extraordinary occurrence taking place) but it does give us an idea of how we can expect Starmer to be performing on the political stage over the next five years.
The party manifestoes will be produced in the next couple of weeks and the electorate will then get given a taste of what's in store for all of us, many will never read them or even be aware they are produced but it will allow this type of nonsense to be screwed down for the rest of the campaign.
Lets just hope this is a wake up call to Starmer, he needs to somehow start to demonstrate leadership, poise and statesman like qualities.
We keep getting told that the UK has a diminished presence on the world stage, with performances like that we will certainly become the whipping boys for everyone to take a pop at.
Starmer, 5 out of 10, must try harder and needs to stop looking like he's just seen the economic performance of the country laid out large over the next Five years of his tenure, flash before his eyes.
Sunak, 6 out of 10 for trying to defend the undefendable, far too little, far too late to be of any use to anyone, its got to the stage where the country don't care what comes out of his mouth, he has to be replaced and unfortunately the Starmer and Raynor show is the only show in town,
God help us all.
-
You can’t judge either of them on that event last night. The format was terrible, designed for entertainment rather than serious debate.
Starmer will do much better when there Would be more seemly debate, with more time for considered replies etc, rather than the forced sensationalism we saw last night.
You only have to look at his performances at PMQs, especially vs Johnson, to see what he can do.
I expect he will come across better in the second tv debate.
-
Another income stream the NHS and government could explore is legalise certain drugs, open drug centres and medically supply the drugs under supervision and undercut the dealers driving them out of business and another income steam for the NHS. and a controlled standard of drugs under prescription.
Accept we have lost the streets and drug scene and attack it head on, take it away from the gangs.
-
Another income stream the NHS and government could explore is legalise certain drugs, open drug centres and medically supply the drugs under supervision and undercut the dealers driving them out of business and another income steam for the NHS. and a controlled standard of drugs under prescription.
Accept we have lost the streets and drug scene and attack it head on, take it away from the gangs.
This actually makes perfect sense. Particularly when other nations around the west are steadily giving up the war on drugs.
-
Anyone remember how smooth and assured Nick Clegg was in the first ever leaders' debate?
That turned out well.
Lesson: Leaders' Debates are entertainment, nothing more.
-
I disagree totally best
Imo they are not entertainment , and though I watched that one wanting Sunak to crash and burn , they are irrelevant and as I posted on a different thread I've seen my last one
One more I daresay than the 13 million who could vote but wont
-
Heh, just spoken to me Mam. She reckons Sunak is "a little shit" you can see it, apparently. She voted for Johnson last time... Perhaps it wasn't such a winning performance last night?
-
I said on another thread that leader debates are a waste of time and are just done to please the media. It's the Americanisation of UK politics. We very rarely learn anything new and they descend into slanging matches ala' PMQ's.
For the record, I don't think Starmer was on sparkling form and seemed to allow himself to get a little flustered by Sunak which is odd given that he often gives him a hiding at PMQ's. Given the amount of ammo he has on the government it was disappointing. Sunak told bare faced lies about tax (again). The guy is toast and has nothing to lose.
Also, I've seen various polls about who 'won' the debate. Surprisingly, a poll for The Sun has got Starmer as the 'winner' of the debate by 20 points.
Personally, I think that they're a load of bollox.
-
You can’t judge either of them on that event last night. The format was terrible, designed for entertainment rather than serious debate.
Starmer will do much better when there Would be more seemly debate, with more time for considered replies etc, rather than the forced sensationalism we saw last night.
You only have to look at his performances at PMQs, especially vs Johnson, to see what he can do.
I expect he will come across better in the second tv debate.
Yes, but the massive difference would be that at that point he would be on the other side of the table having to defend policies he'd enacted rather than take pot shots from the safety of the opposition benches.
May look trivial but i'd say that's a very big difference.
Hopefully the manifestoes can tidy up some of the conjecture, when he finally shows his hand the public can see what Starmer has in store for us all, apparently!
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
Just remind me, BB, which of the two had the audience laughing out loud at him for what he was saying? In your own time...
-
Syd there is a Private school in Donny say they have to close because most of the pupils are no longer able to attend as the parents who are not millionaires can’t afford the new fees, the kids will get soaked up by the best schools in Donny who will readily accept them as it will push up their academic scores, my Grandaughter is in such a school ,if she gets pushed down from the top group into a lower group she will not be receiving the same education as she was , likewise all the other kids who are not as academic will also be pushed down the ladder and alsowill lose out! That’s what I am getting at.
