Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

[yellow hammer 114]

Starmer like a rabbit caught in headlights.  At least we learnt one thing. Starmer has no plan for the future

[dylanisabaddog 5,821]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

The format is dreadful.

45 seconds is not remotely enough. Both come across as tetchy and short tempered.

Feels like it's an election where the two leaders really don't like each other.

Jess Phillips told Starmer last week that she actually felt sorry for Sunak. Starmer told her to f*** off.  So yes, Starmer dislikes him. 

I fear for the country after that display. Neither was inspiring but the format didn't help and the presenter was weak. It needs someone very strong to control a debate like that and I thought she was hopeless. 

Overall I doubt either did enough to persuade people to change their minds. Very depressing. 

[Daz Sparks 1,540]

The debate was p1ss poor, the whole way it was conducted was for television. 

Sunak seemed to use the format better than Starmer, but neither managed to tell me anything new. One thing I did take from it, was that both of them seemed to be saying the same things about what they will do, but Labour's will cost £2,000 a year more.

How does that work?

 

[Herman 10,982]

6 hours ago, yellow hammer said:

Starmer like a rabbit caught in headlights.  At least we learnt one thing. Starmer has no plan for the future

Maybe, but it is hard to plan anything if you don't know how bad the economy, that you inherit, is going to be.

You should probably be asking why the economic outlook is so bad and if your support had anything to do with it. 

[Herman 10,982]

1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said:

The debate was p1ss poor, the whole way it was conducted was for television. 

Sunak seemed to use the format better than Starmer, but neither managed to tell me anything new. One thing I did take from it, was that both of them seemed to be saying the same things about what they will do, but Labour's will cost £2,000 a year more.

How does that work?

 

It sounds like that 2k figure was plucked out of the air by tory spads and now they are running with it. 🙄

[Sheva 146]

Same old pre election **** talk, ….promise you everything and deliver nothing.

LIEbour  or CONservatives, thats  the choice.

Edited June 5 by Sheva

[Foxy2600 351]

I didn't watch it last night, so I came to Pink'Un for an informed left-wing biased view....

Apparently a waste of an hour, no one learned anything and no matter what they promise or which party gets in they will be stymied  by the 'system' i.e. new government but same HoL, Civil Servants, Judiciary, MSM and most of all a sceptical populace.

[ricardo 7,846]

Things are bad worldwide thanks to Covid, trade disruptions and wars.

Therefore all incumbent governments will suffer losses.

The only guarantee is that tomorrow will be more expensive than today.

[Mello Yello 2,511]

Both candidates probably promised us all the Moon on a stick.....We'll be lucky if we get so much as a splinter.....

[A Load of Squit 6,064]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

It sounds like that 2k figure was plucked out of the air by tory spads and now they are running with it. 🙄

Running with this lie just shows that the Conservatives cannot wash away the putrid stain of Boris Johnson.

 

[KiwiScot 1,663]

All the Scottish leaders are debating on BBC One Scotland next Tuesday. Including the Greens, but not Alba. Greens having brought in a temporary scrapping of peak rail fares. If you can find the channel and take the constant use of the words Scotland and Independence it might be different.

[Yellow Fever 4,336]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Running with this lie just shows that the Conservatives cannot wash away the putrid stain of Boris Johnson.

 

Agree with that. Shout and repeat a lie long enough and for the the dimmer the lie becomes a truth.

As every 'verify / fact check' site show the figure is without merit. A Tory 'made-up fantasy'. Anybody can make things up!

SKS should have simply dealt with it forcibly and early ignoring the appalling presenter who kept stopping him. This was a TV dimwitted shouting match not a law court where the judge would of intervened.

A strong put put down was needed along the line fool me once - fool on me - fool me twice - fool on you (Sunak/Tories)

 

[BroadstairsR 2,272]

51 minutes ago, Herman said:

It sounds like that 2k figure was plucked out of the air by tory spads and now they are running with it. 🙄

Yet, but,  I don't recall Starmer actually denying this. His only extra tax revenue gained to pay for his giveaway policy was to screw the non-doms further, a policy which in the past has actually brought in less tax revenue as many re-locate abroad and to add VAT to private scools often a haven for the less able and and handicapped, These establismnets are more common than is realised, there is one near me. They struggle at the moment due to interest rate and energy costs  and have had a need to economise, Meanwhle parents of moderate means who already stretch their finances to provide the best for their children of need will not cope with an extra 20% VAT and be forced to remove their young into the state syaten, which is already stretched. Whilst many of these establishments, small striggleing businesses will fold.

Private education is not the domain of the rich. These schools are not all Etons, Harrows, Rugbys or Charterhouses all, imo, an anathema and fall well into my personal politic of of envvy  with ex-pupils like Campbell, Johnson, Reece-Mogg etc. it seems filling half the cabinet and Civil Service all walking into high profile jobs (only in the UK) due to privelege. A good education can never lead to a top-brain just a top job.

