UK Politics

So Sunak has been found out to be a liar. No surprises there then.

 

All these muppets trying to lead the country are convincing me of one thing, a military coup with someone taking over as dictator is starting to sound like a nice alternative.

 

I think that’s a stretch tbh. He should have just said ‘liar’ every time Sunak made the claim.

But there’s two parts to this. One is whether the £2k shortfall stacks up. Answer, it doesn’t. But a claim like this is always going to be subject to interpretation and it’s difficult to defend against in a live debate without going into a very long boring breakdown that would just have got him branded as a windbag.
The second element is the claim that the £2k allegation comes from figures provided by the Treasury. And this is where Sunak has been caught with his pants on fire. It’s now emerged that the Treasury sent a strongly worded letter saying that the government should not be claiming that the £2k allegation comes from Treasury figures, because it doesn’t. But Sunak went ahead and lied about this anyway. Starmer is now claiming that Sunak broke the ministerial code by deliberately lying about this and that he should be investigated for it.

 

Why in God's name did Starmer not bring up the letter in the actual debate? It would have been the absolute bombshell moment and the only thing that got any coverage at all.

As a QC It's the equivalent of withholding a crucial piece of evidence in the trail to keep up your sleeve for the appeal!

 

The point is that I know that my political views are not shared by a majority of the population. I’m left of centre, though nowhere near as far left as some on here appear to believe.
I’m well aware that most people tend towards the centre. Whereas some on here who have views that are well to the right of centre claim that the majority of the electorate thinks like they do, which they don’t. Some people seem to think that Bradford and the so called Red Wall areas are representative of the whole country and they simply aren’t.

 

I don’t know. It does seem bizarre. It would have been a massive ‘gotcha’ moment if he’d produced a copy of the letter, quoted the Treasury warning about the figures and called Sunak a liar to his face. I sometimes think he’s too nice for his own good.

 

Perceiving that as being nice is very kind. I don't think he held it back because he was being nice, I think he didn't know about it and was caught off guard which is a bit naive.

Doesn't change the fact that Sunak lied but it did feel like a missed opportunity for Starmer.

 

Maybe you’re right. Perhaps he didn’t know about it, in which case he can’t be blamed for not highlighting it.
I’m sure he’ll be bringing up the fact that Sunak deliberately lied in future TV debates and if he doesn’t others will.

 

He may have been caught off guard.

But, he now has two more leader debates/questions sessions that he can hammer the liar aspect at every opportunity. Might have been planned, might not, but this now gives him more chance to exploit it.

When two well-known right-wing political commentators are calling Sunak out on this (Dan Hodges and Fraser Nelson) it shows what a huge mistake the Tories have made.

 

Ed Davey is now pushing the Liar line on Sunak. He said "He is essentially lying to people”. “I think people are pretty turned off by it," “I think... they feel a bit disillusioned when people see the Prime Minister or Boris Johnson essentially lying to people. It just is not good enough.”

Sunak and the Tories are still continuing to double down on it.

Others will follow suit, Farage will need no invitation to bring up Sunak lying to people as an attack line because it will go with the whole narrative of them having no ideas and being seen as desperate. I'd be surprised if all 6 people on Friday's BBC debate don't use it against the Tories.

 

I think you've kind of missed the point if I'm honest.

 

It’s also now emerged that the imaginary £2k hike is not per annum, as was clearly implied but (presumably deliberately) not stated, but over four years. So they’ve not only lied about the source of the figures but also sought to exaggerate fears by obfuscating the time period.

 

Sunak never said it was per annum, I was waiting for that but whatever, he outsmarted the cardboard cutout ....

 

I really don’t think I have.
I know that you were making a point about me quoting the Guardian, but the much bigger point is whether I’m correct that various people on here are mistaken in their solid belief that they and their ilk are representative of the majority public at large across the country. I don’t need the Guardian to tell me I’m right about this - numerous social attitude polls, not to mention by-election results in previously impregnable true blue areas confirm that I am. The (much more populous) south of England is a different world from what’s represented on these pages.

 

You can call it ‘outsmarted’ but now it’s been revealed it will be perceived by many neutrals as deliberately misleading - ie yet another example that you can’t trust anything he says.

 

Like 'Labour' has never used the same tactic.... ?

 

What's not to like ... ?

<Breach of site rules on promoting political parties or campaigns>

 

You need to report to the Upper Greetland recruiting office in quick time.

 

If I offered someone job for £80k. I'm sure I'd have people snapping my hand off.

If it turned out that job was actually £20k a year then I'm sure people would feel misled.

Sunak knows he is being disingenuous in what he says, and to be honest £500 a year in extra tax per household for a functioning NHS, and working public services would be something I'd think acceptable.

This is the same with the pension thing, would the elderly prefer their tax bands being higher than everyone else's, or being actually able to access a doctor on the day they need one?

 

Should we go back to Starmer's pledged when he ran for the leadership to show how trustworthy politicians are?