My own experience of school was going to a Comprehensive that was a merged Grammar and secondary modern, the teachers has clearly lost interest and we suffered, the fact that 60% of the lads didn’t give a toss as they were content to tread water and go down the Pit was also an issue!
And judging by the shyte you post on here, Sprotty, you suffered more than most.
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
Because he's good box office and, as I say, this is treated by the media as entertainment.
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
Because he's good box office and, as I say, this is treated by the media as entertainment.
So is Binface.
I'd actually consider watching if he was on!
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
Because he's good box office and, as I say, this is treated by the media as entertainment.
So is Binface.
I'd actually consider watching if he was on!
True.
Fun fact. Mrs S-T used to be in a band with Binface.
-
I think the problem in debates between the general public (like on here) is they do not base the arguments on policies, they are party people, no matter what they will vote Tory/Labour/LibDem or heavens forbid Green.
I am ashamed to have voted for the tories last time - what an utter mess they have made, and now all they are doing is pandering to the mid-far righters so they don’t lose them to Farage and the party totally falls apart.
I do think Labour are the party to sort this mess out, but it will not be an easy task - the Tories have utterly ruined the country, far beyond anything before. Starmer may need a couple of years to sort his cabinet out, I don’t think some of the current lot will be up to it.
-
Sunak's lies are now being investigated by the Office for Statistics Regulation:
https://x.com/HandyMan_18/status/1798310955438534948?t=e_iU6tBNCnLyXyDvD1JrCg&s=19
To echo the OP, "oh dear"!
-
Billy are they entertainment when you lose, and more serious if you think you have won.
Farage on Friday then, wish Galloway were on as well the rest could stay at home and dream.
Lucky Legs in a mini skirt anyone?
-
Some posters seem to be getting a little mysogynistic
-
I’m looking forward to potty mouthed rayner losing her rag
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
Because he's good box office and, as I say, this is treated by the media as entertainment.
So is Binface.
I'd actually consider watching if he was on!
Me as well. Actually, if people think that was media based entertainment last night, just wait till Trump and Biden face off on TV.
That's definitely a double helping of popcorn for me.
-
Scum is not a word I would use but it is used quite frequently by some drfc supporters to describe supporters of other football teams.
-
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
-
Starmer really gets under your skin aye bb? can't wait till he's the PM.
-
Scum is not a word I would use but it is used quite frequently by some drfc supporters to describe supporters of other football teams.
Is it?
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
Just remind me, BB, which of the two had the audience laughing out loud at him for what he was saying? In your own time...
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
So you didn't watch Sunak getting laughed at then BB?
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
Just remind me, BB, which of the two had the audience laughing out loud at him for what he was saying? In your own time...
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
So you didn't watch Sunak getting laughed at then BB?
What has some of the audience laughing at something Sunak said got to do with Starmer's woeful performance?
-
''Poll shows UK PM Sunak narrowly won first head to head UK election debate''
Reuters
''The results show a close tie
Tonight saw Rishi Sunak take on Keir Starmer in the first of three planned debates ahead of 4 July. Now a snap YouGov poll of 1,657 viewers reveals how people feel each party leader performed, and who they think came across best.
The results show a tie, with Rishi Sunak being seen as having given the best performance by 51% to Keir Starmer's 49%''
YouGov
''Independent readers defy YouGov poll and name Keir Starmer their winner after ITV general election debate''
etc ..........................
-
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
Ah, that unelected PM who trashed the economy.. didn’t realise it was Corbyn.!!
-
BBC's Friday election debate guests confirmed
Penny Mordaunt – Conservative Party
Angela Rayner – Labour Party
Daisy Cooper – Liberal Democrats
Stephen Flynn - Scottish National Party
Carla Denyer – Green Party
Rhun ap Iorwerth – Plaid Cymru
Nigel Farage – Reform UK
Why is Farage there and not Galloway, Binface, Corbyn and every other independent.
Reform tanked in the local elections and the RWP had 1 more MP in the last parliament than Reform have ever had?
Same format was used previously. Was just a pointless shouting match with people talking over each other.