This policy will actually widen the gap in privelege as the ordinary wage-earner can no longer afford the extra cost, whilst the richest can

Neither of these policies, screwing non-doms and private schooling will reduce tax revenue, instead they will reduce it.

None was more delighted with Blair's sweeping victory in the nineties. If  only I knew then what I know now. Brown's mantra of no boom and bust leading to bust and education for all resulting in tin-pot degrees akin to learning to wipe your backside with your left hand.

Last night saw two hopeless individuals with various faults in equal portions putting on a performance replicting PMQ's of late.

I might not even vote for the first time ever, unless I find an independent promoting a worthwhile local cause.

We cannot possibly give the Tories another five years whilst the prospect of  Street Corner Girl Rayner ("I come from working class roots, you know")and her mates wrapping Starmer round their little fingers is a frightening propect. 

Already she's got Abbot back in the fold in seemingly against Starmer's original interests. Whilst the latter thought it a feather in his cap to welcome that right-wing horror strory Natalie Elphicke in his party.

[TheGunnShow 7,122]

All that showed to me is that televised public debate amongst leaders as part of an election campaign is a really crappy medium, ostensibly masquerading as "open" discussion (after all, who wouldn't usually want their potential political leaders to face a grilling) but in reality it just rewards sound bytes or occasionally just unusual conduct over actual content.

Should ditch it and have longer interviews with a standardised set of questions, then potential variations depending on how the politician in question answers, then precis them into a summary.

[KiwiScot 1,663]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

I might not even vote for the first time ever, unless I find an independent promoting a worthwhile local cause.

There is always the option to spoil your ballot.

[ricardo 7,846]

10 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

There is always the option to spoil your ballot.

Drawing a large **** and balls on the ballot paper gives one an enormous sense of satisfaction I have found😀

[cambridgeshire canary 7,595]

 

[TheGunnShow 7,122]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Drawing a large **** and balls on the ballot paper gives one an enormous sense of satisfaction I have found😀

I guess that would be a W-anksy.

[Yellow Fever 4,336]

19 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Yet, but,  I don't recall Starmer actually denying this. His only extra tax revenue gained to pay for his giveaway policy was to screw the non-doms further, a policy which in the past has actually brought in less tax revenue as many re-locate abroad and to add VAT to private scools often a haven for the less able and and handicapped, These establismnets are more common than is realised, there is one near me. They struggle at the moment due to interest rate and energy costs  and have had a need to economise, Meanwhle parents of moderate means who already stretch their finances to provide the best for their children of need will not cope with an extra 20% VAT and be forced to remove their young into the state syaten, which is already stretched. Whilst many of these establishments, small striggleing businesses will fold.

Private education is not the domain of the rich. These schools are not all Etons, Harrows, Rugbys or Charterhouses all, imo, an anathema and fall well into my personal politic of of envvy  with ex-pupils like Campbell, Johnson, Reece-Mogg etc. it seems filling half the cabinet and Civil Service all walking into high profile jobs (only in the UK) due to privelege. A good education can never lead to a top-brain just a top job.

This policy will actually widen the gap in privelege as the ordinary wage-earner can no longer afford the extra cost, whilst the richest can

Neither of these policies, screwing non-doms and private schooling will reduce tax revenue, instead they will reduce it.

None was more delighted with Blair's sweeping victory in the nineties. If  only I knew then what I know now. Brown's mantra of no boom and bust leading to bust and education for all resulting in tin-pot degrees akin to learning to wipe your backside with your left hand.

Last night saw two hopeless individuals with various faults in equal portions putting on a performance replicting PMQ's of late.

I might not even vote for the first time ever, unless I find an independent promoting a worthwhile local cause.

We cannot possibly give the Tories another five years whilst the prospect of  Street Corner Girl Rayner ("I come from working class roots, you know")and her mates wrapping Starmer round their little fingers is a frightening propect. 

Already she's got Abbot back in the fold in seemingly against Starmer's original interests. Whilst the latter thought it a feather in his cap to welcome that right-wing horror strory Natalie Elphicke in his party.

PMQ has a speaker who would intervene and let the PM (as in PMQs) at least answer / rebuff the assertion.

I shan't watch the BBC one. As noted elsewhere - it'll be a zoo!

[A Load of Squit 6,064]

20 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Drawing a large **** and balls on the ballot paper gives one an enormous sense of satisfaction I have found😀

I didn't know Farage stood in your area.

[Foxy2600 351]

45 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Drawing a large **** and balls on the ballot paper gives one an enormous sense of satisfaction I have found😀

Let’s hope the Vote Counter that receives and reviews your ballot paper isn’t a serially offended Transgender’ ‘they’ …

Please think of others with your actions! 

[Yellow Fever 4,336]

37 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

PMQ has a speaker who would intervene and let the PM (as in PMQs) at least answer / rebuff the assertion.

