Forum Topic

Sunak's £2,000 tax lie

Sunak claimed multiple times during the TV debate that Labour's plans for the country were not costed and would require annual tax rises of £2,000 per family due to a £38.5bn black hole over four years. Further, and thus is the crucial point, he said this number was worked out by impartial civil servants.Let's be clear: that is a blatant lie, and one which he not only repeated 12 times, but which he already knew was a lie - because James Bowler, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury,  explained in his letter to Darren Jones, Shadow Chief Secretary:

Richard Carter ● 384d109 Comments

> The deliverer is somewhat irrelevant if these conditions are satisfied.Even if the private company that is providing it is doing so at a higher cost (to the Government) than the NHS could provide it for?

John Kettlekey ● 378d

Mr KettlekeyPoints well made.It's a dilemma.Who can run a public monopoly service best ?The state or a public company ?Neither have an exemplary record.

John Hawkes ● 378d

Mr Kettlekey'Basic level audiology has gone from GPs and is now performed by pharmacies and opticians'.Though my GP is pretty good regarding appointments, they do not have a permanent nurse for minor treatments though doubtless they could if they wished to employ one.If audiology can be carried out by pharmacies and opticians and the patient still receives the service at no charge then this to me seems a good thing.Relieves pressure on GP allowing more urgent treatment from them and in my experience the companies you reference near me offer a very efficient bookable service.Surely what we really mean by a NHS is one offered efficiently and at no charge.The deliverer is somewhat irrelevant if these conditions are satisfied.

John Hawkes ● 378d

Today Starmer has mocked Sunak's promise of tax cuts as a 'Corbyn style budget', when he himself recommended Corbyn's budget to the nation just five years ago. Does he think we are all suffering from collective amnesia?

Steven Rose ● 378d

Because, in the long term and in most cases, (b) (the cost to the tax payer is reduced) does not happen.Remember the plan:1. Offer a non-nationalised option2. Give the non-nationalised option a subsidy and initial funding "to give it a hand starting up"3. Increasingly underfund the nationalised option4. State that the treatment under the non-nationalised option is better (which is most likely true given it's subsidised and the nationalised version is underfunded)5. Use #4 to justify the removal of the nationalised option6. Private companies now have a monopoly and so they wallow in their subsidies, slowly raise the prices and lower the qualify of service whilst they cream off the profitsThe question is whether the largesse of the private options (in terms of profits/dividends extracted) is worse than the wastage and bureaucracy of the nationalised option (the NHS is far from perfect as we all know).With proper regulation the private options could (and should) be competitive, and this is often one of the promises that is made to justify their usage, but as we've seen with plenty of other industries (water, rail, power, etc) the regulation is weak and the private companies just end up acting with incompetence or gratuitous rapacity.

John Kettlekey ● 379d

John Kettlekey makes some interesting points . What I haven’t understood is why the kind of privatisation he identifies is necessarily a bad thing. As long as treatment is free at the point of delivery, why should it matter whether it is given at a pharmacy? Surely the key considerations are that a) the patient should receive prompt treatment and b) the cost to the taxpayer is reduced.

Steven Rose ● 379d

> But one would not say that this represents privatisation of the NHS surely ?No, there are many aspects that make total sense to be brought in from a private company. As you say; cleaning, portering, medical equipment, gowns (although it seems some parts of the Government have been a significant supplier of these in the past although at great expense and with unreliable products and delivery), IT equipment, etc.The worry that more and more clinical components of the NHS will be outsourced to private companies. Basic level audiology has gone from GPs and is now performed by pharmacies and opticians. This is still a form of privatisation. Just wait until the in-hospital phlebotomy department is outsourced, or pathology, etc. The privatisation of the NHS is being done very gradually and many people will not notice and realise until it is too late.

John Kettlekey ● 379d

Mr RoseA good analysis if I might say so, particularly -'the presence on the Forum of a number of individuals  described in an earlier post as urban professionals with a social conscience, who tend to see the Conservatives as aiming to enrich the haves while seeing  Labour as committed to helping the havenots'.'For individuals with a certain cast of mind the choice between Labour and the  Conservatives is not about choosing which party has the best policies. It’s about good and evil'.Both naïve and simplistic beliefs in my view.If I recall it used to be said that "if you are not a socialist at twenty but then a Conservative at forty there is something wrong with you".I get the impression that for some on this Forum that old adage has been reversed !

John Hawkes ● 380d

Mr Robinson'We haven't paid off Labour's last flirtatious with privatisation yet'.You are correct.PFI was initially launched in 1992 by Prime Minister John Major, and expanded considerably by the Blair governmentHowever in October 2018, the Chancellor Philip Hammond announced that the UK government would no longer use PFI for new infrastructure projects; however, PFI projects will continue to operate for some time to come.Putting aside the fact that the NHS effectively leases many large items of infrastructure from private companies it also is a major purchaser of items from them - from operating theatre equipment to toilet rolls.And in my hospital the cleaning is carried out by private company staff.But one would not say that this represents privatisation of the NHS surely ?

John Hawkes ● 380d

We haven't paid off Labour's last flirtatious with privatisation yet.The likelihood is when you step into an hospital you are all going private but just do not realise it."NHS hospital trusts paying hundreds of millions in interest to private firms"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/25/nhs-hospital-trusts-paying-hundreds-of-millions-in-interest-to-private-firms

Ed Robinson ● 380d

Mr CallawayNot sure what my questions were but at your suggestion I have just read Streeting's reform plans.I think they say - “I can simultaneously want to reduce [NHS] reliance on the private sector by making sure it has the staff, the equipment, the technology it needs to treat patients on time, at the same time as recognising that there is currently some capacity in the private sector and we should seek to use it.”I quite agree with him and what I take to be his ultimate aim which is that no one need consider private health care as the service from the NHS would be unbeatable.But I don't think he is suggesting that 'more money' is all  of the answer.An organisation as large as the NHS is likely to benefit from reform in line with the current situation it faces.All big corporations do.So to avoid the poisoned chalice scenario Labour should stop just blaming a malign NHS inheritance on 'the Tories' and their supposed hatred of the service, and instead come up with some honest and sensible plans of what their aim is and what is achievable in their first period in Government.Perhaps a review of the NHS and what it faces by an unbiased, non-politicised, multi-disciplined team of management consultants and medical and health experts would produce an answer to 'what should the NHS look like today and what is the best way of funding it'. Labour could then take that as its healthcare (not NHS) policy into the 2029 election with a confidence of winning on this issue at least. 

