Why would he commission a report if he was responsible? I understand where you're coming from, it might have been the case 30-40 years ago (before you were born), but no **** resigns anymore if someone they manage ****s up.
I forgot to put this in my earlier reply, but as evidence of their joint lack of skills, and it's hard to say which is the bigger miss, but Sunak kept mentioning the supposed £2,000 tax increase, but also kept saying Starmer had not put forward any policies, which is a bit duplicitous to say the least. Rather than point this out, or demonstrate if it was the lie he claimed, Starmer just went gammon faced and waffled. If I had to choose, I'd say a politician being deceptive and dishonest is par for the course, but one that couldn't manage to turn something so obvious around is not really a comforting thought to have toward someone destined to be PM.
Indeed, even though the £2,000 figure is just made up and isn't independent at all, the question has to be raised why it took Starmer so long to even respond to it after Sunak mentioned it about 6 times.
Perhaps because the Department he was paid massive amounts to be in charge of had repeatedly failed to catch one of the most prolific serial predators for many, many years. One that was very much in the Public eye, and held the ear of influential people. It's a ****ing huge gaff on their part, over many years. As the head of the Departments that ****ed up so badly and so often, it's impossible for him to ignore it.
The Civil Service had sent a memo round last month saying that their own calculations did not support it, and advising ministers not to make the claim in any discussions or press releases. Sunak knew full well he was lying, and Starmer had an easy rebuttal at hand, which he failed to use.
When the Brexit vote came in, there were several politicians that seemed stunned, but at least realised that they had not been listening to the man on the street. I thought we were about to see a sea change, with politicians finally stepping out of the Westminster bubble, but alas, they simply reverted to type and just assumed everyone was too thick to see things their way, or that the public simply didn't matter. In a similar optimistic light, one possibility is that this elections ****s the tories, and their term as a Government does the same for Labour, paving the way for alternative forms of Government. As I say, an optimistic view, but possibly the best option to come out of the current mess.
The tories appear to be going all in and relying on Penny Mordaunt on Friday. I reckon she'll claim Sunak was wrong to say that they were the Civil Service figures, but the numbers still add up. I'm still surprised Starmer didn't point out that he can't claim the cost of policies that they are saying they haven't announced. It has to be either or. I can only think that they're pushing Labour to actually announce some of their measures. At a surface level, Labour being shy to make them clear yet, and the tories pushing, suggest that they may not be all that popular with the public.
Aaand another thing from that debate. Does anyone seriously believe Starmer would leave his loved ones on a waiting list rather than pay to go private, which was his very clear claim. I think he's talking ****e for one, because of course he would and so would anyone that could afford to, never mind someone as wealthy as him.
You stopped being working class when the house you bought for £50 in 1976 grew £700k in value. Tory scum.
Thinking through family and friends of various ages. Apart from the ones that ****ed around doing nonsense degrees, all those in their early 20's have got their own homes.
As even a febrile Conservative commentator writes, the £2k figure is this election's £350m - expect it on the side of a bus very soon.