I shan't watch the BBC one. As noted elsewhere - it'll be a zoo!

Treasury says Sunak not entitled to say it thinks Labour would raise taxes by £2,000, as he claimed in debate

In the debate last night Rishi Sunak claimed that “independent Treasury officials” were behind the claim that Labour would raises taxes for every family by £2,000.

Edited June 5 by Yellow Fever
Sunak already well down the Trump rabbit-hole it seems

[Fen Canary 1,403]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

All that showed to me is that televised public debate amongst leaders as part of an election campaign is a really crappy medium, ostensibly masquerading as "open" discussion (after all, who wouldn't usually want their potential political leaders to face a grilling) but in reality it just rewards sound bytes or occasionally just unusual conduct over actual content.

Should ditch it and have longer interviews with a standardised set of questions, then potential variations depending on how the politician in question answers, then precis them into a summary.

I refuse to watch them, I think they’re a stupid yank import that serves no purpose in our party system. We already have PMQs for this type of thing, these debates add nothing.

However, I did stumble upon this gem of a write up for it 

“This was a wretched, wretched debate — in both its format and in its performers. Who was its intended audience, given it was neither informative nor entertaining? The quickfire format — 45 seconds an answer — meant, even before you factored in the endless interruptions, that nothing remotely substantial stood a chance of being said. Which left rhetorical dash, style and personality: something neither of these earnest technocrats could summon if their political careers depended on it. Sir Keir comes across like the teacher that nobody else in the staffroom wants to include in after-work drinks; and Rishi comes across like the sixth-former who should by rights be head boy but missed out because the teachers found him too annoying.”

[Herman 10,982]

A clever tactic from Starmer by the looks of it. Let Sunak lie his backside off and bring up the evidence later in a more effective way. He used to do this to Johnson at PMQs. 

[TheGunnShow 7,122]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I refuse to watch them, I think they’re a stupid yank import that serves no purpose in our party system. We already have PMQs for this type of thing, these debates add nothing.

However, I did stumble upon this gem of a write up for it 

“This was a wretched, wretched debate — in both its format and in its performers. Who was its intended audience, given it was neither informative nor entertaining? The quickfire format — 45 seconds an answer — meant, even before you factored in the endless interruptions, that nothing remotely substantial stood a chance of being said. Which left rhetorical dash, style and personality: something neither of these earnest technocrats could summon if their political careers depended on it. Sir Keir comes across like the teacher that nobody else in the staffroom wants to include in after-work drinks; and Rishi comes across like the sixth-former who should by rights be head boy but missed out because the teachers found him too annoying.”

I'd summarise it in a much pithier, coarser manner. It was like masturbating when drunk; it was long, pointless and ****-all came out of it.

[king canary 8,425]

10 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I refuse to watch them, I think they’re a stupid yank import that serves no purpose in our party system. We already have PMQs for this type of thing, these debates add nothing.

However, I did stumble upon this gem of a write up for it 

“This was a wretched, wretched debate — in both its format and in its performers. Who was its intended audience, given it was neither informative nor entertaining? The quickfire format — 45 seconds an answer — meant, even before you factored in the endless interruptions, that nothing remotely substantial stood a chance of being said. Which left rhetorical dash, style and personality: something neither of these earnest technocrats could summon if their political careers depended on it. Sir Keir comes across like the teacher that nobody else in the staffroom wants to include in after-work drinks; and Rishi comes across like the sixth-former who should by rights be head boy but missed out because the teachers found him too annoying.”

That is a perfect summary, particularly of Sunak.

I can't lie, I find him such a dislikeable character- he's either coming off as totally disingenuous or extremely petulant. He just feels fundamentally ill-suited to politics. 

[Herman 10,982]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

A clever tactic from Starmer by the looks of it. Let Sunak lie his backside off and bring up the evidence later in a more effective way. He used to do this to Johnson at PMQs. 

Thinking about it a bit more. Potential right wing voters don't care if their parties lie their arses off. I need to remember the last few elections and referendums. 😕

[king canary 8,425]

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

Thinking about it a bit more. Potential right wing voters don't care if their parties lie their arses off. I need to remember the last few elections and referendums. 😕

I do think it has gone badly for Sunak- his biggest 'win' in this debate was hammering the £2k figure and now it turns out it is a lie- he can either continue to press this home and have everyone point out he's lying, or he has to find another angle.

I don't think the hardcore Tory voters will care but the swing voters won't like being lied to and the headlines right now are dominated by him lying.

[ricardo 7,846]

Something seems to have struck a nerve.

[Herman 10,982]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

I do think it has gone badly for Sunak- his biggest 'win' in this debate was hammering the £2k figure and now it turns out it is a lie- he can either continue to press this home and have everyone point out he's lying, or he has to find another angle.

I don't think the hardcore Tory voters will care but the swing voters won't like being lied to and the headlines right now are dominated by him lying.

I sincerely hope you are right.👍