Election prediction time

[sdb]

I though Sunak delivered some moments quite well, but when you know he's lying through his teeth, it's genuinely quite frightening to see how convincingly he does it. He is evil to the core. 

 

Starmer did ok but missed some open goals. I guess he simply has to highlight the last 14 years of chaos, given there's been so much of it, but the obvious desire not to talk too much about his own policies was frustrating, especially when there's some good ones knocking about.

 

 

[Sly]

Can you imagine either Starmer or Sunak having to have a debate with Trump? 
 

Utter chaos.

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Sampson said:

**** me. This Reform UK guy is an absolute raving lunatic.

They've basically taken the Repub platform in the US ("the white man marches on, so can white women as long as they stay in the kitchen and the bedroom and other ethnicities are welcome as useful pawns that we can then drop the moment we have power" and "casual disregard for both sciece and the future of civilisation as a result") and are seeing how it might do in the UK.

 

3 minutes ago, Sly said:

Can you imagine either Starmer or Sunak having to have a debate with Trump? 
 

Utter chaos.

 

 

As per above, just get Farage or Tice in there and you have a similar, though not immediately obviously odious, equivalent.

[Paninistickers]

27 minutes ago, sdb said:

He is evil to the core. 

 

Oh come on. Really? 

 

Isnt it much more likely he's a well meaning, geeky, high achieving, intelligent but socially awkward Individual? 

 

He leads an unusual life (as do most high achieving individuals) ....I don't need the leaders to be 'normal' blokes. In fact, I'd prefer they weren't. 

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Oh come on. Really? 

 

Isnt it much more likely he's a well meaning, geeky, high achieving, intelligent but socially awkward Individual? 

 

He leads an unusual life (as do most high achieving individuals) ....I don't need the leaders to be 'normal' blokes. In fact, I'd prefer they weren't. 

The irony of people who (accurately in some cases) accuse the right of demonizing immigrants and so on is they demonize the right wing in exactly the same way.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The irony of people who (accurately in some cases) accuse the right of demonizing immigrants and so on is they demonize the right wing in exactly the same way.

I think Karl Popper had something to say about that (though I would agree that the sentiment is rather overused at times).

[Voll Blau]

9 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Starmer is so woolly - spot on, he deflects every question and his default response is still talking about Liz Truss crashing the economy, he should be able to make mince meat out of the tories given all their own goals under Boz and Truss but he can’t, hardly inspiring for the next 5 years and people will start to realise that. 

So is him bringing that up a good thing or a bad thing for him then? You seem to be suggesting it's both. Or should he just be making a comedy wink to the camera when bringing that subject up?

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Oh come on. Really? 

 

Isnt it much more likely he's a well meaning, geeky, high achieving, intelligent but socially awkward Individual? 

 

He leads an unusual life (as do most high achieving individuals) ....I don't need the leaders to be 'normal' blokes. In fact, I'd prefer they weren't. 

Hmm. Not convinced by that. He kept repeating this £2k figure that he well knows is pulled out of thin air and knowingly lying and misleading people into saying it’s independently sourced rather than based on figures Tory advisors have completely made up. He’s also happy to water down climate change targets knowing full well it’s a policy that will help lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people so he can lower taxes for the wealthy instead of sharing the wealth he’s earned already off the backs of the tax payer. 
 

The “high achieving” bit also grates given he made his money from the collapse of RBS which everyone else had to pay for by bailing RBS out while he pocketed tens of millions from it. Then he has the gall to back an economic philosophy about how working class are pulled up by upper class people creating and sharing wealth. 
 

I’m just not having “well meaning” and high achieving with Sunak. He “achieved”by gambling and winning off the backs of the tax payer’s money and then completely and knowingly lies about his opposition tax budget and the net zero and the impact of climate change. He has already profited so heavily off the pain and suffering of others and continues to completely and knowingly lie and make up figures in order to continue it. 

