But not entirely out of altruism. They needed to be defeated in our own interests. Battle of Britain round II is unlikely to have been so successful, it was closer than we like to think first time around. If they had remained in control of continental Europe they would have got us eventually.
THE FOURTH OF JULY
- Thread starter niall Y
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Predictably non-productive debate,:
The lack of manifesto made the debate rather sterile - no solid basis upon which to challenge anything. Both parties have no excuse for failure to publish - Labour have had 14 years to polish theirs, Sunak knew when he would call the election.
Overall conclusion has not changed - Sunak thinks he has a plan which in the past has only partially delivered, Labour appear to have no plan. Perhaps that's why the battle bus is plastered in the slogan "change". Say it often enough an folk start to believe it, even if nonsense.
- Sunak a winner on points for presentation, positivity and confidence
- Starmer a bit "rabbit caught in the headlights" manner - unimpressed
- Sunak shouty - focus on the future - there are past deficiencies he prefers not to dwell upon.
- Starmer tedious - mostly critical of past performance (largely justified)
- Starmer failed to deal adequately with £2000 tax issue (correct or otherwise)
The lack of manifesto made the debate rather sterile - no solid basis upon which to challenge anything. Both parties have no excuse for failure to publish - Labour have had 14 years to polish theirs, Sunak knew when he would call the election.
Overall conclusion has not changed - Sunak thinks he has a plan which in the past has only partially delivered, Labour appear to have no plan. Perhaps that's why the battle bus is plastered in the slogan "change". Say it often enough an folk start to believe it, even if nonsense.
Rhossydd
Established Member
Indeed. It was disgraceful to let Sunak talk over Starmer so often with no opportunity for redress.
Starmer seemed to be the one respecting the structure of the debate and expecting to be allowed to answer accusations, as he would in a court, but that wasn't too be. I hope he'll be less compliant and more assertive next time.
That's a rather silly objection. In the last 14 years we've had four major disruptions to the economy; Brexit, Covid, Truss's disastrous premiership and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Trying to work out how the country can be rescued from chronic mismanagement has been a constantly moving and decaying target. Labour has also had a major changes internally after the Corbyn shambles.
Keith Cocker
Established Member
I entirely agree about avoiding personal attacks. Robust challenge of facts and opinions should be welcomed.
I would add that as you are a significant contributor to the thread might any decisions about moderation and closure of the thread be a tad conflicted for you personally
I am a contributor but I would not say significant to this thread and no conflicts because us moderators work together and discuss issues to try and ensure fairness, any post we make, the members can report if they do not like something or just send a message but the objective is a freindly forum where " Robust challenge of facts and opinions is welcomed " and advice / experience shared to help all. We also have some forum rules so we do not want personal insults or people not accepting that others have opinions as well.
RobinBHM
Established Member
I don’t think you would get a clear answer: Some would say lean more to the right, some more to the left
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Sunak Diamond plate and Starmer a dished oilstone having been coached by a prominent party member?
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Nah a completely talentless pair but well heeled so would have to have all the gadgets; diamonds, brass knobs, no expenses spared!
Keith Cocker
Established Member
I think grouping Sunak and Starmer as “well heeled “ is a real distortion of the truth. There is a universe of difference between Sunaks wealth and Starmers bank balance.
RobinBHM
Established Member
theres a rumour going around that Keir Starmer deliberately allowed Wishy Sunk to keep lying about the £2000, let it be officially refuted and then use it as an attack line for the rest of the campaign, calling him dishonest.
it does seem convenient that a letter has suddenly appeared in the media a day after the debate which was sent from most senior civil servant in treasury to Labour MP Darren Jones.
we might want to remember Sue Gray is now Starmers chief of staff, I bet she has contacts in the treasury
it does seem convenient that a letter has suddenly appeared in the media a day after the debate which was sent from most senior civil servant in treasury to Labour MP Darren Jones.
we might want to remember Sue Gray is now Starmers chief of staff, I bet she has contacts in the treasury
Would we be better off with a PM that is not super rich like Starmer or Sunak , neither of these have any real need to work so are doing it just to occupy themselves much like a hobby whereas a less wealthy person might have more career motivation in that they need the work ?