John Hawkes ● 380d

I fear that your points are likely to fall on deaf ears because of the strong bias against the Conservatives shown by many of the contributors to the Forum. This bias is due to two main factors in my view:1) anger over Brexit, for which many hold the Conservatives and Boris Johnson in particular responsible2) the presence on the Forum of a number of individuals  described in an earlier post as urban professionals with a social conscience, who tend to see the Conservatives as aiming to enrich the haves while seeing  Labour as committed to helping the havenots.In respect of 1) above it is no use pointing out that Parliament voted by a majority of 544 to 33 to  put the decision in the hands of the British people in a Referendum. Feelings are too strong for the issue to be considered rationally.In respect of 2) it is equally useless to argue that Labour’s aim of redistributing wealth by a policy of tax and spend is likely to impoverish society as a whole, including the havenots. For individuals with a certain cast of mind the choice between Labour and the  Conservatives is not about choosing which party has the best policies. It’s about good and evil. Asking them to vote Conservative is like asking them to go over to the dark side.I recognise, of course, that there are people on the Forum who are committed to neither party. Many of them simply note that the country is in a mess, for which they naturally blame the party that has been in power for the last fourteen years, and conclude that it is time to give the other lot a go. The only thing I would say to them is that it is important to consider what the other lot are planning to do before making a decision.

Steven Rose ● 380d

Mr Hawkes, of course Labour has credible plans. Try Googling Wes Streeting NHS reform. He’s said plenty and he’s obviously done his homework. My point is that the NHS - indeed all public services - are in dire need of reform. And the money is simply not there to fund it all. Thus a scenario, planned or otherwise, where Labour win their poisoned chalice, fail to make significant headrooms given the overwhelming odds, then get kicked out in 2029 by a regrouped and revitalised right wing coalition of Tory+Reform. It might not happen, of course. Labour May get a second term but there are definitely some Tories looking ahead to the 2029 rematch. Handing over a devastated economy won’t harm their chances at all, so the theory goes. How about you answer your own questions?

Jonathan Callaway ● 380d

Mr Callaway'And the current government has no credible plan to reverse that trend (of rising waiting lists).The next government is being set up to fail. Could that in any way be a deliberate strategy by those looking ahead to 2029?Does the Labour government have a plan to reverse this rising trend ?What is it ?More money or reform ?And who is setting the next government up to fail ?If Labour 'has a cunning plan' how will the Conservatives dastardly plot work ?

John Hawkes ● 380d

Mr Rose'It is obvious that with 7 million on the waiting list, many people are suffering pain and inconvenience. The important question is how the problems of the NHS are to be resolved'.And with the sudden increase in those suffering from 'mental health' problems and anxiety and hence are unable to work, and the arrival of drugs to treat conditions such as obesity that have now been 'medicalised' when in the past they might have been put down to over-indulgence and lack of self-control, the problems of the NHS will get worse.'The 'King Kong' of slimming jabs will be made available on the NHS, health chiefs today announced. Under current guidelines, only those with type 2 diabetes who do not have the condition under control are eligible to get Mounjaro via the health service. But draft guidance by the UK's drugs watchdog has now recommended its usage to be expanded for weight loss in those who are severely obese.'This class of injectable drug is currently expensive, providing particular challenges to a taxpayer-funded health system like the NHS'. - Professor Sir Stephen O’Rahilly, Cambridge University's director of the medical research council metabolic diseases unit.Be careful when driving down Replingham Road Southfields for you might hit someone running across the road from Greggs to Boots !

John Hawkes ● 380d

Ms CarterYou say -Steven declares of Starmer  that ‘ The clear implication of his remark is that he would rather let his relative suffer than commit the sin of going private. His answer was  dishonest, a lie in fact’.Whereas there is now plenty or evidence that Sunak was lying, where is the possible evidence that Starmer was lying? How can anyone else know what he might or might not do in a situation that might never happen?It may not be a lie for who knows why Starmer said what he did.But below is ITV's record of what he said -'Julie Etchingham asked the leaders if either of them would use private health care if a loved one could not receive critical treatment on the NHS - to which Mr Sunak said he would, while Sir Keir said he wouldn't'.True who knows what anyone might do in extremis but Starmer made his position quite clear.

John Hawkes ● 380d

Ms Grant'I do feel that the next government is being given a poisoned chalice'.By seemingly putting the NHS at the core of its offer to the electorate, claiming it as its own and proclaiming that the Conservatives do not 'believe in it' and in extremis will 'privatise it', then it is about to drink from a chalice of its own making.For to correct all the 'damage' the Conservatives have done to the NHS Labour will either have to put more money into it from taxation or reform it.And how can you reform something that is perfect ?

John Hawkes ● 380d

Mr Ixer'It's interesting that Bill Gates is giving his MOST of his wealth away to charities on the basis that having been provided with a good education his children should make their own way ...'Hum...I doubt if the Gates nepo babes are not going to have quite a few dollars in the bank plus a wide range of influential contacts as a result of who their father is.Unless they implode wrt drugs or drink it is impossible for them not to have an advantage over 99.9% of US children.I don't know your family circumstances, but my children will have the financial benefit of the wealth (home, investments and savings) that I have accrued from working hard and not indulging in what I would call unnecessary frivolous spending on holidays, cars etc.My choice so why should I be penalised for it as the constituent parts of this wealth anyway have already been subject to income tax.

John Hawkes ● 380d

Mr Ixer'I have several friends who feel the NHS waiting lists are in part deliberate to force them to spend their savings on operations, saving the NHS money, because - although their problems haven't been life threatening'.I humbly suggest that perhaps your friends' primary ailment is a suffering from paranoia !Who is it that is thus manipulating the waiting lists to their disadvantage ?And you are correct to 'believe it's not uncommon for rich Chinese to send their children to private schools in the UK'. Apparently Eton's Kings scholars this year were named Adeboye, Bajpai, Bonney, Cao, Kumar, Ong, Shi, Tan, Turner, Wang, Wang, Wu and Xu.Good for our balance of payments !

John Hawkes ● 380d

Hello Lucille,I totally agree with you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 381d

I do feel that the next government is being given a poisoned chalice

Lucille Grant ● 381d

Indeed we should ask how the problems of the NHS can be fixed. But it is also important to understand how they were created. And yes the pandemic is partly responsible but waiting lists were rising long before the pandemic hit. And the current government has no credible plan to reverse that trend. The next government is being set up to fail. Could that in any way be a deliberate strategy by those looking ahead to 2029?

Jonathan Callaway ● 381d

It is obvious that with 7 million on the waiting list, many people are suffering pain and inconvenience. The important question is how the problems of the NHS are to be resolved.

