[Politics] Starmer v Sunak *** Official Match Thread ***

[peterward]

Can Mick Lynch be Labour leader please

Bet Lynch would've been better tonight.

 

[zefarelly]

Starmer really IS a chancer

You're a complete fuckwit aren't you . . . . .I'm watching the dreadful program but 30 minutes behind, and have speed read lots of posts.

you stand out as a repeat poster on a single thread as either a paid employee of the tory party or a brainwashed Daily Mail subscriber. Repeat bollocks.

impressive with all the negatives.

 

[peterward]

Personally I think we’d learn far more from a 1v1 interview with a proper political journo (whoever is Paxman these days, Emily Maitlis?) to press them on the actual issues without a lot of squabbling, but that’s probably not good telly

Andrew Neil or even Piers Morgan.

 

[A1X]

Andrew Neil or even Piers Morgan.

Much as I loathe Piers Morgan and when I come to power I’ll pass a law which basically tells him to shut up (maybe with referendum so we can all play our part), he probably would do that quite well.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think we acted first. And it wasn’t the go to policy, there was barely a precedent in history.

UK lockdown announced one day, Furlough the next day.

Many disagreed with it btw eg pandemic deniers, the right wing, anti tax alliances, small government weirdo’s.

No, we were third, along with 5 other nations. Looks like 'EU chat' involved. Italy was where Covid landed first in Europe. Anyone might think there was an established plan in place.

 

[Mike Small]

I think we acted first. And it wasn’t the go to policy, there was barely a precedent in history.

UK lockdown announced one day, Furlough the next day.

Many disagreed with it btw eg pandemic deniers, the right wing, anti tax alliances, small government weirdo’s.

I don't know if we acted first but fair point if that is true. Harry WIlson says we were third.

If Sunak wants to champion his furlough scheme though he needs to champion the fact that these measures were wracked with fraud and croynism at the taxpayers expense. Fraud quadrupled during this time under his watch which we had to foot the bill for.

 

[London Irish]

Surprising. Would of put it at 70-30 Sunak

It’s effectively that as there are currently twice as many Labour voters as Tory in the sample YouGov poll

 

[Weststander]

Personally I think we’d learn far more from a 1v1 interview with a proper political journo (whoever is Paxman these days, Emily Maitlis?) to press them on the actual issues without a lot of squabbling, but that’s probably not good telly

The debates are grandstanding sh1t, always have been, an Americanisation.

Andrew Neil was brilliant conducting the 1v1’s.

 

[Bozza]

Much as I loathe Piers Morgan and when I come to power I’ll pass a law which basically tells him to shut up (maybe with referendum so we can all play our part), he probably would do that quite well.

Agreed - he's utterly contemptible, but he is exceptional at holding feet to the fire, and not allowing the interviewee to swerve the question, going in two-footed when they try.

 

[aolstudios]

Can Mick Lynch be Labour leader please

Putin's Brexity mate? He's good at his current job & should stick to it

 

[Machiavelli]

That, for me, was a draw and Rishi needed all 3 points.

It seemed to me that the producers had a word with Etchingham at half time and told her to let it flow a bit better. Second half was an easier watch than the first.

I think Rishi did as well as he possibly could but it is obvious he was under instruction to tell viewers you can't trust Labour on tax, even if there isn't any evidence tax will riise under Labour for ordinary people.

I think the winners tonight were the Lib Dems and Reform UK. After watching that voters may be more receptive to listening to other options.

Nah. Sunak got away with the £2k tax claim about five times, mostly through interrupting and talking over Starmer, which he was allowed to do by Etchingham. He'd be absolutely delighted by this, while Starmer was on the back foot, and failed to take that bogus claim on at the earliest opportunity, which is the equivalent of an own goal.
I think enough on here might work out that I'm not the greatest fan of the Tories, but they'll be pleased with the three points they've been allowed to go home with courtesy of a dodgy ref and a too compliant opposition.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Bet Lynch would've been better tonight.

