FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The first debate
The first debate
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9pm….itv1 Cmon you reds…. Or cmon you blues?" Either or either for me. Just not quite with Starmer yet. Tonight may well decide that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x" I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxes" Didn't think he agreed he'd raise taxes but rather remove tax breaks, vat on public schools, removal of non dom status etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxesDidn't think he agreed he'd raise taxes but rather remove tax breaks, vat on public schools, removal of non dom status etc." Removing tax breaks is raising taxes. He also refused to answer the tax on state pensions point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxesDidn't think he agreed he'd raise taxes but rather remove tax breaks, vat on public schools, removal of non dom status etc. Removing tax breaks is raising taxes. He also refused to answer the tax on state pensions point. " Removing isn't the same as raising it. If you do not send your kid to private schools or pay tax in another country then thus won't affect you. It only affects those that choose to do this. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxesDidn't think he agreed he'd raise taxes but rather remove tax breaks, vat on public schools, removal of non dom status etc. Removing tax breaks is raising taxes. He also refused to answer the tax on state pensions point. Removing isn't the same as raising it. If you do not send your kid to private schools or pay tax in another country then thus won't affect you. It only affects those that choose to do this. Mrs x" They equal the same thing. Currently the don't pay vat, they'll pay vat. Ergo, a raise. We can agree to disagree though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These debates aren't great. Far better to have each leader give their manifesto to Andrew Neill and to have an hour with each going forensically through them. This is just show boating, rhetoric and sound bites. " On immigration Andrew Neil told Sunak it would be cheaper to let them all stay and send them to boarding school than his £400m Rwanda scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x I thought that was cheeky too given the level we currently have. Also bit surprised Kier did not challenge him hardly at all on this claim and then confirmed he would increase taxesDidn't think he agreed he'd raise taxes but rather remove tax breaks, vat on public schools, removal of non dom status etc. Removing tax breaks is raising taxes. He also refused to answer the tax on state pensions point. Removing isn't the same as raising it. If you do not send your kid to private schools or pay tax in another country then thus won't affect you. It only affects those that choose to do this. Mrs x They equal the same thing. Currently the don't pay vat, they'll pay vat. Ergo, a raise. We can agree to disagree though. " But it only affects the rew, millions won't be touched by this, it's not a raise for the populous, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises." c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take." This and £400-600m to be written off on the abandonment of the Rwanda scheme and its procurement. And we are still paying off the £80bn cost of the labour £13bn investment in the NHS via private finance initiative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take." Stand corrected, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought both were quite disappointing actually. Don’t trust either! Wish they would mute their mics while the other was talking and give each a set time. Felt like kids bickering "Agreed. Mics should have been muted when it wasn't ones turn to speak, that's a really simple thing to do. Sunak came across as a smarmy c*nt. Starmer came across as gormless. Overall, head to head, Sunak wins. Partly because it wasn't moderated well, partly because he challenged Starmer on plenty topics and Starmer, yet again, failed to tell us his plan. Don't worry though, WE HAVE A PLAN. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer was handed his arse, love him or him little Sunak battered the tool makers son. " Labour have nothing to offer and the veneer is slowly coming off. But please no more of tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer was handed his arse, love him or him little Sunak battered the tool makers son. Labour have nothing to offer and the veneer is slowly coming off. But please no more of tories. " Sums it up. We are faced with a choice between Labour who couldn't run a Whelk Stall and the Tories who don't deserve another term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thought both were quite disappointing actually. Don’t trust either! Wish they would mute their mics while the other was talking and give each a set time. Felt like kids bickering
Agreed. Mics should have been muted when it wasn't ones turn to speak, that's a really simple thing to do.
Sunak came across as a smarmy c*nt.
Starmer came across as gormless.
Overall, head to head, Sunak wins. Partly because it wasn't moderated well, partly because he challenged Starmer on plenty topics and Starmer, yet again, failed to tell us his plan.
Don't worry though, WE HAVE A PLAN. "Yeah I agree with that assessment. We need to see some manifestos! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer was handed his arse, love him or him little Sunak battered the tool makers son. Labour have nothing to offer and the veneer is slowly coming off. But please no more of tories. Sums it up. We are faced with a choice between Labour who couldn't run a Whelk Stall and the Tories who don't deserve another term. " Updated that for you… We are faced with a choice between Labour who couldn't run a Whelk Stall and the Tories who would sell the Whelk stall to someone else and allow them to sell shit filled whelks at whatever price their shareholders needed for a handsome return.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think Sunak used deflection a lot. So when asked a difficult question he just kept saying 'how are you going to deal with it' rather than give a definitive answer himself. Also the £2000 tax claim, should never have been used. The guy Sunak said signed off on this, sent a letter 2 days prior to Labour saying the figures shouldn't be used. Starter should have stamped on this sooner. It's lies again, like the Brexits 350 million a week for the NHS and that 70 million Turkish citizens are planning to emigrate here. Should be called out for that at the next debate. Mrs x" How are you going to deal with it is a legitimate question. Sunak knows his only hope is to show Labour don't have a plan. I've seen the letter, it days that any costings from other sources shouldn't be presented as being from the civil service. Not that they should be used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think Sunak used deflection a lot. So when asked a difficult question he just kept saying 'how are you going to deal with it' rather than give a definitive answer himself. Also the £2000 tax claim, should never have been used. The guy Sunak said signed off on this, sent a letter 2 days prior to Labour saying the figures shouldn't be used. Starter should have stamped on this sooner. It's lies again, like the Brexits 350 million a week for the NHS and that 70 million Turkish citizens are planning to emigrate here. Should be called out for that at the next debate. Mrs x How are you going to deal with it is a legitimate question. Sunak knows his only hope is to show Labour don't have a plan. I've seen the letter, it days that any costings from other sources shouldn't be presented as being from the civil service. Not that they should be used. " it's been reported that the figure of £2000 is actual over a 4 year period. Also Starmer said last night that they didn't use Labour figures but figures from the Tories themselves. It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways Lying Tory fuckers, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think Sunak used deflection a lot. So when asked a difficult question he just kept saying 'how are you going to deal with it' rather than give a definitive answer himself. Also the £2000 tax claim, should never have been used. The guy Sunak said signed off on this, sent a letter 2 days prior to Labour saying the figures shouldn't be used. Starter should have stamped on this sooner. It's lies again, like the Brexits 350 million a week for the NHS and that 70 million Turkish citizens are planning to emigrate here. Should be called out for that at the next debate. Mrs x How are you going to deal with it is a legitimate question. Sunak knows his only hope is to show Labour don't have a plan. I've seen the letter, it days that any costings from other sources shouldn't be presented as being from the civil service. Not that they should be used. it's been reported that the figure of £2000 is actual over a 4 year period. Also Starmer said last night that they didn't use Labour figures but figures from the Tories themselves. It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways Lying Tory fuckers, Mrs x" They all bend the truth, it isn’t a Tory only trait | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think Sunak used deflection a lot. So when asked a difficult question he just kept saying 'how are you going to deal with it' rather than give a definitive answer himself. Also the £2000 tax claim, should never have been used. The guy Sunak said signed off on this, sent a letter 2 days prior to Labour saying the figures shouldn't be used. Starter should have stamped on this sooner. It's lies again, like the Brexits 350 million a week for the NHS and that 70 million Turkish citizens are planning to emigrate here. Should be called out for that at the next debate. Mrs x How are you going to deal with it is a legitimate question. Sunak knows his only hope is to show Labour don't have a plan. I've seen the letter, it days that any costings from other sources shouldn't be presented as being from the civil service. Not that they should be used. it's been reported that the figure of £2000 is actual over a 4 year period. Also Starmer said last night that they didn't use Labour figures but figures from the Tories themselves. It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways Lying Tory fuckers, Mrs x They all bend the truth, it isn’t a Tory only trait " I know but saying a guy signed off on the accuracy of tax figures and to have that guy say he didn't and the civil service didn't is a bit much. It's a blatant lie, like the Turkish migration figures and the lockdown parties. Sunak kept going on about this debate being about the future but the past matters. It informs us of how people will behave in the future. So if the lied then why are they going to stop now? They aren't. We are much worse off than we were when they came to power, it's time for a change. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think Sunak used deflection a lot. So when asked a difficult question he just kept saying 'how are you going to deal with it' rather than give a definitive answer himself. Also the £2000 tax claim, should never have been used. The guy Sunak said signed off on this, sent a letter 2 days prior to Labour saying the figures shouldn't be used. Starter should have stamped on this sooner. It's lies again, like the Brexits 350 million a week for the NHS and that 70 million Turkish citizens are planning to emigrate here. Should be called out for that at the next debate. Mrs x How are you going to deal with it is a legitimate question. Sunak knows his only hope is to show Labour don't have a plan. I've seen the letter, it days that any costings from other sources shouldn't be presented as being from the civil service. Not that they should be used. it's been reported that the figure of £2000 is actual over a 4 year period. Also Starmer said last night that they didn't use Labour figures but figures from the Tories themselves. It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways Lying Tory fuckers, Mrs x They all bend the truth, it isn’t a Tory only trait I know but saying a guy signed off on the accuracy of tax figures and to have that guy say he didn't and the civil service didn't is a bit much. It's a blatant lie, like the Turkish migration figures and the lockdown parties. Sunak kept going on about this debate being about the future but the past matters. It informs us of how people will behave in the future. So if the lied then why are they going to stop now? They aren't. We are much worse off than we were when they came to power, it's time for a change. Mrs x" These tv stunts are not aimed at people listening and having a vested interest in parties they would vote for anyway. The aim is to pick up the sleepers, the tories are playing hard to make Starmer look weak, if they can get this message across they might get tories who are not going to vote, out the door. Damage limitation is the game here. The tories need to stop a landslide, if they can they will truly create havoc for Starmer, shortening his leadership and then calling out the far left have taken over. It’s about regaining the office not holding onto it. The Labour Party are going to win this election through Tory voters staying at home. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“actual over a 4 year period.” Where you getting this information from?? Facts" It was admitted by a minister during a radio interview this morning that the figure would be over the term of the parliament. Claire Coutiniho confirmed this on the Today show on Radio 4. So even using made up figures it's an increase of £500 a year, but to make it sound worse they took the figure over the whole parliament. Lying that's. Mrs x Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways" That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x" It's also a lie and is being investigated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan?" Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated." By who and what would be the outcome? The damage is done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated. By who and what would be the outcome? The damage is done" I had one eye here and one eye on the news, so I've forgotten already  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated. By who and what would be the outcome? The damage is done I had one eye here and one eye on the news, so I've forgotten already " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to participate in Friday's 7-party BBC election debate Should be interesting " I guarantee it will draw the largest audience of any other televised GE debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“actual over a 4 year period.” Where you getting this information from?? FactsIt was admitted by a minister during a radio interview this morning that the figure would be over the term of the parliament. Claire Coutiniho confirmed this on the Today show on Radio 4. So even using made up figures it's an increase of £500 a year, but to make it sound worse they took the figure over the whole parliament. Lying that's. Mrs x Mrs x" Oh can’t wait to vote then, do I hand over my £500 for Liebour on voting day then  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated." The tax burden has never been as high since the end of WW2 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated.The tax burden has never been as high since the end of WW2" Again not a fact a prediction. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the independent body which makes forecasts for the government - predicts that it will collect 37.1p of every pound generated in the economy in 2028-29. That would be the highest level in 80 years.6 Mar 2024. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All Sunak says is 2000 tax increase. Cheeky bastatd, tax hasn't been this high since before WW2 and he's risen lots of it. Mrs x It's also a lie and is being investigated.The tax burden has never been as high since the end of WW2 Again not a fact a prediction. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the independent body which makes forecasts for the government - predicts that it will collect 37.1p of every pound generated in the economy in 2028-29. That would be the highest level in 80 years.6 Mar 2024. " That may be so but I'm talking about now, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But yet despite knowing Starmer has no plan some of you are hellbent on voting for him which is crazy"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth" My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! " Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! " Honestly don’t think either came off looking good. Bickering little boys. Both smarmy and coming across as evasive and untrustworthy. Though I will give Sunak points for saying something like “you may not like my plan but I have a plan” I actually would prefer my politicians to have the strength of their convictions and more openly wear their ideology on their sleeve. Instead we get pseudo centrists chasing swing voters. It just feels disingenuous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Honestly don’t think either came off looking good. Bickering little boys. Both smarmy and coming across as evasive and untrustworthy. Though I will give Sunak points for saying something like “you may not like my plan but I have a plan” I actually would prefer my politicians to have the strength of their convictions and more openly wear their ideology on their sleeve. Instead we get pseudo centrists chasing swing voters. It just feels disingenuous. " Starmer cannot openly wear his ideology on his (rolled up) sleeves. Look to Rayner for the clues. Eg she wants to scrap nuclear deterrent. He surrounds himself with veterans pretending to keep it. Same with every area. Eg Immigration. Wants to smash smuggler gangs. Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy called for 'comrades' to join a roadblock to stop a coach, due to take migrants from a hotel in Peckham, south London, to the Bibby Stockholm. You give me the official policy (if there is one) on any area and I'll show you the Labour MPs against it. Starmer is a flip flop puppet. The hard Left are waiting in wings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x" It's no lie. It's in their DNA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x" The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. "When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x" Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. " Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. " Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x" im sorry but if anyone took any notice of the rules the goverment put in place thats on them, im just surprised so many took any notice of what boris was saying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x"I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x" Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;( | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. "He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new. Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service. Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially. There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;(" I can't help who lies, they do that themselves. Did you watch the debate and today's news broadcasts? Headline story but then again I might be lying 
Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way "I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x"So civil servants did come up with the figure? We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't? Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;(" A lot of damp, basement flat inhabitants who think all their benefits are insufficient because of those 'cruel, brutal Tories' will always blame the Tories for all manner of ills. Study, work hard and get a good job. And Labour will "redistribute" your money to someone who didn't. T'was ever thus and forever will be. Amen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. "Sue Gray and "independent" should not be in the same sentence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please.