Why are the SNP and Plaid there? 2 out of 7 of the parties present the majority of the population can't vote for.
And where is Ed Davey?! Surely appearing on prime time TV (regardless of the terrible format) would be more effective at raising his negligible public profile than deliberately throwing himself into lakes for the cameras?!!
-
Most telling stat was the viewing figure of 4.8m, down 2m on the same set piece in 2019.
Dying on its feet, this form of political posturing.
-
Sky News will have a better (albeit still flawed) format next week. Sunak and Starmer will separately be interviewed and take questions from a studio audience.
-
Chris, do you think it might be a carefully selected audience?
(Tongue in cheek emoji here).
-
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
Sunak will hike our taxes by £3,000 using the same logic.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/on-sunaks-maths-tories-will-lift-taxes-by-3000-per-household/
-
If that's true, why didn't Starmer retaliate with those figures?
-
If that's true, why didn't Starmer retaliate with those figures?
Because he didn't realise prior to the debate that Sunak was a nutjob and was going to pull a figure out of his arse and need to calculate the Tories version of that figure? Perhaps he wanted to debate as grown ups?
-
I'd imagine that "Tax" is the very last subject that Starmer was wanting to have to an in depth debate on.
I'd also say that he has even more people waiting to start to interrogate his tax commitments when his manifesto arrives. It will be very difficult to hide major tax take in the small print and he's well aware of this issue.
-
If that's true, why didn't Starmer retaliate with those figures?
Because he didn't realise prior to the debate that Sunak was a nutjob and was going to pull a figure out of his arse and need to calculate the Tories version of that figure? Perhaps he wanted to debate as grown ups?
Apparently, they knew about it two days previously.
-
I think they were aware of the figure and disputed it.
Whether they were aware of the method and assumptions the Tories made in calculating it is another thing.
-
I'd imagine that "Tax" is the very last subject that Starmer was wanting to have to an in depth debate on.
I'd also say that he has even more people waiting to start to interrogate his tax commitments when his manifesto arrives. It will be very difficult to hide major tax take in the small print and he's well aware of this issue.
You are Sunak and I demand my ₤5
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
Just remind me, BB, which of the two had the audience laughing out loud at him for what he was saying? In your own time...
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
So you didn't watch Sunak getting laughed at then BB?
What has some of the audience laughing at something Sunak said got to do with Starmer's woeful performance?
The fact that they only laughed at Sunak?
-
Starmer's getting destroyed.....
Just remind me, BB, which of the two had the audience laughing out loud at him for what he was saying? In your own time...
The UK’s official statistics regulator is investigating Rishi Sunak’s claim that Labour will hike household taxes by £2,000 if they win the election. Of course, everyone will find out the truth when the inevitable happens and Starmer becomes PM in July.
My biggest concern, which should be an even bigger one for those Starmer supporters who are honest enough to admit it, is his piss-poor performance that resulted in him being torn a new arsehole by someone 20 odd points behind him in the polls. God help us when he comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed.
Even then, Sunak let Starmer off the hook by missing a trick that would have given him victory by a knock-out had he replied appropriately to one of Starmer's main get-out-of-answering tactics, which was to bring up Liz Truss on more than one occasion.
Sunak could have won by a knockout had he retaliated like for like and brought up Starmer's predecessor Jeremy Corbyn.
When our great new leader comes up against someone of more significance than a bloke on his political deathbed, God help him.
...... And us!
So you didn't watch Sunak getting laughed at then BB?
What has some of the audience laughing at something Sunak said got to do with Starmer's woeful performance?
The fact that they only laughed at Sunak?
Sunak is in a position of responsibility so is bound to attract more negative responses from the audience. Starmer, whose job as leader of the opposition is to convince the audience of his intended policies for improvement, instead, for the great part spent his time condemning Sunak rather than promoting himself as a worthy replacement.
It was clear, on that showing that Starmer simply isn't a worthy replacement.
-
Starmer certainly isn't a rabble rousing speaker of a politician and that will lead some people to take the view that he isn't a particularly inspiring leader and I would agree with them on that. However watching the discussion on Newsnight yesterday the widely held view about the debate was that Starmer didn't go nearly hard enough on Sunak for the shit-show of the last fourteen years. Who is right, my money is on them not you.
