General Election - 4th July 2024

[BrianW]

They can both finish their Mayoral positions before the next likely GE and stand again. Boris went from London Mayor to Tory MP.

Left….

Well, if that happens, they would only become/remain PM if the Great British Public voted for them at the next GE. Not exactly scary, is it?

 

[inbetween]

That’s a fair point. If Starmer had firmly shut it down the first time Sunak said it, nobody would be talking about it. As it is Sunak must have mentioned it 30 times before Starmer said it was garbage and everyone will now know Sunak was basically lying.

Not sure if I’m giving Starmer too much credit here but it could be seen as Starmer taking a tactical defeat in a small battle to give him strategic advantage in the overall war.

Largely I don't think that these debates matter. A TV debate watched by less than 1% of the electorate isn't going to change anything. At this stage I honestly think that Starmer could go to bed for a month and he'd still comfortably wake up as Prime Minister.

To stand even a remote chance Sunak needs the Reform vote back and with Farage now standing he literally has no chance and he knows it, that's why he called an election. The right in the country know this election is lost and what's happening now is repositioning for what comes afterwards. The other Tories are just jumping ship or calling it a day.

I still don't think Starmer is strong enough for the 5 years but he's the only option. Either way a big revolt is coming, most sensible people will opt for Labour to get the Tories out but I think the minority parties like Reform, Lib Dems and Greens will do far better than we think. Whether this translates into real seats is another thing.

 

[MCFC Wirral]

Well, if that happens, they would only become/remain PM if the Great British Public voted for them at the next GE. Not exactly scary, is it?

Of course it’s an “if” because, at present, it legally can’t happen. Burnham finished second to Corbyn in the leadership election years back (was in a pub before Palace away when it was announced to laughter) but I’d believe he has aspirations to do it again.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Today everyone’s talking about Sunak lying now it’s been made clear they weren’t civil service figures at all and were made up by the Tories. Who looks the mug now?

If you actually look into the detail of this, then you'll see that both Sunak and Starmer made misleading claims on the costing of labour policies.

The Treasury has done proper costing analysis on a number of Labour policies, and provided estimates of the upper and lower bounds of what these will likely cost. This analysis is actually very detailed and it's all online so you can look at it yourself and cast your expert eye over it. This analysis has been used by the Conservatives, and they've also added cost estimates on Labour policies not analysed by the Treasury, using figures provided by the Institute for Government. So the full 2000 pound figure was only partially signed off by the Treasury and that's what the letter refers to.

Starmer however also misled people about the Treasury analysis when he suggested that it referred to 'pretend Labour policies', as that's also untrue and the Treasury's work relates to actual Labour policies. So the truth is somewhere in between and the Conservatives could well provide a breakdown between the section of the 2000 pound signed off by the Treasury, and the element suggested by the Institute for Government's work.

In any case the idea that Starmer allowed Sunak to make these claims as some sort of tactical defeat is frankly laughable. He's very wooden, not at all nimble and can't react when something comes back at him.

 

[west didsblue]

If you actually look into the detail of this, then you'll see that both Sunak and Starmer made misleading claims on the costing of labour policies.

The Treasury has done proper costing analysis on a number of Labour policies, and provided estimates of the upper and lower bounds of what these will likely cost. This analysis is actually very detailed and it's all online so you can look at it yourself and cast your expert eye over it. This analysis has been used by the Conservatives, and they've also added cost estimates on Labour policies not analysed by the Treasury, using figures provided by the Institute for Government. So the full 2000 pound figure was only partially signed off by the Treasury and that's what the letter refers to.

Starmer however also misled people about the Treasury analysis when he suggested that it referred to 'pretend Labour policies', as that's also untrue and the Treasury's work relates to actual Labour policies. So the truth is somewhere in between and the Conservatives could well provide a breakdown between the section of the 2000 pound signed off by the Treasury, and the element suggested by the Institute for Government's work.

In any case the idea that Starmer allowed Sunak to make these claims as some sort of tactical defeat is frankly laughable. He's very wooden, not at all nimble and can't react when something comes back at him.

Probably the most misleading Sunak claim was that every tax paying household would be paying £2k more when their own figures based on Tory interpretations of Labour policies say that it would be an average of £2k. It’s always been Labour’s position that the vast majority of the population would not pay more tax and any additional burden would be hugely skewed to the richest 1%, non-doms and on companies given unfair tax breaks.

 

[bluenova]

If you actually look into the detail of this, then you'll see that both Sunak and Starmer made misleading claims on the costing of labour policies.

The Treasury has done proper costing analysis on a number of Labour policies, and provided estimates of the upper and lower bounds of what these will likely cost. This analysis is actually very detailed and it's all online so you can look at it yourself and cast your expert eye over it. This analysis has been used by the Conservatives, and they've also added cost estimates on Labour policies not analysed by the Treasury, using figures provided by the Institute for Government. So the full 2000 pound figure was only partially signed off by the Treasury and that's what the letter refers to.