Steven Rose ● 381d

So you're admitting that after 14 years of the NHS being undermined by the government some people who can't afford private health care are suffering. 

Michael Ixer ● 381d

Anyone who says he would rather let a member of his family suffer rather than seek private health care (when he can afford it) is either mad or dishonest. I don’t think Keir Starmer is mad.Riishi Sunak said that Labour would need to spend £38 billion to meet the commitments they have already announced.  This total was based on consideration of ten of Labour’s pledges. Seven of them, accounting for about 90% of the total, were costed by Treasury officials. The other three were costed on the basis of other sources. The total implies an additional tax bill of £2000 per family over four years. Neither Labour nor any anyone else has presented any evidence to dispute this figure.

Steven Rose ● 381d

Well said, Mike. Steven declares of Starmer  that ‘ The clear implication of his remark is that he would rather let his relative suffer than commit the sin of going private. His answer was  dishonest, a lie in fact’. Whereas there is now plenty or evidence that Sunak was lying, where is the possible evidence that Starmer was lying? How can anyone else know what he might or might not do in a situation that might never happen?

Jane Carter ● 381d

Sunak must be talking rubbish, as Sir Kier pointed out during their one-to-one squabble. Mr Sunak has been saying repeated that Labour has no plan; if that's the case there's no plan on which to base any tax calculations on. So either Mr Sunak is lying about the absence of a plan or he's lying about any tax increase.I notice Ms Mordant subtly dug the knife into Mr Sunak last night when discussing his hasty exit from Normandy; must have been confusing to the other world leaders: "David, we thought you stood down after that stupid Brexit idea and its disaster?" Anyway, if they're confused about who the current PM is, we've now  got a good idea who will be leading the Tories after the 4th July?I find it ironic that BBC R4 is running a feature about Orwell and Kafka this weekend but I'm sure it was planned before Sunak decided 

Michael Ixer ● 381d

The concept of inequality of wealth and income is not hard to understand. But how is it to be achieved? Wealth can only be redistributed by imposing a wealth tax, most likely in the form of a property tax or by increasing the level of inheritance tax or both. I don’t think either of these measures would be popular with the British public. A property tax, in particular, would unfairly penalise asset rich but income poor people e.g. a pensioner living in a valuable house. Equality of income can only be achieved by a general salary cap or, more plausibly, by a penal rate of income tax. This, however, would  disincentivise investment and reduce the tax take.None of this in any case is relevant to private health care. While it is true that only comparatively wealthy people can afford private health insurance (unless they are lucky enough to have a job offering such insurance as a perk), they  don’t go private because they are rich. They go private because they want to be treated as soon as possible, choosing their own doctor or having a comfortable room in hospital being secondary considerations. Everyone agrees that prompt treatment should be available to every one. But how is this to be achieved? People on the left of the political spectrum think the answer lies in ever greater investment in the NHS. Unfortunately, as Wes Streeting among others has recognised, this is simply not possible. A situation in which an ever greater proportion of the budget is consumed by health spending is not sustainable.  At some point the NHS will have to be reformed. This will probably involve a combination of affordable private insurance as well as public finance.

Steven Rose ● 382d

Yes it is laughable to expect the public to have some idea what the PAID opposition stands for after being in opposition for years!

Ed Robinson ● 382d

Steven, I never said that private health care should be banned - in fact I said in a subsequent postthat would be impracticable in a democracy - my post was implying that if wealth was more evenly distributed private health care would become less desirable with a properly funded health system from a more equitable National Insurance system. You just don't understand the fairer distribution of wealth. There's a mantra that inheritance tax is inequitable, but why? It's interesting that Bill Gates is giving his most of his wealth away to charities on the basis that having been provided with a good education his children should make their own way ...

Michael Ixer ● 382d

Hi IvonneNo I am not a politician. I am a teacher.The issue of a sick relative is no fantasy. In the TV debate the presenter Julie Etchingham asked Keir Starmer whether he would pay for private treatment for a sick relative who was unable to get treatment on the NHS and he said no. The clear implication of his remark is that he would rather let his relative suffer than commit the sin of going private. His answer was  dishonest, a lie in fact, but the leader of the Labour Party could not be seen to countenance paying for private health care.In his post this morning  Michael said to me, ‘you obviously don’t believe in levelling up as you think that those with more money should be able to perpetuate the privilege it gives them whether it’s health or education’. The implication of his remark is that people should not be allowed to enjoy the privilege of private health care or private education. How can that be achieved without a ban? Michael also said that National Insurance should be increased so that ‘we could have a better health service and people wouldn’t need private health insurance’. In other words private care would become redundant. So you see that I was not inventing things. I was simply reacting to Michael’s post.A belief that the NHS does an essential job and should be supported  is perfectly  acceptable. But this belief becomes quasi religious when any proposal to reform the NHS is seen as sacrilegious and private health care is regarded as morally wrong.

Steven Rose ● 382d

That's an interesting point, Jane. I think I'd agree the medical treatment in the NHS, once one gets to the front of the queue, is usually excellent and for life saving operations is the safer option because of all the NHS support services; if operations in private hospitals go wrong patients are usually rushed to the NHS for emergency treatment if they're still alive (I know people that's happened to).I carefully chose the word "service" (rather than treatment) as private medicine often allows one to select a surgeon and is far more flexible about scheduling the date of an operation - with the NHS my experience is one accepts the date offered or has to wait significantly longer for the next available slot; the "hotel" services are better: private room with better visitors' facilities, on demand refreshments, doctors offering to return when visitors have finished and left, etc.

Michael Ixer ● 382d

, as well as getting better service than the NHS providesI think this is a myth. I personally know people who had disastrous experience in a private hospital and landed up in the NHS. The problem with the NHS is the difficulty of access- long waiting lists etc. It’s one thing going private for. as you say non life threatening conditions, but if you are dangerously ill private hospitals don’t want to know.  Many don’t have 24 hour doctors in the building.