Edited 5 June by Sampson

[purpleronnie]

 

[Sampson]

To continue the discussion, as sdp says it’s frightening how normalised straight up openly and knowingly lying about the independence of figures you’ve made up and quote over and over is. If this happened in Russia or China we’d be going nuts. The ease at which Sunak continuously lied about fabricated numbers and more importantly lied how they were independendly produced by the civil service over and over again is indeed frightening, especially now it’s come out that MPs were well aware of this, in a normal democratic country it should be considered electoral fraud.

 

 

 

 

Edited 5 June by Sampson

[fox_up_north]

I wouldn't ever call a Tory "evil". Sunak isn't evil. I don't think he's well meaning. I think he's an out of his depth chancer who lucked his way into the biggest job in the country, much to the joy of his high finance mates.

 

His, and many similar people's, issue is being woefully out of touch. Why can't well off people just stay in their happy little bubbles, pay enough tax so that not everything is crap and just be happy with a 5 bed detached house? 

 

If I won a million pounds, I'd just give up work and fanny about. Can't understand the sheer need to be that rich. I'd rather spending the money on a PT and get absolutely shredded.

 

[Rain King]

1 minute ago, fox_up_north said:

I wouldn't ever call a Tory "evil". 

 

Really? I can't think of a better word to describe them.

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

So is him bringing that up a good thing or a bad thing for him then? You seem to be suggesting it's both. Or should he just be making a comedy wink to the camera when bringing that subject up?

My point is it's a known fact how bad Liz Truss and BJ were for the tories - it's a given, but it shouldn't be used as a default response on what he will do with the future of the UK and his party if elected. He failed to answer pretty much every question, and then lied about his private healthcare views, to win votes. Anyone with half a brain can see through it. 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I wouldn't ever call a Tory "evil". Sunak isn't evil. I don't think he's well meaning. I think he's an out of his depth chancer who lucked his way into the biggest job in the country, much to the joy of his high finance mates.

 

His, and many similar people's, issue is being woefully out of touch. Why can't well off people just stay in their happy little bubbles, pay enough tax so that not everything is crap and just be happy with a 5 bed detached house? 

 

If I won a million pounds, I'd just give up work and fanny about. Can't understand the sheer need to be that rich. I'd rather spending the money on a PT and get absolutely shredded.

 

This reminds me of that tweet of someone saying they don't understand how someone can have as much money as someone like bezos and not just start randomly fixing shit that's wrong in the world and saying they could have been batman. 

 

It's true enough. No idea why someone with as much money as sunak is in politics, but I highly doubt it's to help the average person. 

[Sampson]

27 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

I wouldn't ever call a Tory "evil". Sunak isn't evil. I don't think he's well meaning. I think he's an out of his depth chancer who lucked his way into the biggest job in the country, much to the joy of his high finance mates.

 

His, and many similar people's, issue is being woefully out of touch. Why can't well off people just stay in their happy little bubbles, pay enough tax so that not everything is crap and just be happy with a 5 bed detached house? 

 

If I won a million pounds, I'd just give up work and fanny about. Can't understand the sheer need to be that rich. I'd rather spending the money on a PT and get absolutely shredded.

 

I would call certain Tories evil and certain Tories I wouldn’t call evil. Sunak definitely belongs on the evil side however. This isn’t some rich guy who made a great innovation and created countless jobs and made people easier or worked hard to contribute to society to become a great engineer or doctor or judge. It’s some rich guy who made his money *because of* and as a cause of the crippling 2007-08 financial crisis that lead to unnecessary suffering and death of thousands. He made his money by taking from the poorest in society not adding to it.
 

I have no problem in any leader who ignores their country’s responsibility to reach net zero for populist policies being called evil too as they’re knowingly adding to a problem and culture that was cause unnecessary death and suffering to tens of millions of people.

 

Understandably we factor in physical acts of violence over social or economic acts of violence when discussing evil as to extent there’s a lot of debate as to the right and wrongs of that. But I’m not sure there should be a lot of debate on Sunak making millions off the collapse of RBS or the ignoring of the responsibility with regards to climate change being inherent evils.

