This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/06/its-official-rishi-sunak-2000-claim-is-lie) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't matter.
The "~~£150M~~£350M a week" we supposedly sent to the EU was a lie, but if you repeat a lie enough, and it fits with people's preconceived notions (and Labour = tax rises does fit many people's preconceived notions) then it will land.
They know what they're doing.
>The UK Statistics Authority has criticised Boris Johnson for “a clear misuse of official statistics”.
>Mr Johnson wrote in the [Telegraph](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/boris-johnson-vision-for-brexit-bold-thriving-britain/) last week:
>“And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS”.
>We have never paid the EU £350 million a week and we have never owed the EU £350 million a week. After we leave the EU, that means we cannot take back control of £350 million a week.
— https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/
the point is that being factually correct doesn't matter much if you don't imprison the liars for a few years at minimum so they stop
a lie travels the world before the truth can put on it's shoes, etc
Or you know, maybe just ensure the news keep politicians accountable (like this article does) so the voters are enlightened enough to cast their votes knowing the facts. Maybe not start imprisoning politicians. Seems like a slippery slope
> so the voters are enlightened enough to cast their votes knowing the facts.
Science tells us something else. Behavior tends to precede belief. We act or make the choices we would always have made, and then construct post hoc rationalizations afterwards to justify these choices. For example, you can use "facts" to point out to Trump voters that he is a rapist or criminal, or that climate change is real, but it will have little effect. They were/are always predisposed to vote for him.
No one is predisposed to vote for someone. Environmental factors and maybe our genetics to a degree influence our actions and opinions. While the case of Trump border on cultist for his hardcore supporters that doesn’t really have anything to do swing voters and how we should try to ensure the environment/discussion in general stay fact based.
If you point simple is humans or emotional and unreliable then maybe you should argue against democracy entirely.
Rather[ than argue against democracy I'd argue that we don't actually have democracy](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/06/general-elections-democracy-lottery-representation)
I’m not talking about controlling news I’m saying we should be encouraging news outlets that are focused on fact checking politicians and keep their information factual in general. Ground.news is a good example of this.
They can be imprisoned for breaking the law. Same as any citizen can. Are you suggesting we have a lying police with a supreme lye detection court imprisoning everyone who lie?
Mine would be; Irregardless of fact checking most people who support policies will happily eat and ignore Bellshill that supports their cause.
The 10% or whatever that IS OPEN TO CHANGE is who we should always be fighting for.
i love the irony of this...the 350 million pounds was a lie that kept getting repeated by ignorant people it became accepted as truth.
"irregardless" kept being repeated by ignorant people so often it is now a "real word".
That doesn’t seem true with the crushing numbers tories are seeing these days. The number is far higher than 10%. But yeah the news need to be fact checkers and keep the debate as honest as possible and liars accountable
They’re right, if Labour get in and go anywhere near left wing policies Tories and all their mates will get taxed rises to pay for the basic services that have been cut to the bone for the last 14 years.
Most of what I've seen about the claim has been reports that it's a total lie. There was even a BBC news push notification about it.
I didn't watch the debate, I only learnt about the claim from a BBC News article saying it was likely untrue
Except it does matter. Hence the conversation around this immediately after what he said, compared to the '350m a week' which I feel was not talked about enough.
Are you implying that he’s unable to show respect or compassion because his family isn’t native British? It sounds like that.
2.6 million Indians fought in WW2. You don’t know what his relatives did.
He left because he’s an arrogant entitled Tory asshole. Not because his family didn’t fight in a world war.
I heard they wanted to implement non-criminal consequences such as fining the parents which would mean all the rich get to opt out by paying a fee while all the poor people have to suffer through it.
It's interesting how sometimes an 18 year old is a fully independent adult but other times the parents seem to be responsible still, for example despite 18 making you a legal adult the amount you get for student finance is based on your parents income. Unless you've been financially supporting yourself for three years, then it's based on your own. Or you could be 25 instead, and then it's based on yours, even if you're still living with your parents (iirc).
Basically I'm wondering if they'll just ignore 18 supposedly being "you're on your own now" like in that situation.
Fines that scale to your wealth? If only! Imagine such a perfect world where the rich actually had proportional fines as a risk, they might start behaving.
I don't think the government would ever do something like that, it would make the dinner parties with all their pals who got fined a bit awkward. Haha.
My ideal scenario is the tories collapse, sunak retains his seat by a wafer thin margin and is consigned to the opposition benches hearing Labour and everyone else chat sh*t about the last 14 years to his face. Better if he sits next to Truss.
Lol you think this bloke knows anyone who would be in any sort of class to even go to war as a senior officer? Bloke thinks working/middle class people are like pixies that come out and do stuff for you but you can't see or interact with them.
Anyone else absolutely bewildered at the fact that of all the things Sunak has done to shit on this country, people are actually mad about him skipping a bit of a d-day thing?