Sue Gray and "independent" should not be in the same sentence "The left will argue until the cows come home that her enquiry was independent. That's my point though, independent when it suits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was fabtastic to get a private message from an old lefty Manchester poster but when I came to reply, I found he had blocked me. So courageous. " Is he still around?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was fabtastic to get a private message from an old lefty Manchester poster but when I came to reply, I found he had blocked me. So courageous. Is he still around?
"He's still very much round | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please.
Sue Gray and "independent" should not be in the same sentence
The left will argue until the cows come home that her enquiry was independent.
That's my point though, independent when it suits. "Great point. Happens all the time with Labour | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;( A lot of damp, basement flat inhabitants who think all their benefits are insufficient because of those 'cruel, brutal Tories' will always blame the Tories for all manner of ills. Study, work hard and get a good job. And Labour will "redistribute" your money to someone who didn't. T'was ever thus and forever will be. Amen. " So true and let’s not forget the most vulnerable kids in care will be targeted. Like last time Liebour were in charge. And before you little woke lefties get on your box and scream “ bigot” Again the facts are the facts. Google it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. "The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used. When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them. The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it. Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can. Dear Darren, Opposition Costings Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings. As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used. In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury. I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service. I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case. James Bowler Permanent Secretary Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x"So the lie was 'independently verified'? I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'. It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. "Absolute garbage was the phrase he used. The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data. The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors. Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service. I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.' The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case. Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“actual over a 4 year period.” Where you getting this information from?? FactsIt was admitted by a minister during a radio interview this morning that the figure would be over the term of the parliament. Claire Coutiniho confirmed this on the Today show on Radio 4. So even using made up figures it's an increase of £500 a year, but to make it sound worse they took the figure over the whole parliament. Lying that's. Mrs x Mrs x Oh can’t wait to vote then, do I hand over my £500 for Liebour on voting day then "Labour haven't been caught in a lie (at this juncture). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
"I believe she is right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
"I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view. As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching. Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously. What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar. What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business? They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;(" Finally, your post has some common sense. It's about bloody time . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“actual over a 4 year period.” Where you getting this information from?? FactsIt was admitted by a minister during a radio interview this morning that the figure would be over the term of the parliament. Claire Coutiniho confirmed this on the Today show on Radio 4. So even using made up figures it's an increase of £500 a year, but to make it sound worse they took the figure over the whole parliament. Lying that's. Mrs x Mrs x Oh can’t wait to vote then, do I hand over my £500 for Liebour on voting day then
Labour haven't been caught in a lie (at this juncture)."Not yet but I cannot believe those that continue to support those that have. Sunak had the cheek to mention closing the Non Dom tax benefits but it was only a couple of years ago he was claiming it. Think he may have been Chancellor at the time. One of the richest politicians and he wasn't paying his bit into the economy. And don't forget Tunbridge Wells and him bragging how he'd reset the levelling up so that deprived areas wouldn't get the funding but affluent ones would. Think the phrase he used was that he'd now 'fixed this'. From living in a city that went through 'Managed Decline' in the 80s under a Tory government I cannot believe that these kind of things are still happening. Can't wait for 4th July. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
"It really isn’t. One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work. The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;( A lot of damp, basement flat inhabitants who think all their benefits are insufficient because of those 'cruel, brutal Tories' will always blame the Tories for all manner of ills. Study, work hard and get a good job. And Labour will "redistribute" your money to someone who didn't. T'was ever thus and forever will be. Amen. " Funny! I studied, got a professional degree and earn pittance due to a disability. Tories don't help me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Or maybe it wasn't a party and Durham Police were telling the truth. Those Tory that's partying whilst the Queen grieved alone, obeying Tory rules that didn't apply to them... twats the lot of them and the lies afterwards. Mrs x Yes them bloody Tories a dog shit outside my house yesterday. It was the bloody tories fault! All this rain it’s the bloody tories fault! Bloody Tories ;( A lot of damp, basement flat inhabitants who think all their benefits are insufficient because of those 'cruel, brutal Tories' will always blame the Tories for all manner of ills. Study, work hard and get a good job. And Labour will "redistribute" your money to someone who didn't. T'was ever thus and forever will be. Amen. So true and let’s not forget the most vulnerable kids in care will be targeted. Like last time Liebour were in charge. And before you little woke lefties get on your box and scream “ bigot” Again the facts are the facts. Google it. " Nevermind the vulnerable who have been targeted by the tories, cuts everywhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. "Even now after years of discussing this people still have no idea how govt works in the UK. The Civil Service are there to serve the Govt of the day. Their role is to provide due diligence and impartial advice (inc legal advice and impact assessments) on proposed policy and should that policy become legislation the CS deliver it on behalf of the Govt. The CS is apolitical. Only SpAds are political and they are not CS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was fabtastic to get a private message from an old lefty Manchester poster but when I came to reply, I found he had blocked me. So courageous. " You know that it is against the rules to start a new profile to continue posting in the forums after you have been banned? Why the hidden profile and no pics? Shall we call you Bob? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“actual over a 4 year period.” Where you getting this information from?? FactsIt was admitted by a minister during a radio interview this morning that the figure would be over the term of the parliament. Claire Coutiniho confirmed this on the Today show on Radio 4. So even using made up figures it's an increase of £500 a year, but to make it sound worse they took the figure over the whole parliament. Lying that's. Mrs x Mrs x Oh can’t wait to vote then, do I hand over my £500 for Liebour on voting day then
Labour haven't been caught in a lie (at this juncture).Not yet but I cannot believe those that continue to support those that have.
