Rishi Sunak

[Bristol Red Rover]

For me there are a couple of key points to be made about this mess that are hardly ever mentioned.

Sometimes it is said that we are racking up debts like its wartime... Hello! If you hadn't noticed we are at war! Maybe just maybe these debts are acceptable when we are engaged in a de facto war with Russia?

The other is the root of the cost of living crisis is an energy crisis. The word energy hardly crops up in political debate but it is much the biggest driver of the inflation we are experiencing, apart from some food inflation which is probably in part down to the drought summer and again, the war with Russia. Not only because Russia is blockading the country which is a major producer but also because the price of artificial fertiliser has gone through the roof being produced in a process that heavily uses gas.

Maybe, if we facing up to the reality of what's going on here we'd have a better chance of overcoming it?

Face up to the geo political war the US especially, and the UK elite, are having with Russia. Sure, and also see why that is happening. It's not a war for me, I don't benefit and neither do you.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I suppose there will be plenty of Labour voters who will have to work for thousands of years to be a penny behind Starmer too.

The difference between both the wealth and out of touchness of Sunak is incomparable to that with Starmer. You are talking absolute nonsense.

[drfchound]

I suppose there will be plenty of Labour voters who will have to work for thousands of years to be a penny behind Starmer too.

The difference between both the wealth and out of touchness of Sunak is incomparable to that with Starmer. You are talking absolute nonsense.

Irrespective of that point BRR, Starmer is hardly a pauper is he.
Sunak married well and some people seem to have a problem with that.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I suppose there will be plenty of Labour voters who will have to work for thousands of years to be a penny behind Starmer too.

The difference between both the wealth and out of touchness of Sunak is incomparable to that with Starmer. You are talking absolute nonsense.

Irrespective of that point BRR, Starmer is hardly a pauper is he.
Sunak married well and some people seem to have a problem with that.

"Married well" - an interesting take 

No, Starmer is not a pauper, and nowhere near my chosen idea; of a leader, but he does have heaps more experience of the real world than Sunak. And now? Sunak has no idea what ordinary people experience, never mind poor people. I don't think you can nearly say the same for Starmer.

And the problem is not at all that Sunak lives in another universe, but that he is implementing policies that benefit the very wealthy when people are hungry and cold. He can do this precisely because he is soooooo out of touch.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm wondering who these "some people" are that Hound seems to have a problem with. I haven't seen any in here.

[drfchound]

I suppose there will be plenty of Labour voters who will have to work for thousands of years to be a penny behind Starmer too.

The difference between both the wealth and out of touchness of Sunak is incomparable to that with Starmer. You are talking absolute nonsense.

Irrespective of that point BRR, Starmer is hardly a pauper is he.
Sunak married well and some people seem to have a problem with that.

"Married well" - an interesting take 

No, Starmer is not a pauper, and nowhere near my chosen idea; of a leader, but he does have heaps more experience of the real world than Sunak. And now? Sunak has no idea what ordinary people experience, never mind poor people. I don't think you can nearly say the same for Starmer.

And the problem is not at all that Sunak lives in another universe, but that he is implementing policies that benefit the very wealthy when people are hungry and cold. He can do this precisely because he is soooooo out of touch.

We are told that Sunak came from a reasonably wealthy background but his parents could hardly be classed as seriously well off.
Yes he went off to university and has a brain that helped him progress his future.
I wonder whether people would have such a big problem with him had he not married the billionaire heiress. Already some people are pulling him down without giving him an opportunity to prove himself.
Give the bloke a chance and judge him in a years time, not after a couple of days n the job.

[River Don]

In the end society needs poor people. It cannot function without poor people. Someone needs to do those jobs we would rather not do. Someone needs to empty the bins. Someone needs to do the cleaning. Someone needs to deal with refuse. In pastimes slavery was just the natural state of things, society needed a workforce to do the grim work. That need has not gone away.

If a society can't meet the needs of the less fortunate, then it will begin to collapse.

Slavery is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Serfdom is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

[River Don]

For me there are a couple of key points to be made about this mess that are hardly ever mentioned.

Sometimes it is said that we are racking up debts like its wartime... Hello! If you hadn't noticed we are at war! Maybe just maybe these debts are acceptable when we are engaged in a de facto war with Russia?