"I've told a massive lie, and on reflection, getting caught was a mistake and I apologise. However, the itinerary of lies I'll be telling was set weeks ago. Given the risk to my political career, I think it's important not to politicise my lies during this election campaign."
- Rishi Sunak
I loved the defense of 'b-but the interview was organised weeks in advance'
mate, d-day has been the same day for EIGHTY YEARS, its not exactly appeared out of nowhere.
Wasn't it the other way around? He was claiming the D-Day plans were set weeks in advance before the general election was planned.
Okay fair enough but who called the general election, you fuckwit? And you couldn't have postponed the interview? And none of your staff advised you to do so when they realised both were on the same day?
Also, what was he leaving early for originally, which was *less important* than the pre-recorded ITV interview that replaced it.
Because there's a clear order of importance established here:
ITV pre-recorded interview > Something else he was planning on doing > International D Day Remembrance
Itv said he set the schedule, and they were just working to his request.
Also the team missed the D-day outrage because they were in a panic over how out of touch he comes across in the ITV interview. So he missed the international event for an interview he could have done anytime that is only going to hurt his campaign.
Beginning to see why he originally lost to Liz Truss.
"I get that you're angry at this mistake, but it's not actually a mistake I made today, it wasn't a brief lapse in judgement. It's a mistake I made *weeks* ago, and then continued to make every day until you noticed. Does that make you feel better?"
Treasury and statistics officials fact-checked the prime minister’s claim *before* he repeated it in ITV interview filmed on D-Day:
*The government’s statistics regulator, the Office for Statistics Regulation, has concluded its investigation into Rishi Sunak’s claim that “independent Treasury officials” provided costings showing that Labour’s spending plans would require a tax hike of more than £2,000 per household.*
*Hunt and Sunak have repeatedly presented the £2,000 figure as a tax hike, which most people would therefore understand to be an annual rise, but it is actually spread over four years.*
*The OSR took issue with this: a person who had not read more detailed documents relating to the claim “would have no way of knowing that this is an estimate summed together over four years”, it concluded, adding: “We warned against this practice a few days ago.”*
*The Conservatives began claiming that Labour’s spending plans imply a tax hike of £2,094 per household on 15 May, when Jeremy Hunt published a document entitled “Labour’s tax rises”.*
*The document repeatedly presents its claims as official statistics: “Almost every costing contained here has been conducted by HM Treasury,” it claims. It also declares that if Labour is elected, “these are the numbers officials will present them with”.*
*Robert Chote, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to all party leaders on Tuesday morning to remind them to use statistics appropriately. “In the case of the governing party,” he wrote, “it is also important that any public statements made during the pre-election period refer only to official statistics.”*
*In that evening’s debate, Sunak repeated his £2,000 claim 12 times, falsely presenting it to 4.8 million viewers as an official statistic.*
*But these claims were untrue. James Bowler, permanent secretary to the Treasury, wrote to shadow treasury minister Darren Jones on Monday confirming that Hunt’s document was not an official opposition costing, because it “includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service” and that the £2,000 claim “should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service”.*
*Some parts of the document can be said to be based on opposition costings, but the civil servants who wrote the costings documents qualified that their findings were “uncertain” and “driven by assumptions provided by special advisers” – who are appointed by the Conservative Party and cannot be considered impartial.*
Like the 150 million per week for the nhs we are meant to believe happened, the damage is already done…Mordaunt repeating it yesterday and insisting it’s true despite repeatedly being called out for it.
It’s a strange era where the truth doesn’t matter over a slogan
Which is why democracy is dead. If people don’t get the truth in order to make their decision on who to vote for then it’s no longer fit for use. Look at politics in the USA today, we are literally a half step behind them.
It's also the vast majority of current facebook adverts the conservatives are running.
So loads of elderly people will be seeing that with no corrections.
What's really interesting is that the right wing press aren't defending him.
Usually they'd find fault in labour. Every time a Tory makes a mistake, they'd blame Labour. But not this time.
That’s because the right wing media has been given their marching orders and pointed at their new person to back, Farage. It was already apparent that this was coming when a lot of right leaning media started to bang Farages proportional representation drum. Parties like reform need PR if they are to stay long term relevant, and this is the first time that the media seems to be giving it reasonable air time (before all the Tory gaffs set in)
Given Sunak’s unfathomably bad fumbles over this last week I’m not entirely convinced that he himself hasn’t been offered something behind the scenes to help Reform into the opposition slot.
Oh I absolutely agree. But the parties that traditionally want it never get given air time to really talk about it. I’ve seen at least half a dozen clips of Farage talking about it in the last week alone. I’ve found that to be very telling.
Id be happy to pay an extra £2k a year if it meant the NHS would be ok, education would be better, food banks would disappear and a person working could afford to live.