Sunak had the cheek to mention closing the Non Dom tax benefits but it was only a couple of years ago he was claiming it. Think he may have been Chancellor at the time. One of the richest politicians and he wasn't paying his bit into the economy.
And don't forget Tunbridge Wells and him bragging how he'd reset the levelling up so that deprived areas wouldn't get the funding but affluent ones would. Think the phrase he used was that he'd now 'fixed this'.
From living in a city that went through 'Managed Decline' in the 80s under a Tory government I cannot believe that these kind of things are still happening.
Can't wait for 4th July.
Mrs x"You're not alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please.
Even now after years of discussing this people still have no idea how govt works in the UK.
The Civil Service are there to serve the Govt of the day. Their role is to provide due diligence and impartial advice (inc legal advice and impact assessments) on proposed policy and should that policy become legislation the CS deliver it on behalf of the Govt. The CS is apolitical. Only SpAds are political and they are not CS. "Even now after years of discussing this people are still getting worked up because the word independent was used rather than apolitical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. "So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500. He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election. If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years. Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area. Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc"'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus! 'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle? They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives). I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x"I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people? Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x"The sun comes up and it goes down. Water is wet. Politicians spin. Labour are top drawer at it. Tell us something we don't know! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc
'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus!
'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle?
They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives).
I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch. "Nice distraction attempt but we were talking about the comparison between Currygate (a one off event that after bring investigated was considered fine) and Partygate (multiple events at the very centre of UK Govt and policy making that once investigated was considered not remotely fine and resulted in fines etc). But yeah let’s rewrite history and draw false equivalence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
The sun comes up and it goes down. Water is wet. Politicians spin. Labour are top drawer at it. Tell us something we don't know! "So you're admitting Sunak lied then? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. " Good for you Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc
'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus!
'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle?
They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives).
I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch.
Nice distraction attempt but we were talking about the comparison between Currygate (a one off event that after bring investigated was considered fine) and Partygate (multiple events at the very centre of UK Govt and policy making that once investigated was considered not remotely fine and resulted in fines etc). But yeah let’s rewrite history and draw false equivalence "All the best, love you lots Labour, Sue Gray xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. Good for you Mrs x" Not good for any of us if Labour get in with their 'sleight of hand' tax rise tricks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
The sun comes up and it goes down. Water is wet. Politicians spin. Labour are top drawer at it. Tell us something we don't know! So you're admitting Sunak lied then?
Mrs x"Spin Do you think Labour lied about Iraq? Or countless other things? When Sir Flip Flop says he's changed Labour, what do you think into? Mother Theresa? The Archangel Gabriel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take." Who did the research? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc
'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus!
'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle?
They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives).
I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch.
Nice distraction attempt but we were talking about the comparison between Currygate (a one off event that after bring investigated was considered fine) and Partygate (multiple events at the very centre of UK Govt and policy making that once investigated was considered not remotely fine and resulted in fines etc). But yeah let’s rewrite history and draw false equivalence
All the best, love you lots Labour, Sue Gray xx"You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research?" I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. Good for you Mrs x Not good for any of us if Labour get in with their 'sleight of hand' tax rise tricks! " He actually removed tax relief from pensions but you can call it a rise if you want. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people?
Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post.
"The Oxted company? If it's true it was supposedly a one man band on an industrial estate. Still a factory floor and not a Titan of industry. The way people talk it would be like comparing your local mechanic to Henry Ford. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people?
Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post.
The Oxted company? If it's true it was supposedly a one man band on an industrial estate. Still a factory floor and not a Titan of industry.
The way people talk it would be like comparing your local mechanic to Henry Ford.
Mrs x"As for the private medical thing, maybe he wouldn't, maybe he has strong personal beliefs on this.. Maybe it just hasn't happened to him yet. But if he's lying he will be found out but until then it's a bit disingenuous to call him a liar about it. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc
'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus!
'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle?
They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives).
I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch.
Nice distraction attempt but we were talking about the comparison between Currygate (a one off event that after bring investigated was considered fine) and Partygate (multiple events at the very centre of UK Govt and policy making that once investigated was considered not remotely fine and resulted in fines etc). But yeah let’s rewrite history and draw false equivalence
All the best, love you lots Labour, Sue Gray xx
You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! "2 totally different scenarios. People had worked together all day anyway and tested most days. What was the additional risk? You are talking about highly infectious wards. Yes, very sad, I couldn't get to 2 people who died of covid. But if No. 10 had followed every rule to the letter, are you saying the rules could have been removed in hospital? Your end logic is deeply and scientifically flawed, just so you can use vile language against the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. Good for you Mrs x Not good for any of us if Labour get in with their 'sleight of hand' tax rise tricks! He actually removed tax relief from pensions but you can call it a rise if you want. Mrs x" Well, he didn't actually removed tax relief from pensions! He scrapped the dividend tax credit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people?
Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post.
The Oxted company? If it's true it was supposedly a one man band on an industrial estate. Still a factory floor and not a Titan of industry.
The way people talk it would be like comparing your local mechanic to Henry Ford.
Mrs x"He specifically states 'worked on a factory floor', inferring he was a mere employee. The size of the enterprise isn't really relevant. I understand you hate Sunak, plenty of people do, but let's not be disingenuous when it comes to calling out his lies whilst ignoring others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people?
Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post.
The Oxted company? If it's true it was supposedly a one man band on an industrial estate. Still a factory floor and not a Titan of industry.
The way people talk it would be like comparing your local mechanic to Henry Ford.
Mrs xAs for the private medical thing, maybe he wouldn't, maybe he has strong personal beliefs on this..
Maybe it just hasn't happened to him yet. But if he's lying he will be found out but until then it's a bit disingenuous to call him a liar about it.