Jane Carter ● 382d

Mr Hawkes. Yes I understand about the GP arrangements. I was referring to hospital waiting lists. I think what Labour are proposing is an extention of existing arrangements where the NHS pays for patients to have operations in private medical facilities - no specific Putney connection, it would presumably be a national policy? For example, a few years ago my cousin - who worked for the NHS at the time - had her back operation at a Harley Street clinic arranged and paid for by the NHS; this was in a way to the NHS's advantage as she was back to work after a few weeks rather than being on sick leave for possibly a year or more on an NHS waiting list. (That's the reason many companies pay for employees' health insurance, they get to jump the waiting list so it reduces lost productivity.)People have different views on this: I have several friends who feel the NHS waiting lists are in part deliberate to force them to spend their savings on operations, saving the NHS money, because - although their problems haven't been life threatening - they have been debilitating and stopped them leading a normal life; others who can afford health insurance feel that, as well as getting better service than the NHS provides, they are also saving scarce public health resources even though they've already contributed to those.In a democracy it's not realistic to curtail private health or education - even if one were to try and ban it there's nothing to stop one going abroad for it; I believe it's not uncommon for rich Chinese to send their children to private schools in the UK (I'm not sure if that's still common now).

Michael Ixer ● 382d

Good afternoon Steven,Are you a politician at heart by any chance?While I agree with some things you say, I am baffled as to your idea that somebody has said that private hospitals and private schools should be banned.  Where did this come from?Who said you (or anybody else) could not use private medicine?  Who said it is either or?Well, of course, on the whole, private hospitals do not have A&E departments.  Also, if there is a serious case, they transfer patients to the NHS.  Do you remember the House of Cards and how sickened Mrs Urquhart was that her husband, the Prime Minister, was treated at an NHS hospital as opposed to a private one?Yes, I do believe in the NHS, meaning conviction in its true purpose and worth.  Nothing to do with religion..... I equally believe in honesty and fair play. None of these relate to religious beliefs.You fantasize that Keir Starmer would rather a member of his family suffered unnecessariy than pay for private treatment....  ?????????????????  That is not what he said. Perhaps it is just because you are talking about Keir Starmer?Who said they would make private provision redundant?  Are you feeling OK?As far as I am aware, there was a reorganization of the NHS a few decades ago.  This resulted in a higher number of administrative posts, some of which have a very high pay associated to them that takes a very big chunk of the funds allocated to the NHS.  In addition, there has been an enormous increase of red tape in the NHS.  Something similar to the red tape that exists at the moment for exports from and imports to the UK - mainly as a result of Brexit.All in all, for those of us who love the NHS, we are not religious freaks.  Neither would we dream of stopping anybody from having private health insurance and using it.

Ivonne Holliday ● 382d

@Jonathan. Labour officials are meeting Trade Unions bosses today to agree the manifesto according to the Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/06/rachel-reeves-under-pressure-from-shadow-ministers-to-raise-capital-gains-tax-to-revive-public-servicesThe article also states the Labour Manifesto will be a slim document whilst behind the scenes work is ongoing on “kitchen sinking” the Autumn budget with tax rises.Tax and spend again………

Robert Wheeler ● 382d

Mr Ixer'Labour has proposed using private health facilities to shorten waiting lists'.What are these private health facilities as much private health care is delivered in NHS facilities by NHS staff ?Is there such a facility in Putney ?One thing we often forget.Most GPs think of themselves as being part of the NHS, but officially they are classed as independent contractors. This status dates back to the beginning of the NHS.That's why they can decide whether or not to open at the weekend or on Bank Holidays.

John Hawkes ● 382d

Mr RoseSpot on !The core of Labour economic policy no longer seems to be the provision of good essential social services, funded by taxation but within an environment of freedom and economic choice but instead has descended again into 'the politics of envy'."I can't afford it, why should you be able to" ?And yes also their treating the NHS as a quasi-religious organisation with its staff as saints and perhaps the only group of workers making great sacrifices on our behalf.I am benefiting from major treatment within the NHS and always find the medical staff friendly, attentive, considerate and highly competent; for all of which I am very grateful.But that does not mean the organisation as a business concern is perfect nor that the staff have not made a free choice of career that is a secure and relatively well paid one.My beef is with the Labour Party (yes I know Nye Bevan helped set it up) using the NHS as a political stick to beat the Conservatives."You have not funded it adequately; you are going to privatise it by selling it to the Americans; you never use it; you don't appreciate what the staff do and did during the Covid pandemic; you don't pay the staff enough which is why we support the junior doctors strikes; only we love it and will pay whatever it wants".Well let's see how things improve when they and Wes Streeting are running the show.I for one expect miracles at least figuratively !

John Hawkes ● 382d

My understanding of 'levelling up' is a commitment to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from prosperity. It is not a commitment to ensure that people with money should not be able to spend it as they see fit, whether to pay for private medical treatment or private education for their children. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour are proposing to ban private hospitals or private schools. Indeed Keir Starmer has said that the independent sector remains an important element of educational provision in this country while Wes Streeting has promised that Labour, if elected, will use private hospitals to reduce NHS waiting lists.I think everyone understands the importance of state provision in health, education and transport. It is the word 'believe', as in 'I believe in the NHS', that I find puzzling. It introduces a quasi religious element into public policy where the state is equated with good and private enterprise with evil. I can understand that people are happy to use the NHS. I use it myself. What I don't understand is a refusal to countenance private treatment on moral grounds if the NHS is unable to provide suitable treatment. That is like someone refusing to order an Uber if  he happens to miss the last bus for fear of undermining the principle of public transport. The absurd thing is that Keir Starmer would almost certainly not be ashamed to buy a nice car given his generous salary, but (apparently) he would rather a member of his family suffered unnecessarily than pay for private treatment. This perverse ideology in my opinion is a result of the vacuum at the heart of the modern Labour Party in which a belief in socialism has been replaced by an obsession with attacking privilege, in this case represented by private hospitals, but also in the spiteful plan to tax private schools out of existence.The idea that a health service free at the point of delivery can be financed out of general taxation in such as way to make private provision redundant is utopian. Because people are living longer and treatments are becoming more expensive, the NHS is taking up an ever increasing share of the budget. This trend is unsustainable, a fact recognised by both the Conservatives and Labour, but so far neither party has had the courage to deal with the problem for fear of losing votes.

Steven Rose ● 382d

Mr Ixer'You obviously don't believe in levelling up as you think those with more money should be able to perpetuated the privilege that it gives them whether it's health or  education'More money will always give privilege regarding any thing that is offered for sale.The question surely is, is it right and by what means and to what extent should you reduce this privilege by 'taking away' people's money gainfully and legally earned or restricting how they spend it. I may be wrong but is it not possible that you are more privileged in this context than are many others ?How much more are you willing to 'give away' to benefit others ?As regards health and education surely the key is are the services offered free to all at the moment good and as good as they can be within the constraints of what people are willing to pay for them by taxation. I would suggest they are, which is why rather than condemn the morals of those who partake of their right to pay for what is actually available to them 'for free', I just scratch my head and ponder over their common sense.