RobinBHM
Established Member
only about £644m difference
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Starmer isn’t “super-rich”. That is just not true. See Robins post above. Let’s stick to the truth as far as possible shall we.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Dunno anything above a few million is pretty rich really.
https://prolificlondon.co.uk/kier-starmer-net-worth/
A quick Google suggests Stammer has a net worth between £7~15 million depending on a land bank valuation he owns. Now that isn’t as wealth by any stretch of the imagination as Sunak, but it would make him super rich in my book!
I think having 7 million is rich, more than you really need to live very comfortably and imagine your workshop, never have to worry about sharpening a chisel again as you just have a box full like pencils ready to go and then give all the blunt ones away to mens sheds and others who would appreciate them.
Sunak was in the wrong bracket, wrong of me to say he is super rich as that just undermines his wealth that is around 600 million but also says something about him. Who would want to work when you have that amount of money, there must be better things to do that would give more reward than just doing a job. I would give all established UKW members a free tool every year, establish a nice big workshop where people could come and make things but on a more social level, buy some exhibition centre so anyone who is making anything can have a place to show their goods and display their wares at no charge including a woodworking show with no stall or admision fees and just make others smile.
Sunak was in the wrong bracket, wrong of me to say he is super rich as that just undermines his wealth that is around 600 million but also says something about him. Who would want to work when you have that amount of money, there must be better things to do that would give more reward than just doing a job. I would give all established UKW members a free tool every year, establish a nice big workshop where people could come and make things but on a more social level, buy some exhibition centre so anyone who is making anything can have a place to show their goods and display their wares at no charge including a woodworking show with no stall or admision fees and just make others smile.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It seems the more they have the more they want.
That's a really rubbish article on Starmer, no sources for the numbers at the end after some token gestures.
The land supposedly worth £10m is the land he bought his parents for the donkey sanctuary, which we know the actual value of because he sold it for £400,000. A healthy sum, but a very very long way from £10m which tells you something about the veracity of that source. He's done well for himself but didn't choose a particularly lucrative area of the Bar and then went into public service at the CPS where he'll have had a decent salary by public service standards but nothing compared to Sunak at Goldmans or then as a hedge fund boy running daddy in law's money.
The land supposedly worth £10m is the land he bought his parents for the donkey sanctuary, which we know the actual value of because he sold it for £400,000. A healthy sum, but a very very long way from £10m which tells you something about the veracity of that source. He's done well for himself but didn't choose a particularly lucrative area of the Bar and then went into public service at the CPS where he'll have had a decent salary by public service standards but nothing compared to Sunak at Goldmans or then as a hedge fund boy running daddy in law's money.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Given the choice between a man buying land for his parents' donkey sanctuary and an entitled hedge-fund wide-boy bank-rolled by his billionaire father-in-law who bet against British banks during the 2007 financial crash, I know which one gets my vote.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Assuming the figures are correct neither Sunak or Starmer have any need to work and could see out their lives at least very comfortably. It matters little what the wealth multiple of one to the other is. It is questionable whether the wealth of a spouse should be included.
Criticism based on the proposition they don't know "how ordinary folk live" is nonsense.
Proven success outside politics should score higher than career spent principally climbing the greasy political pole. Understanding wealth, job creation, investment, capital etc is far more important than knowing the price of bread or how the benefits system works.
I want my PM (Tory, Labour, or any other colour) to be the best available candidate - competent, demonstrable integrity, articulate, knowledgeable, able to form relations across society and internationally, fair, able to empathise with all, etc.
More fundamental is understanding what drives folk to seek political office and expose themselves to almost constant scrutiny and criticism. Both wealthy and poor could use the talents they have to make far more money outside politics unless corrupt.
There is no justification asserting wealthy are likely to be more corrupt than poor - the reverse possibly applies as the poorer may be more motivated by money that the wealthy don't need.
Criticism based on the proposition they don't know "how ordinary folk live" is nonsense.
Proven success outside politics should score higher than career spent principally climbing the greasy political pole. Understanding wealth, job creation, investment, capital etc is far more important than knowing the price of bread or how the benefits system works.
I want my PM (Tory, Labour, or any other colour) to be the best available candidate - competent, demonstrable integrity, articulate, knowledgeable, able to form relations across society and internationally, fair, able to empathise with all, etc.
More fundamental is understanding what drives folk to seek political office and expose themselves to almost constant scrutiny and criticism. Both wealthy and poor could use the talents they have to make far more money outside politics unless corrupt.
There is no justification asserting wealthy are likely to be more corrupt than poor - the reverse possibly applies as the poorer may be more motivated by money that the wealthy don't need.