Bet Lynch would be better full stop

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're a complete fuckwit aren't you . . . . .I'm watching the dreadful program but 30 minutes behind, and have speed read lots of posts.

you stand out as a repeat poster on a single thread as either a paid employee of the tory party or a brainwashed Daily Mail subscriber. Repeat bollocks.

impressive with all the negatives.

And the weirdo has given you his 'ironic' thumbs up. Here is a clue (below) what to do (and it works only partially as he keeps popping up in my timeline, being called out for his hopelessness by respected posters like yourself).

 

[Weststander]

I don't know if we acted first but fair point.

If Sunak wants to champion his furlough scheme though he needs to champion the fact that these measures were wracked with fraud and croynism at the taxpayers expense. Fraud quadrupled during this time under his watch which we had to foot the bill for.

I’d rather he moved on as it was 4 years ago, but it’s a huge tick to his CV.

Because it was devised in days and had to be, it was vulnerable to fraud. A raft of checks and balances would’ve led to 10,000’s of honest businesses losing cash flow and folding, millions unnecessarily unemployed, a second Great Depression. That could’ve happened.

But like Rottweilers the government/HMRC/police should be going after the fraudsters. Gutting that they got rich from public borrowing.

 

[Bozza]

Nah. Sunak got away with the £2k tax claim about five times, mostly through interrupting and talking over Starmer, which he was allowed to do by Etchingham. He'd be absolutely delighted by this, while Starmer was on the back foot, and failed to take that bogus claim on at the earliest opportunity, which is the equivalent of an own goal.
I think enough on here might work out that I'm not the greatest fan of the Tories, but they'll be pleased with the three points they've been allowed to go home with courtesy of a dodgy ref and a too compliant opposition.

Given how Starmer did, eventually, respond to the £2k tax claim, it's just bizarre that he didn't do so sooner.

His sheepish demeanour at the first few references to it made him look like a 5-year-old who had just been caught red-handed with his hand in the sweetie tin.

 

[pb21]

I’d rather he moved on as it was 4 years ago, but it’s a huge tick to his CV.

Was that really Sunak?

Is it not just a similar example to how Sunak solved the global inflation crisis, i.e. it wasn't him.

 

[pb21]

Given how Starmer did, eventually, respond to the £2k tax claim, it's just bizarre that he didn't do so sooner.

His sheepish demeanour at the first few references to it made him look like a 5-year-old who had just been caught red-handed with his hand in the sweetie tin.

He tried to but the ref kept saying tax was coming up later, although didn't say the same to Sunak when he kept bringing it up.

 

[ROSM]

I'm mo

I’d rather he moved on as it was 4 years ago, but it’s a huge tick to his CV.

Because it was devised in days and had to be, it was vulnerable to fraud. A raft of checks and balances would’ve led to 10,000’s of honest businesses losing cash flow and folding, millions unnecessarily unemployed, a second Great Depression. That could’ve happened.

But like Rottweilers the government/HMRC/police should be going after the fraudsters. Gutting that they got rich from public borrowing.

Just to mention, the 1st politician to mention a furlough scheme was John McDonnell

 

[goldstone]

Sunak won the debate hands down in my opinion. No contest. I know who I'd like to be running the country.

 

[Weststander]

Nah. Sunak got away with the £2k tax claim about five times, mostly through interrupting and talking over Starmer, which he was allowed to do by Etchingham. He'd be absolutely delighted by this, while Starmer was on the back foot, and failed to take that bogus claim on at the earliest opportunity, which is the equivalent of an own goal.
I think enough on here might work out that I'm not the greatest fan of the Tories, but they'll be pleased with the three points they've been allowed to go home with courtesy of a dodgy ref and a too compliant opposition.

Just said on Newsnight that Starmer may’ve very deliberately not answered the £2k question, because there’s substance in greater higher taxes to fund all the pledges (beyond schools VAT).

We’re not party to the traps they’re laying for each other for later in the campaign.