Starmer however also misled people about the Treasury analysis when he suggested that it referred to 'pretend Labour policies', as that's also untrue and the Treasury's work relates to actual Labour policies. So the truth is somewhere in between and the Conservatives could well provide a breakdown between the section of the 2000 pound signed off by the Treasury, and the element suggested by the Institute for Government's work.

In any case the idea that Starmer allowed Sunak to make these claims as some sort of tactical defeat is frankly laughable. He's very wooden, not at all nimble and can't react when something comes back at him.

This was the initial Labour response, when it first came out.

There are multiple claims that they say aren't Labour policies, and one that is already a Tory policy.

The rebuttals below seem to be pretty clear, so no matter how detailed the analysis, if it's based on policies that don't exist, then Starmer wasn't misleading people.

1) The costings rely on “Assumptions from Special Advisors”, rather than an impartial Civil Service assessment.

2) Mental health support teams: The document acknowledges they have not costed the actual policy that sits behind our commitment: “there are alternative models to deliver this commitment, as expanding the provision of counselling support in schools, which have not been costed here.”

3) Dentistry: the costing includes the costs of a “golden hello” scheme. We did call for this, leading to a welcome change when the government adopted our policy. The government do not appear to be aware that this is their own policy.

4) 13,000 neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs: The costing includes Barnett consequentials. This is incorrect, as the policy is funded by reallocating funding, meaning Barnett consequentials are not triggered.

5) Neighbourhood health centres: The document assumes we will be setting up 42 new hubs over and above existing facilities and infrastructure. This is not our policy. Our plans have no additional cost. We will ask Integrated Care System providers to identify opportunities to use the existing estate to provide Neighbourhood Health Centres.

6) Insourcing: The officials flag they have “low confidence” in the assumption that outsourced services are more efficient as “the difference between the cost of outsourcing and in-house delivery is highly circumstance specific.”

7) Bus Service Reform: alongside dubious and questionable assumptions, the costing includes a frank admission that “The analysis in this costing has been done at pace with limited data and, therefore, the uncertainty and risk of error is high.”

8) Halving the number of consultants: Those costing the policy concede that they do not “monetise the potential benefits of reducing consultancy spending.”

9) Non-resident SDLT: They have failed to include in their policy assumptions Labour’s actual policy, which would see non-resident stamp duty land tax go from 2% to 3%. If they had, they could have simply taken a look at HMRC’s published costings of how much a 1% increase in non-resident stamp duty land tax raises, which is £40m per year by the third year of the forecast. This would have saved a lot of civil servant time that would have been better spent improving the country.

10) Mental Health Workers: They have assumed we will put a youth worker in every A&E suite, and a mentor in every Pupil Referral Unit across the entire country full-time. This is not our policy. Our policy is a pilot of both approaches.

11) Regional Improvement Teams: The document assumes that a Labour government would send in regional improvement teams to all schools below ‘outstanding’, including schools rated ‘good’. This is not our policy.

 

[Gabriel]

Agree but it's more than just spending and taxation decisions.

It's the competence (or lack of), the BS, the blatant corruption (Michelle Mone and Johnson's illegitimate daughter in the Lords) and the general morality of the individuals elevated to high office.

The tories of the Boris / Truss / Sunak era are the biggest pile of arse holes ever let lose to run our country.

They deserve annihilation. They really do.

More competent and prudent governance will go some way to helping, to be sure, but it will only go so far. Labour might be setting the bar low because they know they won’t be able to do significantly better with what has been left. Alternatively, if Labour are returned with a thumping majority, they may then use that as the basis for something radical that is not in the manifesto.

It’s astonishing to think that the 2019 majority could soon be wiped out in under five years. Food for thought for all parties.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

How can someone be nimbler in debate by lying? He peddled the 2k tax lie over a dozen times last night. That doesn't make him an agile, skilled debater; it showed him up as the lying bastard he is. To then shoehorn that racist, BNP wannabe into his closing remarks just made him look all the more desperate. I agree, Starmer can be uninspiring (what I'd give for Blair to be leading the vanguard) but he isn't a Tory; which at this stage is all that's needed.

Not saying Starmer is a Tory.

He allowed Sunak to get away with his lies. To get away with it was a combination of agility and Starmer's poor debating. Sunak didn't have to be very nimble to beat him, but number he was as well as a liar.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

I thought it was a bad look for Sunak to speak over the presenter.
Next time they probably need to switch the microphones off at the end of the allotted time.

It was a bad look but he got his lies across. Starmer failed to get his message across and rebutt those lies.

 

[west didsblue]

Quite telling to see a card carrying Labour member saying he felt Starmer did poorly. Regardless of individual politics, Blair or Cameron were leaders. Starmer is not.

Labour could field almost any MP in this election and win it comfortably.

Not really.
There’s a whole thread on Starmer which mostly consists of 3 or 4 Labour supporters who spend most of their time slagging him off. Although to be fair most have probably left the party and joined Socialist Worker or the revolutionary communists after Corbyn’s departure.