 

Regardless of how strong you want to make the language though, there’s no multiverse in which Sunak is “well meaning”.

Edited 5 June by Sampson

[Raj]

32 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I would call certain Tories evil and certain Tories I wouldn’t call evil. Sunak definitely belongs on the evil side however. This isn’t some rich guy who made a great innovation and created countless jobs and made people easier or worked hard to contribute to society to become a great engineer or doctor or judge. It’s some rich guy who made his money *because of* and as a cause of the crippling 2007-08 financial crisis that lead to unnecessary suffering and death of thousands. He made his money by taking from the poorest in society not adding to it.
 

I have no problem in any leader who ignores their country’s responsibility to reach net zero for populist policies being called evil too as they’re knowingly adding to a problem and culture that was cause unnecessary death and suffering to tens of millions of people.

 

Understandably we factor in physical acts of violence over social or economic acts of violence when discussing evil as to extent there’s a lot of debate as to the right and wrongs of that. But I’m not sure there should be a lot of debate on Sunak making millions off the collapse of RBS or the ignoring of the responsibility with regards to climate change being inherent evils.

 

Regardless of how strong you want to make the language though, there’s no multiverse in which Sunak is “well meaning”.

Anything he made when working for Goldman Sachs pales into insignificance when he married his wife who inherited 1% share in Daddys Infosys company which equates to many HUNDREDS of millions!

Her Daddy is worth  £4.1 BILLION!!!!!

 

[Dunge]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

They've basically taken the Repub platform in the US ("the white man marches on, so can white women as long as they stay in the kitchen and the bedroom and other ethnicities are welcome as useful pawns that we can then drop the moment we have power" and "casual disregard for both sciece and the future of civilisation as a result") and are seeing how it might do in the UK.

 

As per above, just get Farage or Tice in there and you have a similar, though not immediately obviously odious, equivalent.

I thought the talk with Tice afterwards showed the value of a longer interview on a specific subject. After getting past his headline statements on climate change the discussion continued and it was increasingly demonstrable that he hadn’t a clue what he was talking about. 

[urban.spaceman]

Sunak: Starmer doesn’t have a plan but his plans will cost you £2000 in tax rises whereas I’ll lower them despite it being me who raised them 23 times. x12

 

Starmer: that’s a figure made up by your own special advisors who just made up what they thought our policies would be and put it into this website. Oh and by the way the same website literally said that your own policies were more expensive, ya daft bollocks.

 

the British media: STARMER DIDNT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

[leicsmac]

47 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I would call certain Tories evil and certain Tories I wouldn’t call evil. Sunak definitely belongs on the evil side however. This isn’t some rich guy who made a great innovation and created countless jobs and made people easier or worked hard to contribute to society to become a great engineer or doctor or judge. It’s some rich guy who made his money *because of* and as a cause of the crippling 2007-08 financial crisis that lead to unnecessary suffering and death of thousands. He made his money by taking from the poorest in society not adding to it.
 

I have no problem in any leader who ignores their country’s responsibility to reach net zero for populist policies being called evil too as they’re knowingly adding to a problem and culture that was cause unnecessary death and suffering to tens of millions of people.

 

Understandably we factor in physical acts of violence over social or economic acts of violence when discussing evil as to extent there’s a lot of debate as to the right and wrongs of that. But I’m not sure there should be a lot of debate on Sunak making millions off the collapse of RBS or the ignoring of the responsibility with regards to climate change being inherent evils.

 

Regardless of how strong you want to make the language though, there’s no multiverse in which Sunak is “well meaning”.

Quoted and bolded for emphasis.

 

And "tens of millions" is very much at the lower end of the possibilities if such leaders continue to get their way.

 

10 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I thought the talk with Tice afterwards showed the value of a longer interview on a specific subject. After getting past his headline statements on climate change the discussion continued and it was increasingly demonstrable that he hadn’t a clue what he was talking about. 

Yeah, that was obviously apparent.