-
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Starmer for using the tactics he did, and perhaps the views on Newsnight that he should have spent even more time talking about the past Tory failures instead of his own policies is a good shout.
After all, he's not got a lot of his own policies to shout about.
-
Starmer certainly isn't a rabble rousing speaker of a politician and that will lead some people to take the view that he isn't a particularly inspiring leader and I would agree with them on that. However watching the discussion on Newsnight yesterday the widely held view about the debate was that Starmer didn't go nearly hard enough on Sunak for the shit-show of the last fourteen years. Who is right, my money is on them not you.
The thing is, what your proposing to offer the electorate doesn't automatically become better just because the others parties was so poor!
Sometimes you have to stand behind your policy and let people know what it is, just slating the others doesn't impress everyone or improve anything.
-
Starmer certainly isn't a rabble rousing speaker of a politician and that will lead some people to take the view that he isn't a particularly inspiring leader and I would agree with them on that. However watching the discussion on Newsnight yesterday the widely held view about the debate was that Starmer didn't go nearly hard enough on Sunak for the shit-show of the last fourteen years. Who is right, my money is on them not you.
The thing is, what your proposing to offer the electorate doesn't automatically become better just because the others parties was so poor!
Sometimes you have to stand behind your policy and let people know what it is, just slating the others doesn't impress everyone or improve anything.
When the ruling party has made as many serious foul ups as this one, the first step for anyone who is hoping to replace them is to position themselves as the party who won't f**k up the country any more.
You have to remember that this lot have led us into the three most God awful economic policies since the Great Depression, and EVERY one (Austerity, Brexit and Trussonimics) came from a committment to ideology over economic sense.
In that light, saying you're going to be sensible on the economics is a revolutionary change.
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
Surely you could say the same about almost all party leaders? I'm not saying that its right, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find instances where virtually every party leader for the past 40 years has done this.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
-
The Tories have needed no help in bringing themselves down BB.
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
Surely you could say the same about almost all party leaders? I'm not saying that its right, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find instances where virtually every party leader for the past 40 years has done this.
Your dead right and i agree.
The only difference being is this guy is going to be the next PM, and therein lies the problem.
We move from supposedly right to left but still have the same issues to look forward to. If Reeves continues committing to not change anything just where are these increased public service improvements going to materialise from?
Sounds to me like nothing much will be changing, unless they are hoping to dupe the nation into voting for something completely different once safely in place.
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
Surely you could say the same about almost all party leaders? I'm not saying that its right, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find instances where virtually every party leader for the past 40 years has done this.
Your dead right and i agree.
The only difference being is this guy is going to be the next PM, and therein lies the problem.
We move from supposedly right to left but still have the same issues to look forward to. If Reeves continues committing to not change anything just where are these increased public service improvements going to materialise from?
Sounds to me like nothing much will be changing, unless they are hoping to dupe the nation into voting for something completely different once safely in place.
It would be informative if you explain what you mean by 'left' dd, there is a noisy contingent on here saying they are all the same and others saying labour is too far to the right.
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
The Tories have needed no help in bringing themselves down BB.
Of course, I should have mentioned many of its supporters being the same.....
Haha, there you go folks, I rest my case!
-
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
THe only reason I'm voting labour is because of you slag them off bb, hehe
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
Surely you could say the same about almost all party leaders? I'm not saying that its right, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find instances where virtually every party leader for the past 40 years has done this.
Your dead right and i agree.
The only difference being is this guy is going to be the next PM, and therein lies the problem.
We move from supposedly right to left but still have the same issues to look forward to. If Reeves continues committing to not change anything just where are these increased public service improvements going to materialise from?
Sounds to me like nothing much will be changing, unless they are hoping to dupe the nation into voting for something completely different once safely in place.
It would be informative if you explain what you mean by 'left' dd, there is a noisy contingent on here saying they are all the same and others saying labour is too far to the right.
-
You can't blame the Tories for 14 years of failure, everything in those 14 years was down to the Pandemic and war on Ukraine wasn't it?
-
You can't blame the Tories for 14 years of failure, everything in those 14 years was down to the Pandemic and war on Ukraine wasn't it?
And the complete mess left by the last Labour government!
-
I’m interested BB, you can see the Tories have totally ruined the country can’t you? I’ve certainly never known a time where we are in such a mess, mainly through utter incompetence.