John Hawkes ● 382d

Mr Pike'It will be interesting at what ££ level they pitch 'well off' or privileged. Presumably will be in excess of £70k to avoid upsetting the train unions, for one'.The Labour Party has stated that they will not raise income tax, national insurance, or VAT if elected. Instead, they plan to make the tax system fairer by ending tax breaks for private schools, closing loopholes for wealthy individuals, and implementing a windfall tax on energy giants’ profits. Additionally, they promise not to increase corporation tax, capping it at 25% to maintain competitiveness'.Are you suggesting they are planning a wealth tax ?

John Hawkes ● 382d

Mr Pike'mick lynch at the cabinet table'.Only if the trains are running on the days he wishes to travel there !

John Hawkes ● 382d

Mr Ixer'if Sir Kier said he paid for private health I insurance how many people - perhaps you, Sue, and Mr Rose, Mr Hawkes, etc - would accuse him on being a hypocrite'?I would were he to use it to gain advantage for 'routine' treatment whilst for political point scoring implicitly or explicitly criticising or condemning others for doing so.But of course we know he is not such a hypocrite !I would not criticise him were he to avail himself of what he can well afford in order to save the life or improve the wellbeing of a loved one or friend.But I would call him a heartless, lying hypocrite for saying or implying he would let a relative suffer or die before he would use a private health service. Nor would I condemn anyone spending their own money on their health care under any circumstances.That is an example of freedom.Finally, we talk of 'private health care' as if it is a service totally separate from the NHS.When I googled my NHS consultant at Kings what was most prominent was his reference to the private services he offers !Similarly a friend who was an NHS orthopaedic surgeon used to deliver a private service outside of his contracted hours using NHS facilities.If Labour wants to do away with private health care, then deny it access to the staff and facilities of the NHS.

John Hawkes ● 382d

I have to say Jobathan I am impressed that many of you are so sure that the Labour party has changed. Out of power it had to, but in power I have  genuine fear it will slip back to it's old ways and the bigger the majority the more likely that is to happen. In my opinion.One of the Tories problems was that with such a majority in 2019 it empowered all the factions to hold them to the fire until they eventually set themselves alight.Out of the 2 main party leaders win or lose I doubt either of them will be leader in 18 months and an empowered labour party with the mighty Ange in position will, I fear, veer very quickly back to the left.It will be interesting at what ££ level they pitch 'well off' or privileged. Presumably will be in excess of £70k to avoid upsetting the train unions, for one.Again only my opinion which may earn a rebuttal of  degenerate, or some other charming label.but I hope the debate over the next 4 weeks will be better than name calling.

Andy Pike ● 382d

You obviously don't believe in levelling up as you think those with more money should be able to perpetuated the privilege that it gives them whether it's health or  education. Yes, I probably should have said some people believe in the principles of the NHS and that private medicine diverts resources from it. Labour has proposed using private health facilities to shorten waiting lists. That, though, maintains the NHS principles as for that patient it is still free at the point of treatment and not dependent on their ability to pay.  Actually, isn't that social democracy?In a way we all have health insurance; isn't that what National Insurance was intended to be. Perhaps rather than being abolished it should be increased for those that can afford it? Then we could have a better health service and people wouldn't need private health insurance. (Yes, ok, I'm still working on the principles of porcine aviation.)I don't see taxi versus tube as a levelling up issue; with the traffic congestion and lack of parking - and my Freedom pass - in London, it's tube or train every time!

Michael Ixer ● 382d

Mick Lynch’s Union is not a member of the Labour Party. Your comment reminds me of Mike Yarwood’s ancient crack about Harold Wilson “When Jack Jones asked me to form the next government… “.  Union power in the 1960s was very different to their power and influence today. Irrational fear of them still lingers, it seems.

Jonathan Callaway ● 383d

I suggest that you wait to see the manifesto before making dubious attempts at criticising it.BTW, your idea to 'take a break' to honour the D-Day commemorations didn't last very long....

Richard Carter ● 383d

Awaiting Mr Carter to post the Guardian article about the 12 tax increases that Rachel Reeves proposes.On the manifesto apparantly its 30 pages short with little detail but lots of headlines. Will be published next week after the Unions approve it.A sign of things to come, mick lynch at the cabinet table.??

Andy Pike ● 383d

To say that you would never  take out private insurance because you believe in the NHS makes about as much sense to me as saying you would never hire a private tutor for your child because you believe in state education or you would never take a taxi because you believe in the Tube. The NHS is not a religion in which one believes. It's a service which needs reform or it will be overwhelmed, as all sensible analysts, including Wes Streeting, recognise. It is not undermined by private health care. On the contrary, private hospitals can help to reduce NHS waiting lists, which is Labour's policy.

Steven Rose ● 383d

I know people who could afford health insurance but don't buy it because they believe in the NHS, that'st heir choice. I wonder,  if Sir Kier said he paid for private health I insurance how many people - perhaps you, Sue, and Mr Rose, Mr Hawkes, etc - would accuse him on being a hypocrite?Of course, when I was working, at times my employers paid for health insurance, although over time the cover - in both scope and costs covered - were reduced as health costs increased. The organisation of the NHS may need to be changed but if tax and NI aren't increased it will be paid for either in expensive private insurance or reduction of available care. 

Michael Ixer ● 383d

Of course Starmer can afford private health insurance! Blatant virtual signalling!🙄

Sue Hammond ● 383d

'Conservative groupies.' Richard, that's crass and just as pathetic as Clifford Cowell's use of 'fangirl'🙄

Sue Hammond ● 383d

Hi Ivonne. You are quite right. Only a minority at present can afford private health insurance. But Keir Starmer certainly can afford it. He could probably afford to pay for quite a lot of treatment without insurance. But in answer to a question from the presenter he said he would never use private health care, not even if a member of his family with a serious condition was languishing on an interminable NHS waiting list. His statement was obviously untrue. No sane person would sacrifice a member of his family in such circumstances if he had the money to  relieve that person’s suffering. So why make such a disingenuous statement? The  answer is that the Labour Left, on whose support Starmer depends, regard private health care and private education as  bastions of ‘privilege’ and therefore morally wrong. In  this perverse ideology it is acceptable to book an expensive holiday or buy a nice car but not to pay for private medical treatment or send your children to a private school. Yet paradoxically Keir Starmer has said that he regards the independent school sector as  an important part of educational provision in this country, while Wes Streeting  has said that Labour will use private hospitals to reduce the NHS waiting list.  How does that make sense?I think everyone agrees that the NHS is important.  But the threat to the NHS is not from a right wing government who want to sell it to the Americans, as some on the Left believe. The threat comes from the inadequacy of the current model.  With people living longer and treatments becoming more expensive, the NHS is taking an ever increasing share of the budget. This is simply  unsustainable. The only solution, surely, is to fund health care through a combination of affordable private insurance in addition to general taxation .