The other is the root of the cost of living crisis is an energy crisis. The word energy hardly crops up in political debate but it is much the biggest driver of the inflation we are experiencing, apart from some food inflation which is probably in part down to the drought summer and again, the war with Russia. Not only because Russia is blockading the country which is a major producer but also because the price of artificial fertiliser has gone through the roof being produced in a process that heavily uses gas.

Maybe, if we facing up to the reality of what's going on here we'd have a better chance of overcoming it?

Face up to the geo political war the US especially, and the UK elite, are having with Russia. Sure, and also see why that is happening. It's not a war for me, I don't benefit and neither do you.

I think the war against Russia is righteous. Putin is just another autocrat. Just another dictator. We can NEVER submit to such people.

[BillyStubbsTears]

In the end society needs poor people. It cannot function without poor people. Someone needs to do those jobs we would rather not do. Someone needs to empty the bins. Someone needs to do the cleaning. Someone needs to deal with refuse. In pastimes slavery was just the natural state of things, society needed a workforce to do the grim work. That need has not gone away.

If a society can't meet the needs of the less fortunate, then it will begin to collapse.

Slavery is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Serfdom is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

Bang on. And that's the failure of the past 45 years under both main parties.

The amount of wealth going to the richest declined for 35 years after WWII. Since the late 1970s, it has remorselessly risen. People at the bottom have to work harder for a smaller and smaller slice of the pie.

That has to change at some point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

For me there are a couple of key points to be made about this mess that are hardly ever mentioned.

Sometimes it is said that we are racking up debts like its wartime... Hello! If you hadn't noticed we are at war! Maybe just maybe these debts are acceptable when we are engaged in a de facto war with Russia?

The other is the root of the cost of living crisis is an energy crisis. The word energy hardly crops up in political debate but it is much the biggest driver of the inflation we are experiencing, apart from some food inflation which is probably in part down to the drought summer and again, the war with Russia. Not only because Russia is blockading the country which is a major producer but also because the price of artificial fertiliser has gone through the roof being produced in a process that heavily uses gas.

Maybe, if we facing up to the reality of what's going on here we'd have a better chance of overcoming it?

Face up to the geo political war the US especially, and the UK elite, are having with Russia. Sure, and also see why that is happening. It's not a war for me, I don't benefit and neither do you.

I think the war against Russia is righteous. Putin is just another autocrat. Just another dictator. We can NEVER submit to such people.

Bang on 2.

You never ever succeed by appeasing a violent dictator. You take a stand against them, or eventually they swallow you up. Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't know anything of history.

[River Don]

Freedom is at the very heart of British society. Since 1066 and before It has been the greatest driving force in human history. If we ever, ever forget this then we are truly lost.

Spitfires, Lancasters and Vulacan bombers defend our values. This is what we stand for. This is what we stand for.

[wilts rover]

In the end society needs poor people. It cannot function without poor people. Someone needs to do those jobs we would rather not do. Someone needs to empty the bins. Someone needs to do the cleaning. Someone needs to deal with refuse. In pastimes slavery was just the natural state of things, society needed a workforce to do the grim work. That need has not gone away.

If a society can't meet the needs of the less fortunate, then it will begin to collapse.

Slavery is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Serfdom is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

No it doesn't. It requires people to do those jobs - but it doesn't require them to be badly paid for doing them.

The biggest problem in society is the massive inequality of wealth in this country. A very few people own the majority of the wealth.

Under 12 years of Tory government this has got worse. This small group has got far richer - and in proportion to them - the rest of us have got poorer. This has been a deliberate policy and is what drove austerity and Brexit - to make Britain a deregulated tax haven with the minimum of public services and the maximum amount of private companies running them for the benefit of their shareholders.

[phil old leake]

Hound I think you’re right about Sunak.  It’s more about his wife and her wealth than him. From what I’ve read his parents worked hard to put him through a good education which he has taken advantage of
He could solve world peace and some on here would still slag him off because of his politics

[drfchound]

Hound I think you’re right about Sunak.  It’s more about his wife and her wealth than him. From what I’ve read his parents worked hard to put him through a good education which he has taken advantage of
He could solve world peace and some on here would still slag him off because of his politics

Bang on.

[ncRover]

If you don't want to discuss the problems in my comment just say so, if you don't understand what trickle down economics is I don't see any point in a continued discussion.