Not a post having a sly dig, just genuinely interesting.
-
You can't blame the Tories for 14 years of failure, everything in those 14 years was down to the Pandemic and war on Ukraine wasn't it?
This Labour Party is a party of protest, not a party of government.
It can only lift itself up by bringing opponent parties down.
There will be nothing to hide behind when this Labour Party is in power.
-
I’m interested BB, you can see the Tories have totally ruined the country can’t you? I’ve certainly never known a time where we are in such a mess, mainly through utter incompetence.
Not a post having a sly dig, just genuinely interesting.
bump
-
You can't blame the Tories for 14 years of failure, everything in those 14 years was down to the Pandemic and war on Ukraine wasn't it?
And the complete mess left by the last Labour government!
Yeah and that world wide financial crisis that they caused. FFS.
-
Saying your going to be sensible on the economics sounds great, but this fella has form on saying things and then deciding its not a runner. Does this not demonstrate an attitude that follows rather than leads and looks to focus groups to form policy which in effect just happens to be the current flavour of the day.
Until its not and we see more flipping and flopping.
Surely you could say the same about almost all party leaders? I'm not saying that its right, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look far to find instances where virtually every party leader for the past 40 years has done this.
Your dead right and i agree.
The only difference being is this guy is going to be the next PM, and therein lies the problem.
We move from supposedly right to left but still have the same issues to look forward to. If Reeves continues committing to not change anything just where are these increased public service improvements going to materialise from?
Sounds to me like nothing much will be changing, unless they are hoping to dupe the nation into voting for something completely different once safely in place.
How many times does it need pointing out that she's proposing a totally different treatment of capital investment.
The throttling of capital investment by this lot is one of THE most egregious mistakes of the past 14 years.
-
You can't blame the Tories for 14 years of failure, everything in those 14 years was down to the Pandemic and war on Ukraine wasn't it?
And the complete mess left by the last Labour government!
Yeah and that world wide financial crisis that they caused. FFS.
You got it in one Donny!
-
In that financial crisis the shadow chancellor was a high flyer in the bank of England and signed off and must have known about lots of dodgy scams by various banks that caused that particular crisis, something not talked about on here I notice.
And the politics of envy is already raising its head with some Labour front benchers who are already vocal and pushing to increase inheritance tax.
As for the £2k tax prediction the civil service have not actually disputed the figure just the fact that they should not be associated with publishing the figure.
It will be more than that.
-
Mike Graham filling your head with dogshite again Selby?
She left the BoE 2 years before the GFC.
Have another go. I'm sure you will.
-
Thanks Billy she worked there until 2006 when things were on dodgy ground and was head hunted by HBOS one of the worst banks caught out in the scams and one of the highest fined banks when the s**t hit the fan.
The job she had was signing off deals and was interviewed by Goldman Sachs but got cold feet, she was part of, and new what was going on, or are you telling me she is not as bright as she is made out to be.
-
She worked for the retail arm of HBOS.
Go on. Next.
-
Thanks Billy she worked there until 2006 when things were on dodgy ground and was head hunted by HBOS one of the worst banks caught out in the scams and one of the highest fined banks when the s**t hit the fan.
The job she had was signing off deals and was interviewed by Goldman Sachs but got cold feet, she was part of, and new what was going on, or are you telling me she is not as bright as she is made out to be.
Stop worrying selby labour won't be after your pittance, however they may go after those that can afford a gardener and a butler.
-
Your a funny lad Billy you generally hate millionaires associated with the Tories but will die for millionaire socialists. Have a good day, as a small business man enjoy it while you can.
-
I think that translates as "Yeah, I'm being really stupid here aren't I?" Eh Selby?
-
Don't put yourself down Billy, your always entertaining and now we have woken your head oncho up from the penal colony ( they don't really deserve our cast offs really poor buggers) but hey ho we all have a cross to carry.
By the way did you really pick him as a disciple or did he just latch on to you.
-
Don't put yourself down Billy, your always entertaining and now we have woken your head oncho up from the penal colony ( they don't really deserve our cast offs really poor buggers) but hey ho we all have a cross to carry.
By the way did you really pick him as a disciple or did he just latch on to you.
I knew you'd bite with that one selby, sleep well
-
I always knew you had a soft spot for me Syd, I will thanks