Steven Rose ● 383d

I am sorry, Steven Rose, but that response is ludicrous.How many people do you know, or know of (meaning shop assistants, trades people, rubbish collectors to name a few) who can pay £500 to £1000 a month for private insurance?Today, of all days, with D-Day celebrations and considering the reasons as to why Nye Bevan created the NHS, the ludicrous talk of people affording private health insurance is inappropriate.I am a true believer in the NHS, am certain that the saying that great things created by the grand-parents, maintained by the children but destroyed by the grand children truly applies.I survived meningitis thanks to the NHS - there was no private hospital then, as there is not one today - who could have helped me.  The NHS saved me.I will fight for the NHS tooth and nail.  The preposterous idea that only the wealthy deserve medical care is - well, sickening!  Because even they cannot be helped by private medicine.Unless we pull our socks up and defend the NHS, there really is no reason to continue pretending celebrating D-Day - because at the moment, nothing seems to be working properly - let us not forget the great performance of the water companies and the sewage being spilt on rivers and seas - with the blessing of Parliament.We should all, regardless of political inclination, be  ashamed of ourselves, but above all consider very seriously what sort of country we wish to live in.From my point of view, education, health and countryside are being wilfully destroyed - shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

Ivonne Holliday ● 383d

Going private without insurance can be prohibitively expensive, but an insurance policy for a family of four costs, I think,  anything from £500 to £1000 per month, depending on the age of the parents. Given that Keir Starmer's salary is almost £150k pa, I think he could afford the premium. His refusal to countenance private treatment even in desperate circumstances is hard to  comprehend when his own party's policy is to use private hospitals to reduce waiting lists. His response seems borne of a wish not to offend the Labour Left, for whom private medicine like private schools represent privilege.

Steven Rose ● 383d

Well,it's an interesting question and one that some find easier to answer than others. There are a number number of factors that might determine if one would go private. Basic factors are cost of operation, one's wealth, does one have health insurance, again partly dependent on one's wealth, what's covered and what the excess amount is or uncovered items. The cost of a basic, routine private operation not requiring a hospital stay such as a single cataract removal is upwards of £2,000 according to the internet; anything needing a hospital stay is likely in the tens of thousands, and life saving operations will likely be more expensive; Mr Google says the average cost of keyhole heart surgery in London is from £35,000 - I'm uncertain if that includes the hotel service charges gor the hospital stay.I guess it's easy for Mr Sunak with his family's wealth to say yes to the question (I don't see it's relevant in this case whether the wealth is his, his wife's or even his father-in-law's); many would just have to say no - that amount of money is unimaginable - while some would say yes but that's holidays gone for the rest of our lives. I'm not quite clear what Sir Kier's wealth is and to what extent it would be accessible so it might be realistic for him to say no, and I doubt he has health insurance.

Michael Ixer ● 383d

Since truthfulness is an issue in this thread, can Keir Starmer be believed when he says that he would not pay for private treatment for members of his family even if they were languishing with a serious condition on an interminable NHS waiting list? There are two possibilities here. One is that he is telling the truth, in which case he is mad, putting a questionable principle (since Labour plans to use the private sector to reduce waiting lists) ahead of the health of his family. I don’t think see Keir Starmer as mad. The other possibility is that he is lying. The reason for the lie is that, belief in socialism having all but disappeared, for many zealots on the Left the NHS  has become a religion,  in which going private is the ultimate sin. These zealots include activists who might refuse to go leafleting for Starmer if he had given an honest answer to the question.

Steven Rose ● 383d

Mr KettlekeyWhatever Sunak did or did not say or imply about the source of the data relating to the extra £2000 tax he said we would pay under Labour is irrelevant as the Conservatives are not going to be in Government after the election.What is far, far more relevant is the commitment given by Starmer - "That means no tax rises for working people. And I'll spell it out now. No income tax, no national insurance, no VAT." Good news !"Trebles all round then" !

John Hawkes ● 383d

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6ppnw1k6nyo is quite clear on it.The Conservatives took some individual items that had been costed by the civil-service/Treasury and added a load of their own estimations for other policies (that had not been costed by the civil-service/Treasury) and then Sunak claimed it had all been produced/costed by the Treasury despite the top civil servant at the Treasury saying not to do so.

John Kettlekey ● 383d

The Permanent Secretary says in his letter that civil servants were not involved in producing the Conservatives' document.Indeed to have done so would have been a breach of the rules. But the letter does not specifically  deny that civil servants carried out (at the government's request) costings of various pledges made by Labour on which the Conservatives based their claim. There is no evidence that Rishi Sunak lied. The only question is whether his figure for the tax implications of Labour's pledges is correct. Labour have not published a rebuttal.

Steven Rose ● 383d

Whatever the case we can be sure if one thing whoever is in Government after 5 July taxes will rise.

Lucille Grant ● 383d

Zunak says his figures were OKed by Treasury civil servants, James Bowler, perm sec at the Treasury,  says that's not true.There, in a short sentence  is the lie. What's not to understand?

Richard Carter ● 383d

No sure what you mean.

John Kettlekey ● 383d

Ms Holliday'the rudeness on this thread and Forum is childish, unpalatable and reprehensible'.I quite agree.I hope Mr Carter takes note.

John Hawkes ● 383d

Mr Kettlekey'Conservative groupies'Oh how you are so easily taken in !

John Hawkes ● 383d

In response to John Kettlekey’s post, Rishi Sunak’s figure was not based on a guess at what will be in Labour’s manifesto but on pledges Labour have already made (such as employing 6000 extra teachers). Treasury officials were asked to cost some of these commitments (though they probably did so unwillingly). The methodology used by the Conservative did not lump all these commitments into one year. They were costed at £38 billion over four years, resulting in a tax increase of £2000 per family over that period. The idea that Labour have occupied the moral high ground is rather laughable. They have neither explained their own spending plans nor costed the Conservatives’ plans. They have simply called Rishi Sunak a liar without providing any evidence. Pejorative language does not contribute to a meaningful political debate,  either on this Forum or nationally.

Steven Rose ● 383d

Why not say epicaricacy?The polls tend to get their predictions very wrong indeed. Perhaps on July 5th you will rejoice, or will it be epicaricacy?Whichever way, the rudeness on this thread and Forum is childish, unpalatable and reprehensible.

