Mailwatch(ed) Forum

A quick skim of social media seems to suggest the nasty routine has backfired - people just saw Sunak as rude.

It certainly doesn’t seem like many will think he ‘won’, and even less likely a performance like that will shift the needle.

It's ok, ITN have got Sunak's back. If only we had a functional regulator such blatant bias wouldn't be allowed..

https://x.com/LastBlairite/status/1806034704987996202

Didn't watch, get the impression he's like a football team who are losing badly, and have decided to kick the opposition to impress their most boneheaded fans.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 9:59 pm It's ok, ITN have got Sunak's back. If only we had a functional regulator such blatant bias wouldn't be allowed..

https://x.com/LastBlairite/status/1806034704987996202

Bangladesh is a safe country. Doesn't seem to be particularly outlandish to suggest that illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers be sent back there.

Twitter claims the Tories have (again) re-badged as a fact-checking service.

https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1806052104332513428

Couple of interesting, and credible takes :

1. Sunak approached this debate in desperation as the insurgent, with nothing to lose - and it showed. Starmer was calm and rational, and altogether came over as if he were already the Prime Minister.

2. Sunak’s approach (”Don’t surrender our [*] to Labour”) was at least partially aimed at former Tory voters considering voting for Reform UK. and hopefully mitigating the extent of the impending wipeout.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 9:39 pm Really, Sunak tonight simply confirmed what a disgusting, mendacious, unprincipled, despicable, and corrupt little cunt he is. He was like a cornered rat.

He truly is something you’d scrape off the bottom of your shoe

The best thing about Sunak is still bobbing about in his private lake.

I watched last nights debate and here are my thoughts.

Sunak knew he had to start landing blows and had to from the off, hence the very aggressive approach he took. He is not good in these situations and he comes across as tetchy and easily irritated.

In the first debate Starmer had been slow to call out Sunak’s lies. Not this time. Much more on the front foot calling out Sunak on multiple occasions.

The key for me was the short end of debate statement. Sunak was negative, vote for me because Starmer will tax your life away. Starmer in comparison left the audience in part with a more positive message about voting Labour.

Has it shifted the dial at all? I very much doubt it.

I’m hoping for there is a God.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 8:55 pm Sunak vs Starmer final TV debate : Sunak seemingly betting the farm on Project Fear, coupled with lies about him cutting taxes like a pissed up sailor.

His new catch phrase seems to be “Do not surrender your [insert lie here] to the Labour Party.”

I wonder whether he's borrowed a new campaign manager from TUV / DUP.

You know when the subject of immigration was being talked about, and Sunak sneeringly said to Starmer “ Oh, so with asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you’re going to do deals with Assad, the Ayatollahs, and the Taliban, are you ? “

Starmer could have done better in response. What happens when someone applies for asylum in the UK, whether they’ve fled Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else, is that their application is assessed and evaluated, and if it is found that they have a well-founded fear of persecution, imprisonment, or death in their country of origin, which obviously in the case of somewhere like Afghanistan is quite likely, then they are not sent back to their country of origin. They cannot be. They are granted asylum/leave to remain, can get work (probably doing work that is badly needed), pay UK taxes, and make a home in the UK. If their asylum claim is assessed and rejected, then yes, they can be sent back, but no agreement with the fucking Taliban is required. That process is the one that under the Tories has been allowed to ossify and build up into a massive backlog of cases not being dealt with under 14 years of the Tories. That process is the one that Labour will get back operating properly again, and address the backlog, without sending any poor sods to fucking Rwanda. I’m sure Keir could have expressed this more pithily, but he didn’t manage it. It would have been good to hear him nullify the applause that Sunak got for his smart-arse line.

"In 2021, we promised brave Afghans, who had risked everything to support us in the west against the Taleban, that we would protect them and offer them a new life in the UK. This government failed them. It left them on the tarmac at Kabul airport, while the then-foreign secretary was too busy sunbathing to care.

I will not 'do deals' with dictators or fanatics. But I will deal fairly with anyone seeking freedom from them, and the chance to build a new life, and maybe, to return to their homelands when they are free again.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:41 pm You know when the subject of immigration was being talked about, and Sunak sneeringly said to Starmer “ Oh, so with asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, you’re going to do deals with Assad, the Ayatollahs, and the Taliban, are you ? “

Starmer could have done better in response. What happens when someone applies for asylum in the UK, whether they’ve fled Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else, is that their application is assessed and evaluated, and if it is found that they have a well-founded fear of persecution, imprisonment, or death in their country of origin, which obviously in the case of somewhere like Afghanistan is quite likely, then they are not sent back to their country of origin. They cannot be. They are granted asylum/leave to remain, can get work (probably doing work that is badly needed), pay UK taxes, and make a home in the UK. If their asylum claim is assessed and rejected, then yes, they can be sent back, but no agreement with the fucking Taliban is required. That process is the one that under the Tories has been allowed to ossify and build up into a massive backlog of cases not being dealt with under 14 years of the Tories. That process is the one that Labour will get back operating properly again, and address the backlog, without sending any poor sods to fucking Rwanda. I’m sure Keir could have expressed this more pithily, but he didn’t manage it. It would have been good to hear him nullify the applause that Sunak got for his smart-arse line.

Unfortunately whenever Starmer tried to give a reasoned answer he was shouted down by the increasingly hysterical Sunak, and Husein let it happen.

Theyb really needed a mike cutoff.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 1:59 pm Theyb really needed a mike cutoff.

Wouldn't have worked on it's own, they were too close and Sunak's shouting would have been picked up on Starmer's mic. They would either need to place them much further apart...or ball gag Sunak.

Why don't you stick a string of onions round her neck.

Cunts

I'm sure I read somewhere today that Jeremy Hunt had donated £32,000 to his local party to try and ensure that he clings onto his seat in the election. This seems rather odd because it is hard to see where his political career goes after next Thursday. When the Tories lose he has no chance of being the next party leader and if the new leader is a right wing head banger he is unlikely to get the gig as shadow chancellor.

May be he just wants the tax payer to continue to subsidise his London accommodation so tat he can make a killing in the city when he is a back bench opposition MP.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:56 pm Why don't you stick a string of onions round her neck.

What is this? "Don't threaten me with a good time"?

It’s ads like that that convince me the Tories are throwing this deliberately. Is keeping people in shitty zero hours contracts *really* a big vote winner?

Isn’t Super Mario Italian?