Keir Starmer

[Kompany Car]

He went on a bursary.

It was in relation to Sunak, not Starmer.

 

[metalblue]

Really?

What are the fees at Winchester College, the public school Rishi Sunak went to?

Rishi Sunak was educated at the exclusive public school Winchester College, but what are the fees at that school?

www.oxfordmail.co.uk

Rishi Sunak: The chemist’s son who may have found the formula for leadership

The chancellor’s star is still rising but he arrived here somewhat out of the blue, writes Tom Peck

www.independent.co.uk

Fair enough. I’ve read somewhere before he had a bursary. Possibly applied later as you can apply for bursaries at any stage - or possibly it comes with being head boy (a fee reduction).

Anyway how the fuck did his parents afford those fees? I appreciate they had a pharmacy and his dad was a GP so they weren’t on their bare bones but that’s a lot for someone without wealth. Would have literally consumed all his dad’s salary. I guess the pharmacy provided them with a living.

 

[kaz7]

Boring as fuck but i want boring as fuck , i want a pm that gets stuck in and works hard for the majority , i dont need a personality in charge or an out and out whinging , lying ****

 

[bluenova]

Fair enough. I’ve read somewhere before he had a bursary. Possibly applied later as you can apply for bursaries at any stage - or possibly it comes with being head boy (a fee reduction).

Anyway how the fuck did his parents afford those fees? I appreciate they had a pharmacy and his dad was a GP so they weren’t on their bare bones but that’s a lot for someone without wealth. Would have literally consumed all his dad’s salary. I guess the pharmacy provided them with a living.

A day student at Winchester is probably half a GPs take home pay.

If you own a pharmacy then you're typically earning quite a lot more than a GP, (and depending on size, many times), so you're talking about being very wealthy - as a family it would put them in the top 1 or 2 % of the country.

He also has siblings, so I assume their private school bill was a lot higher than just Rishi.

 

[hilts]

Careful. Starmer doesn't lie apparently.

He's lying so he can get in and then help us all. He doesn't want to lie but he must for us.

I for one am very grateful and if I hear him tell the truth he will get a fucking right ear full.

God bless you Keith.

 

[Vic]

Am i reading this right? A postscript to why Starmer didn't challenge Sunak in the debate re the £2,000 extra tax lie. Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian says:

"Afterwards, the £2,000 claim was rubbished from all quarters, while the top mandarin at the Treasury disavowed it, despite Sunak’s insistence that it had come from the civil service. And yet, for the best part of 48 hours, voters couldn’t move for talk of “£2,000”. Starmer should have been gripped by an instant sense of deja vu. The £350m that was on the side of the Vote Leave bus in 2016 was also roundly denied and denounced – but that only lodged it more firmly in the public mind. The pedlar of post-truth knows that denial is just another form of amplification. If Starmer had had recent history in his mind, he’d have feared that “£2,000” was about to become the new £350m – and moved to kill it off as soon as it was uttered."

So Starmer didn't want to amplify the lie by denying it but he should have killed it off by denying it. Is that what Freedland is arguing?

 

[west didsblue]

Am i reading this right? A postscript to why Starmer didn't challenge Sunak in the debate re the £2,000 extra tax lie. Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian says:

"Afterwards, the £2,000 claim was rubbished from all quarters, while the top mandarin at the Treasury disavowed it, despite Sunak’s insistence that it had come from the civil service. And yet, for the best part of 48 hours, voters couldn’t move for talk of “£2,000”. Starmer should have been gripped by an instant sense of deja vu. The £350m that was on the side of the Vote Leave bus in 2016 was also roundly denied and denounced – but that only lodged it more firmly in the public mind. The pedlar of post-truth knows that denial is just another form of amplification. If Starmer had had recent history in his mind, he’d have feared that “£2,000” was about to become the new £350m – and moved to kill it off as soon as it was uttered."

So Starmer didn't want to amplify the lie by denying it but he should have killed it off by denying it. Is that what Freedland is arguing?

My theory was that if Starmer had shut it down the first time Sunak said it, it wouldn’t have got the traction it did and therefore the follow up letter from the Treasury that proved he was lying would also not have been useable to the same extent. It would have just been treated as a bit of an exaggeration rather than an outright premeditated lie. Starmer gave Sunak the rope and he hanged himself with it.

Needless to say that the subsequent D-Day farce has made it all a bit irrelevant.

 

[Vic]

My theory was that if Starmer had shut it down the first time Sunak said it, it wouldn’t have got the traction it did and therefore the follow up letter from the Treasury that proved he was lying would also not have been useable to the same extent. It would have just been treated as a bit of an exaggeration rather than an outright premeditated lie. Starmer gave Sunak the rope and he hanged himself with it.

Needless to say that the subsequent D-Day farce has made it all a bit irrelevant.

Day 1. Sunak's a liar.
Day 2. Sunak's sacked off D Day so he can do a TV interview repeating the lie.

 

[Vic]

Day 1. Sunak's a liar.
Day 2. Sunak's sacked off D Day so he can do a TV interview repeating the lie.

Day 4. Sunak cancels all interviews. Makes up for missing D Day ceremony by wearing trousers at half mast.

 

[Canter]

oops.