Ivonne Holliday ● 383d

> Thank you, Yvonne, for introducing some realism against these increasingly desperate and fankly laughable posts by Conservative groupies.July 5th is going to be lovely day for Schadenfreude.

John Kettlekey ● 383d

It's a lot more polite than the term I'd like to use.

John Kettlekey ● 384d

Mr Hawkes.  Mr Google shows many instances of Labour party shadow cabinet members stating things like this https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-28/no-additional-tax-rises-under-labour-government-says-rachel-reevesOf course, neither Conservative or Labour parties have published manifestos yet.

Michael Ixer ● 384d

Mr Carter'Conservative groupies'.Chatbox again ?!

John Hawkes ● 384d

Mr RobinsonThis is the Starmer you are looking for !https://www.spiked-online.com/video/the-dizzying-dishonesty-of-keir-starmer/

John Hawkes ● 384d

Mr Ixer'Labour havestated they have no planned tax increases'Good news.Where can I read this statement ?

John Hawkes ● 384d

Mr Carter'dishonest, sources like Conservative mouthpieces'.Are you using ChatBox to put a pejorative adjective before every use of the word 'Conservative' !

John Hawkes ● 384d

Mr Rose'I think we should be told'.I'm sure Mr Carter will tell us !

John Hawkes ● 384d

You're missing the point, again.Labour are saying the figure is garbage for three reasons:* The lie about the source of the figures* The methodology for coming up with a single figure (it lumps many progressive changes into year 1's deficit)and, most importantly:* it's based on the Conservatives guess at what will be in the Labour manifestoAlmost certainly the average household will end up paying more tax under Labour. Exactly how much isn't known yet. But the average household will end up paying more tax under whichever Government gets in since the country simply can't go in running a huge deficit like it is currently doing. If the Tories get back in (ha!) they'll have no choice but to raise taxes too.The bit we'll wait and see is how much the costed figures come out as once the manifestos are published, and the conjecture right now is that the Conversative's plans will mean a larger increase in tax per family than Labour's.I'm glad Starmer didn't respond with his own jibe about what it could be like under the Tories as it's sometimes nice to see a politician not stooping to that level. The proper costed/checked figures will come out in the course of time.

John Kettlekey ● 384d

Mr CarterI don't see myself particularly as a defender of Sunak on this issue.His claim to me is just part and parcel of the knockabout of pre-election politics.Been going on for years.Remember "the pound in your pocket" ?But your idol Starmer is no paragon of honesty and consistency as this link will prove to you.https://www.spiked-online.com/video/the-dizzying-dishonesty-of-keir-starmer/And when you read your own posts do you not feel that you come across as just a tad self-righteous ?Like Starmer in fact !

John Hawkes ● 384d

Mr CowellNice !'degenerates of like mind to the current tory party'.So, to you anyone who supports the Conservative Party is a degenerate -'an immoral or corrupt person'.Where has happened to Jeremy Corbyn's call for an end to "personal abuse" in his first speech to the Labour Party Conference as leader.'My Corbyn urged delegates to "treat people with respect" and said there would be "no rudeness from me"."Cut out the personal abuse, cut out the cyber-bullying and especially the misogynistic abuse online and let's get on with bringing real values back into politics", he said'.

John Hawkes ● 384d

Thank you, Yvonne, for introducing some realism against these increasingly desperate and fankly laughable posts by Conservative groupies.

Richard Carter ● 384d

On a quick skim I didn't see any toolmakers mentioned in there.

Michael Ixer ● 384d

Alternatively, we wait till they publish their manifestos.No politician is whiter than white - either in their intentions or in their attacks to others.

Ivonne Holliday ● 384d

It's no use saying that Labour have no plan to increase tax. Labour have made various pledges like providing 6000 extra teachers and so on. These commitments have to be paid for. Rishi Sunak asked Treasury officials to cost some of them. The Conservatives concluded that the total comes to £38 billion over 4 years, which divided by the number of households comes to  £2000. This means, they say, a tax increase of £2000 for every family. Keir Starmer called this figure garbage. There is an easy way to prove Sunak wrong, if he is wrong, and that is to provide Labour's version of the cost of these commitments and show how the money will be raised to pay for them. Until Labour do so, accusations that Sunak is a liar, will be regarded as bluster and prevarication.

Steven Rose ● 384d

"Do you have a problem with toolmakers? "I do have a problem with those that conspire against journalists.As should anyone that values democracy.https://www.yahoo.com/news/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html

Ed Robinson ● 384d

So?It does raise an interesting point; people I know who have used private medicine have done it to escape queues for debilitating ailments - joint replacements, cataracts, trapped nerves, etc; those with serious life threatening illnesse - cancer, heart disease, strokes, brain bleeds - have been treated by the NHS, usually expeditiously. The only exception to that I can think of is an expat person who didn't qualify for NHS treatment and came to the UK for private medical treatment superior to that in an EU country.And if an organisation has a policy to shred documents that what happens to them. Doesn't the organisation you work for have a policy on document retention to complywiththe GDPR? And follow it?Do you have a problem with toolmakers? 

Michael Ixer ● 384d

"Sir Kier"Sorry is this my dad was a tool maker?Or I would not not go private to save a love one?Or I was public prosecutor but they shredded my files when I was locking up journalists?

Ed Robinson ● 384d

My understanding was that Sir Kier called the number was garbage as Labour havestated they have no planned tax increases. Sunak lied about the implied verification of this fictitious number by the civil service. 

Michael Ixer ● 384d

The confusion has deliberately been created by Labour and their supporters in the media. Labour prefer to conceal the true extent of their spending by concentrating on the issue of whether or not the figure of £ 2000 per family was signed off by the Treasury. When Keir Starmer during the debate said that Rishi Sunak’s figure was ‘garbage’, he wasn’t referring to the source, he was referring to the number. What is the correct number? If Labour don’t know, they are in no position to call it a lie. If they do know, they are prevaricating.

Steven Rose ● 384d

According to Sky News Gordon Brown did the same as Sunak.https://twitter.com/i/status/1798429621869818367

Ed Robinson ● 384d

On reflection, I think two separate but linked things are being conflated here. Firstly (partly through confusion and partly, where Conservative mouthpieces are concerned, quite deliberately): the claim that Labour's plans would cost families £2,000 Secondly, there is the further claim that this was figure was worked out by impartial civil servants.The first claim is dubious but can be regarded as typical election knockabout stuff, but it's the second that is genuinely a lie and which I want to concentrate on. (I  can see that the confusion is to caused to some extent by the heading I chose for the thread).