Mrs x"I said he would either see a loved one die or he's a liar. Which one do you think would be more reasonable to believe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Treasury letter states that the government should not say that the civil service came up with the figures based on Labours policies or promises. The figures used to calculate the tax rises also include figures and formulas given to them bathe Conservative Party. Also in The Debate, it seemed that this 'tax increase' was yearly but that's just not true. Even using these dodgy figures this 'rise' is over 4 years. Again it seemed as of each individual would be subject to the whole rise but in fact it was 'each household'. So those with more than one tax payer would be paying proportionally less than single person households. Sunak presented the 'tax rise' in such a way as to make it much more sensationalist and damaging to Labour. In our home there's 4 tax payers, so even assuming the dodgy figures, each of us will pay £125 a year extra. I'd happily pay mine right now to get rid of those lying bastards. I still remember the picture of the Queen, sat on her own, observing all the Covid rules, in Westminister Abbey at her husbands funeral whilst that corrupt, lying, tory shite hawks were having a parry in Downing Street the night before. Do you want card or cash? Mrs x Labour also had a party in Durham, drinks and pizza pre arranged. Let’s not forget that, but Durham Police said it was ok and not a party. Starmer and Durham chief of Police must be mates. Nope was established as totally different to Johnson’s/No.10 parties but let’s not let the truth get in the way
I think 'totally different' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there lol
It really isn’t.
One was beer n curry/pizza in the local office after campaigning to say thanks for all the hard work.
The other was full on party(s) with disco, people being sick, breaking a childs swing, suitcases of booze being smuggled in etc
'Breaking a child's swing' lol, that well know risk factor for covid transmission. Alcohol likely to kill virus!
'smuggling', oh the drama you attach to it! They're politicians, they drink. Do you think Flip Flop was swigging from a Buxton Eau plastic bottle?
They go to curry houses in Kennington across the Thames (if they are Labour), in West End clubs and restaurants (if they are Tory - even, sometimes, with their wives).
I heard of a TBL with a Blair cabinet member who was famous for working ferociously hard, much as novelists sometimes do, from 6am to lunchtime. After lunch he worked like a normal person. But that was years ago and he is long gone. TBL ? Two-bottle lunch.
Nice distraction attempt but we were talking about the comparison between Currygate (a one off event that after bring investigated was considered fine) and Partygate (multiple events at the very centre of UK Govt and policy making that once investigated was considered not remotely fine and resulted in fines etc). But yeah let’s rewrite history and draw false equivalence
All the best, love you lots Labour, Sue Gray xx
You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends!
2 totally different scenarios. People had worked together all day anyway and tested most days. What was the additional risk?
You are talking about highly infectious wards. Yes, very sad, I couldn't get to 2 people who died of covid. But if No. 10 had followed every rule to the letter, are you saying the rules could have been removed in hospital? Your end logic is deeply and scientifically flawed, just so you can use vile language against the Tories. "What twisted logic you display? To coin another regular poster’s favourite phrase…what a bizarre post! Govt set policy that ruled out social gatherings including after work. This was then ignored by the people setting that policy. It was two fingers to the people of the UK saying “rules only apply to you”. It was disgusting. How on earth do you get to the rules could be relaxed in hospitals
As for vile language…stop being a snowflake! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's funny how Tories say Labour have no plan, yet go on to say exactly what Labour will do if they get into power. How do they know this or do Labour have a plan the Tories know about. Can't have it both ways That is a great point. Starmer looked weak because he wouldn’t reveal the Labour “plan” (God we need to see manifestos) but Sunak looked like a liar because while accusing Labour of having no plan goes on to say how much Labour’s plan is going to cost each household. Errr what plan? Starmer looked weak because Sunak seemed to know his plans and he was denying he had one. He allowed Sunak to continue to goad him with it too, unfortunately he was out of his depth My thoughts too. Easy win for Sunak. 'Smash the gangs' sounds hard hitting but it hasn't worked so far. No discernible plans from Flip Flop. Probably going to go sneakily for private pensions again like Brown did. If Labour detest state pensioners (75p,'who put me with that bigoted woman', no triple lock plus commitment), what do you think they feel about people with private pensions? Clue : consider their politics of envy re Vat on private schools! Polls are suggesting easy win for either. Sunal slightly ahead in one, Starmer slightly ahead in two. Now the lying 'tax rise' looks to be hurting Sunak. Mrs x The algorithms are telling you it's a lie because that's what social media does. I'd say it's a bit too far to say it was a blatant lie, it was something which Sunak thought he could use and did. Now social media is awash with 'Starmer set a trap'
That's just as much of a lie as Suunak going on about a £2k tax rise. When you name drop someone and say they did something and that same person said he didn't, and even wrote to everyone two days before and says that they shouldn't say they did, then that's a lie.
Mrs x
I'll have to rewatch it to see the name drop. There was so much squabbling I must've missed that part. He's the Permanant Civil Servant for the Treasury. This has been done by all parties since the 50s , so nothing new.
Difference here was that the Permanant Civil Servant knew that the Tories would try and make political gain from this and sent that letter, saying yes they did work on the figures and yes they came up with the figures. But the data that they did this on was not 'independent, and that formulas to work out certain aspects of the data were flawed and he did not want them saying this was all the work of the civil service.
Sunak during The Debate and Claire Couthino afterwards both said these figures were verified by independent civil servants. That's another lie. Yes civil servants are bipartisan but they work for the government and even the leader of the union that represents the civil service said this. By working for those in power at the time they cannot be independent, they need to know that they are at the behest of the government. That way, when a new party assumes power they can rely on the civil service to serve them impartially.
There's a ministerial code and part of this relates to ministers bot behaving like this, calling in to question the allegiances of the civil service. Sunak and Coutinho didn't do this and the head of the civil service union seems to suggest their behaviour was calling in to question the integrity of the civil service. This was from an interview on Times Radio today.
Mrs x
So civil servants did come up with the figure?
We've been told for years (especially during the Sue Gray inquiry) that civil servants are independent. Are you saying they aren't?
Can you just explain exactly which part is a lie please. The civil service did calculate potential policies for the Tories but not the figure they used.
When I say that civil servants aren't independent, they aren't, they follow a guidance from the Civil Service directory. But they should be apolitical, which means they should work in the same impartial way with an incoming government as with an outgoing one. But they still 'work' for the current administration. The data itself, used in all the calculations is not independent, it's supplied by Conservative Party employers, special advisors. It's this data that the Civil Service told the ministers that it should not be linked to them.