You’ve got a point on the other points, yes. I just wanted to understand what you meant on the trickle down one. I understand the concept, but it seems a something hard to pin down and attribute to a particular system when we have been a pro-capitalist country since 1979. If I can understand how you understand it, I can debate your alternative proposals.

And it's not even mid, let alone end of season yet

I’m going to assume that by trickle down economics that you mean open free market capitalism.

If so please provide evidence that other economic models work better.

If we’re following your trickle down analogy, left wing ideas turn down the water supply in that.

trickle down economics is giving money to the extremely wealthy and expecting that they will make the best use of that money and it will pass down, trickle down, to the ordinary person. This is a falacy and nothing whatsoever to do with economics - it's about feathering your mates beds, simple.

If you want to give water to people, you give water to people, not to their suppliers.

What do you mean by “giving money to the extremely wealthy”?

The same economics that benefit the wealthy also benefit the ordinary person who may want to set up a business, employ people and contribute to their local economy.

You could say that that generates water within the system, like a well.

The top 10% of earners pay 60% of income tax. I’ve said this before, poor people aren’t poor because rich people are rich. You have to generate wealth through investment. How is investment attracted?

But then it does come down to the government to invest in the country to generate growth. Got to spend money to make money and all that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you don't want to discuss the problems in my comment just say so, if you don't understand what trickle down economics is I don't see any point in a continued discussion.

You’ve got a point on the other points, yes. I just wanted to understand what you meant on the trickle down one. I understand the concept, but it seems a something hard to pin down and attribute to a particular system when we have been a pro-capitalist country since 1979. If I can understand how you understand it, I can debate your alternative proposals.

And it's not even mid, let alone end of season yet

I’m going to assume that by trickle down economics that you mean open free market capitalism.

If so please provide evidence that other economic models work better.

If we’re following your trickle down analogy, left wing ideas turn down the water supply in that.

trickle down economics is giving money to the extremely wealthy and expecting that they will make the best use of that money and it will pass down, trickle down, to the ordinary person. This is a falacy and nothing whatsoever to do with economics - it's about feathering your mates beds, simple.

If you want to give water to people, you give water to people, not to their suppliers.

What do you mean by “giving money to the extremely wealthy”?

The same economics that benefit the wealthy also benefit the ordinary person who may want to set up a business, employ people and contribute to their local economy.

You could say that that generates water within the system, like a well.

The top 10% of earners pay 60% of income tax. I’ve said this before, poor people aren’t poor because rich people are rich. You have to generate wealth through investment. How is investment attracted?

But then it does come down to the government to invest in the country to generate growth. Got to spend money to make money and all that.

Why is it when people on the right discuss who pays tax, they only mention income tax.

Fact: The poorest 20% of the population pay a bigger proportion of their income in tax (all taxes) than do the richest 20%

[Not Now Kato]

Got to look after your mates....
 
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/charity-founded-by-jeremy-hunt-paid-66-of-income-to-chief-executive/ar-AA13onjD?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d2d9c5401c464809a3a8ecf342136aa6

[selby]

 Does anyone else think Sunak that he is made for being the new owner here, the wealth would help, and for me he could do what he wanted,

[ncRover]

Over in the US they can’t resist stoking division.

https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1585240576537944065?s=46&t=Ygb8lh_HPBnxF-1pRggZqA

Trying to make out there’s a backlash over Sunak’s race. Sad.

[Donnywolf]

If you don't want to discuss the problems in my comment just say so, if you don't understand what trickle down economics is I don't see any point in a continued discussion.

You’ve got a point on the other points, yes. I just wanted to understand what you meant on the trickle down one. I understand the concept, but it seems a something hard to pin down and attribute to a particular system when we have been a pro-capitalist country since 1979. If I can understand how you understand it, I can debate your alternative proposals.

And it's not even mid, let alone end of season yet

I’m going to assume that by trickle down economics that you mean open free market capitalism.

If so please provide evidence that other economic models work better.

If we’re following your trickle down analogy, left wing ideas turn down the water supply in that.

trickle down economics is giving money to the extremely wealthy and expecting that they will make the best use of that money and it will pass down, trickle down, to the ordinary person. This is a falacy and nothing whatsoever to do with economics - it's about feathering your mates beds, simple.

If you want to give water to people, you give water to people, not to their suppliers.