Richard Carter ● 384d

I totally agree, Richard!Neither party has published its manifesto, so it is all hearsay and very little substance to that!

Ivonne Holliday ● 384d

If Labour are prepared to call Rishi Sunak’s figure a lie, presumably they know what the correct figure is. Why not tell us? The fact that they haven’t done so suggests either that they have not bothered to do the calculation, or they have done the calculation but are trying to conceal the true facts with a  tactic of prevarication and bluster.

Steven Rose ● 384d

Rather than relying on dubious, not to say dishonest, sources like Conservative mouthpieces, why not wait for the Labour manifesto. I doubt whether anyone here (including myself) has much of a clue what details it will contain..

Richard Carter ● 384d

Rishi Sunak’s claim that a Labour victory would mean a tax rise of £2000 for every family is based on the on a calculation on Labour’s additional spending commitments over four years, which amount to £38 billion. When this figure is divided  by the number of households, the answer comes out at £2000. Some of the individual costings were made by Treasury officials, some by the Conservative Party. Labour has described the figure of £2000 as a lie but has provided no evidence to show that the overall total of £38 billion is wrong. If it is wrong, what is the right total? I think we should be told.

Steven Rose ● 384d

OK, thanks for the explanation - but I'd have put it more succinctly as: He should have known better!But I don't agree that Starmer's view on the NHS matters to others: as I said, it's purely his personal view and he's not saying others should follow suit.

Richard Carter ● 384d

There will be more tax under both parties - possibly a bit less under the Conservatives especially for pensioners.Both are likely to follow USA protectionist policies which will mean expensive electric cars and solar panels plus other goods. Great British Energy was brought up. Labours £8.3 billion over the next term is £1.66bn per year - a lot less when allowing for construction inflation. Way too small for serious infrastructure Investment.Unlikely to have any impact on bills during the next term.

Ed Robinson ● 384d

Thanks Ivonne. Glad I didn't waste my time watching!

Lucille Grant ● 384d

Sorry Richard l was trying to highlight the fact that as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor of the Exchequer before Sunak became PM he has a strong handle on public finances. Jeremy Hunt stated the cost of Labours spending plans on 15th May.  I’m not here to defend Sunak l was amazed how Starmer was not over the finances.Starmers view on the NHS matters greatly to all of us waiting operations so his personal view does matter as it will impact policy.  Previously on multiple occasions he has promoted the use of private health care to reduce waiting lists.  Or was his current answer to appease the unions.

Robert Wheeler ● 384d

And I wonder how Sunak's defenders here are able to square this affair with his promises on entering Downing Street as Prime Minister of a government of "integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level."

Richard Carter ● 384d

Sorry, but what do you mean about arguing with an accountant who was in charge of the Treasury? Also, these figures have been around for some time? This is the first time I've  heard the £2,000 claim.And I can't see that Starmer's statement that he wouldn't pay for private care in any way conflicts with Streeting's strategy, because it's clearly a statement of personal principle.

Richard Carter ● 384d

@ Clifford - you are missing the point.  These figures have been around for some time and Starmer had no answer because Labour are determined to look backwards not  forwards and are frightened of being judged on the cost of their plans.  If he knew the answer why didn’t he give it - he was asked enough times and had plenty of opportunity.

Robert Wheeler ● 384d

Steven, you are quite wrong - a detailed analysis was presented by the BBC today showing with absolute clarity the lie uttered many times by Sunak - with the Nasty Party we have had a Judged dissembler in Boris Johnson, and inept short-lived PM who crashed the economy, and now another PM who has an issue with honesty - the sooner they go the better as far as I am concerned, but I doubt whether any degenerates of like mind to the current tory party would agree with me, although I daresay there are some who have a sense of decency about them.

Clifford Cowell ● 384d

Labour's obsession with 'privilege' makes it impossible for their leader to say he would use private health care for a member of his family, though he could clearly afford to do so. In Australia, which Wes Streeting visited to look at their system, wealthy people are expected to take out private insurance in order not to be a burden on the taxpayer.

Steven Rose ● 384d

Good luck trying to argue with an accountant who was in charge of the Treasury.  Starmer’s problem is these figures have been around from Hunt for some time and Starmer simply doesn’t have an answer and not across the numbers.  We will not be anble to afford his type of costs without massive tax hikes.  Additionally Starmer’s answer about not paying for private health care if a family member needed it goes against Wes Streeting’s recent strategy.  Starmer has a personal wealth of c.£7-10 million (Prolific London) and he could easily afford to help his relatives.Trouble is yesterday’s debate showed how staunch a socialist Starmer is.  We have all moved on.

Robert Wheeler ● 384d

Hello Lucille and Richard,I watched about 45 minutes of the programme and had to turn it off.  It was really demoralizing if not worse from my point of view.  It was attacking each other as opposed to extolling the virtues of their future policies....There again, neither party has published its manifesto which I believe the due date is 7 June 2024......

Ivonne Holliday ● 384d

The spectator  that well read publication 😁😁🤣

Andy Pike ● 384d

And when that notorious leftie rag The Spectator applied a similar method to the Tories own plans it said it will result in a £3000 hike in taxes per working household.https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/on-sunaks-maths-tories-will-lift-taxes-by-3000-per-household/Oops.

John Kettlekey ● 384d

The Treasury obviously did not sign off a costing of Labour's spending commitments, because to do so would be a breach of the rules on the impartiality of the Civil Service. But I have no doubt that Treasury officials were asked to supply a costing of elements of  Labour's programme (as supplied by the government) and came up with some figures. These figures were then aggregated by the Conservatives who came up with the total of £2000. The important issue is whether the costing is correct. As far as I am aware, Labour have not published a detailed rebuttal of Sunak's claim, nor indeed any details of their spending pledges.

Steven Rose ● 384d

You didn't miss much, Lucille, it wasn't an edifying hour or so.Starmer's response to the lie was quite muted, he merely described it as absolute garbage and that the Tories had put pretend Labour policies to produce a fantasy figure. Some commentators thought he should have gone all out in attack on this, but as against that, a lawyer told James O'Brien that it was a common court tactic to let the witness repeat a lie, and then pounce on it later. I honestly don't know which was right on this.

Richard Carter ● 384d

Discussion on this subject on BBC lunchtime news. I didn't watch last night's debate - what was Starmer's response to Sunak on this point? I understand the lie was repeated a number of times, Richard.

Lucille Grant ● 384d