The lie is that the Civil Service, independently came up with these figures even after the Chief Civil Servant told them that they had no part in this. Sunak knew about this and still said this was independently verified by the Civil Setvice and that this had been signed off by them, when it blatantly hadn't. This was repeated by Claire Coutinho this morning and she went further, saying this wouldn't have been signed off by the Civil Service if it was 'dodgy". Yet the Cicik Setvice said ot was 'dosgy' and they didn't want to be associated with it.
Here's a transcript of the letter, which explains ot better than I can.
Dear Darren,
Opposition Costings
Thank you for your letter dated 24 May 2024 regarding the presentation of opposition policy costings.
As you will be aware, when costing the policies of opposition parties HM Treasury and the wider Civil Service follow established guidance set out in the directory of the Civil Service guidance. As per this guidance, the costing produced by HM Treasury and the wider civil service are published on the gov.uk website. As you will expect, civil servants were not involved in the production of presentation of the Conservative Party's document 'Labour's Tax Rises' or in the calculation of the total figure used.
In your letter you highlight that the £38bn figure used in the Conservative Party's publication includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury.
I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.
James Bowler
Permanent Secretary
Mrs x
So the lie was 'independently verified'?
I've previously read the letter, I understand he's saying that it shouldn't have been presented as being 'produced by the civil service'.
It would seem that plenty are pissed off with Sunak saying this rather than actually taking the time to find out if the figure is true, Starmer didn't seem to rebuke the figure. Absolute garbage was the phrase he used.
The figure itself is a lie as the special advisers, Tory employees came up with the data, the contentious data.
The £2000 rise was spoke about as if it's the figure for just one year, its actually the figure over 4 years. Although its not the figure because its made up by the Tories special advisors.
Even a previous head of the civil service says that these figures are just for political gain. Everyone does it but not everyone says it was independently verified by the civil service, when it wasn't. And they still say this even after being asked not to by the civil service because as they put it... 'I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service.
I have reminded Ministers and advisers that this should be the case.'
The guy even reminded ministers and advisors that this should not be the case.
Not only is it a lie, it's a premeditated lie.
Mrs x
I don't remember him saying 'per year', that's a view you've taken because you don't like him, that's allowed but it's just your view.
As far as the figure itself being a lie, again just your view, apparently they used labour policies to arrive at costings, whether that's true or not, we'll never know, but to call it a lie is stretching.
Starmer did say 'absolute nonsense' about 20 minutes late, and didn't offer any other detail so apologies if I don't take that too seriously.
What about Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one? Either the guy is happy to see someone die or he's a liar.
What about 'my dad worked on a factory floor' when in fact he owned the business?
They all fucking lie, but your ire is only directed in one way. So why did he say £2000? Because its much scarier than £500.
He never once said 'over the term of a parliament' either because he wanted those listening to think it was going to happen straight after the election.
If you were offered two pay rises by two different firms, one of 5K and one of 20K I'd assume you'd take the 20k one. I'd also assume you'd be pretty fucked off, and felt 'lied' to once it was explained to you that they pay rise was actually calculated over 4 years.
Yes they did use figures from Labours policy promises but they also added in figures and formulas from their special advisors. One formula gave figures that were included because apparently private enterprise is 7% more effective than public services and this allowed the special advisors to come up with an inflated figure in a particular area.
Sunak knew that he shouldn't use these figures, he was told by James ahead of The Debate and the reasons why. The guy lied.
Mrs x
I'm afraid your assumption would be wrong. I'd look at the details and then make a decision. Wouldn't most people?
Have you delved this much into Starmers lies? I notice you chose to ignore that part of my post.
The Oxted company? If it's true it was supposedly a one man band on an industrial estate. Still a factory floor and not a Titan of industry.
The way people talk it would be like comparing your local mechanic to Henry Ford.
Mrs x
He specifically states 'worked on a factory floor', inferring he was a mere employee. The size of the enterprise isn't really relevant.
I understand you hate Sunak, plenty of people do, but let's not be disingenuous when it comes to calling out his lies whilst ignoring others. "I don't hate anyone, I may dislike their politics but hates too much. This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology." Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x" I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?" It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion." Yeah they were being misrepresented with figures as high as 224k pupils leaving private. Even I don’t believe that. But even my own “research” talking to dozens of parents first hand tells me far more will be forced to leave than Labour are indicating (having not actually researched with parents). The very wealthy will be able to absorb 20% but the middle earners and those who lose scholarships and low income families losing bursaries are going to be priced out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x" I am asking what you think reading the statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. " Pensions could well be in the firing line to raise money. Also inheritance tax could be changed for more money and changes to savings for yet more. I would imagine lots of people will be affected by at least one of those and probably all of them. When you do finally get to state pension age they will tax you on that too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement." That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! " It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x" I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. " Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. " Why do you think that advice was given… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In 1997, Brown wanted to raise money without anyone finding out that he'd raised taxes. He hunted for an area that was confusing and boring enough for most people to dismiss out of hand - and pensions ticked all the right boxes. He skimmed off £100 billion compounded. It'll happen again! It's shocking. It was shocking when it happened way back in 1997, and it's still shocking now. £100bn - that's £100,000,000,000.00. That's enough to give every man, woman and child in the UK around £1,650 each. So I believe Rishi's £2000 claim. Good for you Mrs x Not good for any of us if Labour get in with their 'sleight of hand' tax rise tricks! " Not raising the tax threshold is definitely a sleight of hand tax rise. I wonder who did that in recent times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. " I'm not avoiding anything. It's OK for others to give their opinions about what politicians say, even when blatantly lying. I explained that the guy could be a one man band. Infant I've read that that may be the case. But he could be just employed. If he was a business magnet that would have surfaced now. So let's say he was a one man band, owning his own company, chances are he is still working class. So criticise my for not leaping off the fence but come on, you've not given any other evidence, other than a statement Kier has made. You're not even 100% sure yourself. Bit sad you question my character though... 
Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… " I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. I'm not avoiding anything. It's OK for others to give their opinions about what politicians say, even when blatantly lying. I explained that the guy could be a one man band. Infant I've read that that may be the case. But he could be just employed. If he was a business magnet that would have surfaced now. So let's say he was a one man band, owning his own company, chances are he is still working class. So criticise my for not leaping off the fence but come on, you've not given any other evidence, other than a statement Kier has made. You're not even 100% sure yourself. Bit sad you question my character though...