What do you mean by “giving money to the extremely wealthy”?

The same economics that benefit the wealthy also benefit the ordinary person who may want to set up a business, employ people and contribute to their local economy.

You could say that that generates water within the system, like a well.

The top 10% of earners pay 60% of income tax. I’ve said this before, poor people aren’t poor because rich people are rich. You have to generate wealth through investment. How is investment attracted?

But then it does come down to the government to invest in the country to generate growth. Got to spend money to make money and all that.

Why is it when people on the right discuss who pays tax, they only mention income tax.

Fact: The poorest 20% of the population pay a bigger proportion of their income in tax (all taxes) than do the richest 20%

Always thought that a Purchase Tax on everything would be fairer all round ... like VAT ... if its say 20% on Yachts and someone pays 5 million quid for one that will bag some "Tax" for the Treasury

If people buy a £200,000 car then they hopefully pay the Tax on.that and pro rata a 40 grand kia would add 8k for the "so called" poorer person

Nobody pays on certain foods , food groups.

Or have I just described VAT 2

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1582764013456613376?t=zZZESD2u4FpTIp2rUhfYpQ&s=19

Even that chap thought it was minor.

By the way. It's not just that Braverman used an insecure mail system to send secure documents. (Although Cummings WOULD say that's inconsequential, because he did it for years when in Govt, because he always worked on the principle that the rules didn't apply to him.)

It's the fact that Braverman sent confidential documents to people who should not have received them. And when questioned about it, reportedly she lied to the PM.

This story isn't going away. Starmer asked the key question yesterday at PMQs and Sunak ignored it.

The Cabinet Secretary is tasked with enforcing the rules and informing the PM if they have been broken. He advised that Braverman should be sacked last week. What was his opinion on her reinstatement?

As I say, Sunak flat refused to answer that question, which speaks volumes.

[Donnywolf]

We did learn instead though about the Furlough scheme , the War raging in Europe , the 37 billion bale out of the needy people and the fact Southampton and Portsmouth fans didn't get on in his alternate answer

[ravenrover]

And Johnson Mk2.0 sent the troops out this morning to defend his decision, 2 of his best Zahawi and not so Cleverley

[belton rover]

I'm wondering who these "some people" are that Hound seems to have a problem with. I haven't seen any in here.

I’m wondering why you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with those you have chosen to, ahem, ignore.

[Donnywolf]

And Johnson Mk2.0 sent the troops out this morning to defend his decision, 2 of his best Zahawi and not so Cleverley

.... to tell people he had changed , and all would be different " this time," as he would put the Country first and knuckle down to the job of PM and it seems "all that entailed".

Surely the 57% that did not Vote for the Tory Party in 2019 wouldn't think , " you know what , he might have learned some hard lessons , so yeah go on I'll give him another crack"

( Yes I know the Electorate didn't have a vote this time round , just Tory MPs)

[BillyStubbsTears]

We did learn instead though about the Furlough scheme , the War raging in Europe , the 37 billion bale out of the needy people and the fact Southampton and Portsmouth fans didn't get on in his alternate answer

That's the problem with PMQs.

It started as a way of Opposition genuinely being able to hold Govt to account. Because we've become a society that doesn't treat politics seriously, it's become light entertainment. Who can come up with the wittiest put down.

I'd thought Sunak might have a bit more substance than other recent PMs, but yesterday makes it look like he's a Johnson MK2. Whatever he was asked, he ignored and gave a scripted response that avoided the question:

Q: Do you still agree that you were right to take money away from deprived inner city areas and give it to Tonbridge?

A: You live in Islington and you've no idea about the poor.

Q. Did you ask the Cabinet Secretary for his opinion on re-installing Braverman?

A. Braverman is getting on with reducing crime which the Labour party opposes.

Apparently the Tories are chuffed to bits with Sunak's performance. Which says everything about their attitude.

[Bentley Bullet]

If it is down to witty put-downs then Starmer ought to get a better scriptwriter and get lessons on delivery. He must be the most witless leader of any political party EVER! His delivery would spoil a good put-down even if he ever presented one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Very good contribution BB. I'm sure you're very proud of that addition.

[Bentley Bullet]

Why Thanks BST!

[Not Now Kato]

Oh Rishi, what have you done.......
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2o3BuKPniE