 

The thing that scares the hell out of me though is how a great many people who vote won't have the time or inclination to dive even that deep and just take his soundbites about the matter at face value.

[Dunge]

The format was horrible, set up for click bait and viral shares instead of meaningful discussion and debate. I don’t even blame Etchingham, it’s the producers who should shoulder the blame.

 

That said, Starmer clearly struggled with it more than Sunak. Lie though it was, it took Starmer ages to properly refute the whole £2k tax point, I assume after being informed by an aide during the commercial break. Sunak spoke with far more purpose, his problem was that a lot of his material doesn’t wash anymore.

 

The most interesting question of the night to me was the one about what the parties could offer young people. Sunak basically answered “National Service”, to exasperated laughter around the room. I can kind of see the logic of why they plumped for that as a bold gamble of a policy, but it really felt like a millstone around Sunak’s neck last night. Even so, Starmer’s response to it remains woolly. He’s never proclaimed it something that Labour wouldn’t do, only that it hasn’t been thought out properly and that the military aren’t convinced. Frankly it’s at the point now where I’m wondering whether some journalist is going to outright ask Starmer whether he would rule it out.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Starmer and Labour just need to not have a total collapse in the next 4 weeks. Farage will steal loads of Tory votes, leaving them both miles behind.

 

FWIW I think Labour will be a shitshow as well, but think we need to give them a chance as the Torys has been terrible.

 

I'm hoping for a new party at the next election in a few years, this cycle of Cons then Labour has got to stop eventually.

[SecretPro]

57 minutes ago, Sampson said:

I would call certain Tories evil and certain Tories I wouldn’t call evil. Sunak definitely belongs on the evil side however. This isn’t some rich guy who made a great innovation and created countless jobs and made people easier or worked hard to contribute to society to become a great engineer or doctor or judge. It’s some rich guy who made his money *because of* and as a cause of the crippling 2007-08 financial crisis that lead to unnecessary suffering and death of thousands. He made his money by taking from the poorest in society not adding to it.
 

I have no problem in any leader who ignores their country’s responsibility to reach net zero for populist policies being called evil too as they’re knowingly adding to a problem and culture that was cause unnecessary death and suffering to tens of millions of people.

 

Understandably we factor in physical acts of violence over social or economic acts of violence when discussing evil as to extent there’s a lot of debate as to the right and wrongs of that. But I’m not sure there should be a lot of debate on Sunak making millions off the collapse of RBS or the ignoring of the responsibility with regards to climate change being inherent evils.

 

Regardless of how strong you want to make the language though, there’s no multiverse in which Sunak is “well meaning”.

Spot on.

[Sampson]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Starmer and Labour just need to not have a total collapse in the next 4 weeks. Farage will steal loads of Tory votes, leaving them both miles behind.

 

FWIW I think Labour will be a shitshow as well, but think we need to give them a chance as the Torys has been terrible.

 

I'm hoping for a new party at the next election in a few years, this cycle of Cons then Labour has got to stop eventually.

It’s more of both parties endless march to the right. Labour’s current economic plans would be considered quite a way to the right of Edward Heath’s Tory government. 

 

Both Labour and the Tories are both the furthest to the right they’ve been in anyone’s lifetime (with the exception of Truss’ genuine brief attempt at full libertarianism). We essentially have the choice of a centre-right party in Labour and a hard right Tory party.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

It’s more of both parties endless march to the right. Labour’s current economic plans would be considered quite a way to the right of Edward Heath’s Tory government. 

 

Both Labour and the Tories are both the furthest to the right they’ve been in anyone’s lifetime (with the exception of Truss’ genuine brief attempt at full libertarianism). We essentially have the choice of a centre-right party in Labour and a hard right Tory party.

I'm not sure being a a left party would get you elected tbh, even against this current Government. Centre-left they might.

 

I've pretty much lost interest in politics completely, the EU was blamed for years as to why our politicians were crap, then once they were out the picture no-one else could be blamed. Not many MPs are competent at all IMO, just annoys me even reading about or discussing politics, really frustrating.