Mrs x"Do you believe the guy owned the business or do you believe he was an employee? Judging on that statement, on Stsrmer has repeated many times. Why do I need to provide further evidence, those are his exact words. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street." And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. I'm not avoiding anything. It's OK for others to give their opinions about what politicians say, even when blatantly lying. I explained that the guy could be a one man band. Infant I've read that that may be the case. But he could be just employed. If he was a business magnet that would have surfaced now. So let's say he was a one man band, owning his own company, chances are he is still working class. So criticise my for not leaping off the fence but come on, you've not given any other evidence, other than a statement Kier has made. You're not even 100% sure yourself. Bit sad you question my character though...
Mrs x
Do you believe the guy owned the business or do you believe he was an employee?
Judging on that statement, on Stsrmer has repeated many times.
Why do I need to provide further evidence, those are his exact words.
"It gives no indication as to who owned the business. You seem to think it's black and white were I don't. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What gets me about the whole tax question is that Labour's position is that they will not raise VAT, nor will they increase income tax 'for working people'. They seem afraid to say that they will raise tax on unearned income (inheritance, CTT, CGT to name a few) or through corporate taxes. The country needs infrastructure rebuilds and more people would trust them if they speak the unspoken in order to finance these projects. I cannot remember and cannot be bothered to look up Labour's stance on NI, but even BJ was looking at a 1% rise in NI to fund care, a problem which has since been kicked back into the long grass." That's because income tax and NI get lumped together.NI is no longer just for health care and pensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? " Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. I'm not avoiding anything. It's OK for others to give their opinions about what politicians say, even when blatantly lying. I explained that the guy could be a one man band. Infant I've read that that may be the case. But he could be just employed. If he was a business magnet that would have surfaced now. So let's say he was a one man band, owning his own company, chances are he is still working class. So criticise my for not leaping off the fence but come on, you've not given any other evidence, other than a statement Kier has made. You're not even 100% sure yourself. Bit sad you question my character though...
Mrs x
Do you believe the guy owned the business or do you believe he was an employee?
Judging on that statement, on Stsrmer has repeated many times.
Why do I need to provide further evidence, those are his exact words.
It gives no indication as to who owned the business. You seem to think it's black and white were I don't.
Mrs x"You should join a party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? " Well you see I can say hand on heart that I absolutely stuck to the rules. So for me criticising partygate is anything but bullshit and double standards. I actually remain angry about the handling of the pandemic and behaviour of those in positions of authority during that time. And I say again, while Joe Bloggs breaking the rules was bad, members of the Govt, SpAds, and Civil Servants breaking the rules was worse as I hold them to higher standards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x" We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion. Yeah they were being misrepresented with figures as high as 224k pupils leaving private. Even I don’t believe that. But even my own “research” talking to dozens of parents first hand tells me far more will be forced to leave than Labour are indicating (having not actually researched with parents). The very wealthy will be able to absorb 20% but the middle earners and those who lose scholarships and low income families losing bursaries are going to be priced out." In 2011 there were 628,000 pupils in independent schools in the UK, in 2023 there are 615,000. Average fees have gone up more than 40% in that time yet pupil numbers have remained pretty static. Why would parents be put off by a rise due to VAT when they weren’t put off due to profiteering by the private school sector? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Well you see I can say hand on heart that I absolutely stuck to the rules. So for me criticising partygate is anything but bullshit and double standards. I actually remain angry about the handling of the pandemic and behaviour of those in positions of authority during that time. And I say again, while Joe Bloggs breaking the rules was bad, members of the Govt, SpAds, and Civil Servants breaking the rules was worse as I hold them to higher standards." You should be equal in your contempt, call the public out for being cunts, as you put it. Levelling blame in one place is biased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them " That is a tricksy word twister of a response. You are saying if you vote for them you are then complicit in their bad behaviour! Really? You honestly think that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them That is a tricksy word twister of a response. You are saying if you vote for them you are then complicit in their bad behaviour! Really? You honestly think that? " Yes, and I believe we are all hypocrites | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion. Yeah they were being misrepresented with figures as high as 224k pupils leaving private. Even I don’t believe that. But even my own “research” talking to dozens of parents first hand tells me far more will be forced to leave than Labour are indicating (having not actually researched with parents). The very wealthy will be able to absorb 20% but the middle earners and those who lose scholarships and low income families losing bursaries are going to be priced out. In 2011 there were 628,000 pupils in independent schools in the UK, in 2023 there are 615,000. Average fees have gone up more than 40% in that time yet pupil numbers have remained pretty static. Why would parents be put off by a rise due to VAT when they weren’t put off due to profiteering by the private school sector?" So a 3% (ish) rise a year over 13 years vs a sudden 20% increase! Do I really need to explain the difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them That is a tricksy word twister of a response. You are saying if you vote for them you are then complicit in their bad behaviour! Really? You honestly think that? Yes, and I believe we are all hypocrites " Big of you but on this subject I am not so I will criticise partygate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is the first I've heard of this 'factory' but even if he did own a one man band and he made tools, surely he made them in a factory. What else would you call it? Mrs x I've cropped this to make it easier to follow. “Despite being a skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,” Starmer said. “The next Labour government will strive for better prospects and dignity for all workers, not just those with a degree. That starts by creating quality jobs across our country.” Tell me from that quote that you believe the guy owned the business. Or do you believe he was an employee?It doesn't say or have I missed it? Mrs x I am asking what you think reading the statement.That his Dad was a skilled tool maker, who felt people looked down on him and his trade. Mrs x I genuinely thought you were better than avoiding questions. Genuinely. I guess people can misjudge sometimes. I'm not avoiding anything. It's OK for others to give their opinions about what politicians say, even when blatantly lying. I explained that the guy could be a one man band. Infant I've read that that may be the case. But he could be just employed. If he was a business magnet that would have surfaced now. So let's say he was a one man band, owning his own company, chances are he is still working class. So criticise my for not leaping off the fence but come on, you've not given any other evidence, other than a statement Kier has made. You're not even 100% sure yourself. Bit sad you question my character though...
Mrs x
Do you believe the guy owned the business or do you believe he was an employee?
Judging on that statement, on Stsrmer has repeated many times.
Why do I need to provide further evidence, those are his exact words.
It gives no indication as to who owned the business. You seem to think it's black and white were I don't.
Mrs x
You should join a party "I am a party  haha.
I'm not trying to avoid anything, you should know I'm not afraid to say what I think.
What if his quote said.
“Despite being a, self employed, skilled toolmaker throughout his working life, my dad thought people looked down on him because he worked on the factory floor. He was right about that,”
Would that make a difference?
To me it's could be like being a plumber, plasterer or sparky working from home. They own their own business but could still be struggling day to day.
The only difference with a tool maker, if he was self employed would be he would need a unit to house his tools. Wouldn't necessarily mean he was wealthy, just like the other tradesmen.
So when it's suggested he owned tge factory, I suppose it relates to the factory floor part of the quote. But from those that don't agree with Starmer it sounds like he was a wealthy, successful business mam. But there's no evidence of this, not in that statement anyway.
Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion. Yeah they were being misrepresented with figures as high as 224k pupils leaving private. Even I don’t believe that. But even my own “research” talking to dozens of parents first hand tells me far more will be forced to leave than Labour are indicating (having not actually researched with parents). The very wealthy will be able to absorb 20% but the middle earners and those who lose scholarships and low income families losing bursaries are going to be priced out. In 2011 there were 628,000 pupils in independent schools in the UK, in 2023 there are 615,000. Average fees have gone up more than 40% in that time yet pupil numbers have remained pretty static. Why would parents be put off by a rise due to VAT when they weren’t put off due to profiteering by the private school sector?" They won’t be put off agreed However the £1.6bn to be raised by the VAT and the £3.2bn from ending non dom, will together be 0.004% of the £1.2trn (2023 fig) annual state spending. The two policies are worth pittance to the treasury. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them That is a tricksy word twister of a response. You are saying if you vote for them you are then complicit in their bad behaviour! Really? You honestly think that? Yes, and I believe we are all hypocrites Big of you but on this subject I am not so I will criticise partygate" I bet you are, you just can’t see it. Do you know anyone that didn’t ply by the rules? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Well you see I can say hand on heart that I absolutely stuck to the rules. So for me criticising partygate is anything but bullshit and double standards. I actually remain angry about the handling of the pandemic and behaviour of those in positions of authority during that time. And I say again, while Joe Bloggs breaking the rules was bad, members of the Govt, SpAds, and Civil Servants breaking the rules was worse as I hold them to higher standards. You should be equal in your contempt, call the public out for being cunts, as you put it. Levelling blame in one place is biased." I disagree but let me qualify that: 1. The public that stuck to the rules = well done 2. The public that bent the rules a bit = poor behaviour hope your conscience is clear? 3. The public that severely broke the rules = bastards! 4. The people who wrote and implemented the rules who broke/ignored them = cunts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd love to know what the cost will be to take vast numbers of private school kids back into the already over crowded and under resourced state system. Feels like it may well cost more money than it raises. c.600,000 kids in pvt sch c.150,000 will move back into state according to research Each child in senior school costs the state c.£8000 per year Meanwhile that 150k will no longer be paying pvt sch fees so remove that VAT take. Who did the research? I think there have been four studies now. You can google it. What is really interesting is that the “research” Labour are using to base their policy and numbers on did not consult one single parent. Not one! It is all based on assumption. It is a totally flawed research methodology. Ah ok, the only one I have seen was the Baines Cutler report that was used by various newspapers to say that huge numbers of pupils would be taken out of private education due to VAT. Baines Cutler have since come out and said their research has been hugely misrepresented and that they did not come to that conclusion. Yeah they were being misrepresented with figures as high as 224k pupils leaving private. Even I don’t believe that. But even my own “research” talking to dozens of parents first hand tells me far more will be forced to leave than Labour are indicating (having not actually researched with parents). The very wealthy will be able to absorb 20% but the middle earners and those who lose scholarships and low income families losing bursaries are going to be priced out. In 2011 there were 628,000 pupils in independent schools in the UK, in 2023 there are 615,000. Average fees have gone up more than 40% in that time yet pupil numbers have remained pretty static. Why would parents be put off by a rise due to VAT when they weren’t put off due to profiteering by the private school sector? So a 3% (ish) rise a year over 13 years vs a sudden 20% increase! Do I really need to explain the difference?" That increase hasn’t been steady though, last year it was around an 8% increase on its own yet pupil numbers didn’t drop. One has to wonder if the headlines aren’t merely an attempt to cause panic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You didn’t need an investigation to see what had happened. Those cunts in No.10 and the Cabinet Office were partying while people died, alone, and without family bring able to say goodbye. Stop defending those absolute bell-ends! It was all wrong, not just the partying. The NHS shutting up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones, but that gets swept under the carpet. People in government getting pissed at office parties, guess what so were many members of the public, loads of them, parties, sneaking off to get their haircut, it was all going on. We reap what we sow….. Just for the facts though…NHS does not set policy. That was the DHSC. It was the govt that “shut(ting)up shop and insisting nobody could visit their loved ones”. Why do you think that advice was given… I don’t think that is relevant to a discussion about the people responsible for designing and implementing legislation (rules) that applied to all of us then not applying them to themselves. Call me old fashioned by I hold those law/rule setters to a higher standard than the man in the street. And I agree, as you will know from my post… but what I’m pointing out is the double standards and bullshit people feel entitled to when they call out party gate, when they themselves were out doing the same thing. We all know it was happening up and down the country, students to OAP’s and as I said we reap what we sow, and anyone here who can’t see the government is a mirror image of the self entitlement we have as a nation of individuals is blind. Sunak and Starmer throwing their toys out, lying and so on, well we don’t see that every day do we? Thing is everyone else doesn't make the rules, do they. Mrs x We vote for them to make the rules, if you don’t like those that are making the rules it doesn’t make you immune and give a pass to be a hypocrite, but here we are, the country is full of them " We followed the rules. Those that are in power should behave to at least the same standard that they expect the rest of the population too. We lost both our Dads seven days apart during Covid. We had one funeral on the Tuesday and the other on a Thursday. We could only have 15 mourners at each service. We stuck by the rules only to find out about Partygate later on. Not giving either of our Dads a decent send off still hurts knowing what the Tories did behind closed doors. So forgive me if I think they are cunts for doing that to us but also families up and down the country. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