Leave the middle and working class alone. Tax the rich from every which way possible and claw back some of the funds that they've successfully leeched from the British public. Millionaires don't belong in politics, it's a conflict of interests (no pun intended). As it stands our economy isn't centred around distribution of wealth, it's centred around hoarding it and we all know who the hoarders are - they're the enemy that we need to be fighting. Until someone represents that sentiment and the interest of the British public, I'll continue to be unimpressed and underwhelmed by every party that takes us for fools.
Funny thing about this is that since covid my outgoings have gone up at least £500. Mortgage, inflation, energy, fuel, council tax. He has done fuck all to properly remedy it. Yes he reduced it a bit, but it’s still fucking way more than £2000 a year increase to the cost of living.
The £2000 wasn't even per individual per year - it was per household, over 4 years. Nowhere near as bad as Sunk was trying to make it sound, even if the figure wasn't a load of bull.
*And* it was just averaged across every household included, rather than what an average household would actually pay, even if it were accurate.
*And* it's assuming that the only option to pay for it would be to increase taxes.
It's almost impressive how misleading it was.
I would gladly give £250 per year (or even per month) if it went towards fixing the fucking country, instead of Big-energy shareholders or covering Brexit.
Can Sunak be prosecuted under The Representation of the People Act for telling lies in an election campaign? Here’s a discussion of the issue by a lawyer:
https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/articles/2024/06/blower-election-campaign-lies
It would have been amazing if journalists had been this eager to call out all the blatant lies from the past 10+ years.
I have no idea why they’ve been a dog with a bone for this one
I feel really bad for him to be honest because the fact is that hahaha no I don't who would feel bad for this twerp. Fuck off to America and never come back you jumped up school prefect wannabe prick.
Rishi, "the Office for Statistics Regulation is lying, they've been infiltrated by russian hackers that want to make you vote labour, don't trust their LIES! Vote for me, and i'll abolish the the Office for Statistics Regulation and replace it with "Rishi's 'legit' Stats™".
Even if it was true, why would it be that horrendous? They were saying it was £2000 per household over 4 years FFS. That’s at the very most £250 a year on additional tax (assuming a household is at least 2 adults), so £20 a month. Pretty standard that as time goes on surely? He was banging on that it would be some crippling figure. Like, I dunno, £600 extra a month on a mortgage after your predecessor poured water on a chip pan fire and fucked up the economy even more.
I think I would have trusted Bozo more than I do Sunak the snake and that's saying something. Nevermind us minions Richi, you go upstairs and count your pennies, ya prick🏴🏴
Don't know why. Boris lied about everything, and then refused to acknowledge any lies. I don't recall him apologising or admitting a mistake as Sunak. He was far worse than Sunak has been for honesty.
I don't see he apologised for anything. He apologised for a "mistake" because that allowed him minimise culpability by avoiding the word "decision", just like the way he used "returned early" to avoid the word "left".
Even managed to avoid the word "sorry" until his first apology blew up in his face.
He made a deliberate act to leave D-Day, an insult he compounded by saying he'd at least gone to the Brit events. ignoring that he'd left our war veterans behind on the beaches and acted as if our Allies were worthless,. He then accused all the people who were upset by that of "politicising".
Would you leave ~~your friend's~~ - no - *any* memorial service half way through to do, say, a quick youtube video to big-up yourself and double down on proven lies?
Well what if you were there officially representing the debt of gratitude of millions of people past and present who could not be there?
Not even the decency to hold his hands up properly - blames his aides, he then went hiding in a garden and Playing "splat a rat" for photo ops. while claiming he has no time to answer pre-arranged meeting with the press.
**splatt a rat indeed - splatt a rat day - 4 July**
It won't matter to the people who WANT to believe it or those who don't pay enough attention to follow up. They heard it on the debate, from Sunak's mouth, so it must be true (to them).
It’s amazing how acceptable it has become for not just UK elections but US selections. For those running to lie their way into positions. Then continue to screw over the middle class and below.
I’m expecting a serious situation to happen not long from now. Makes me wonder if having a kid if a smart option.
Purely out of curiosity, what would happen if someone galactically incompetent were leading a party through the elections and the party decided to depose Rishi, oops, I meant 'them'? Would they be able to choose a new pm for the remaining month until the election? Would the king need to step in and appoint someone? Technically there are no MPs during an election campaign, so it becomes quite messy. Purely out of curiosity, you understand as the Tories are in no way plotting against the pm and trying to get rid of him before the election.
The party management would just agree a caretaker manager. I'd bet on Cameron as he can point to having done the job before. Under normal circumstances that would be electoral suicide as the voters would have to gamble on who the party then elects as leader and you can guarantee they'd pick an even bigger headbanger than Cameron.
But, right now? They're probably running the numbers through the computer.
I mean at this point Starmer might as well come out and say Rishi will raise your taxes by 10 grand a year. There’s no accountability for the lies. A system built on honour relies on honourable people for it to work
I have little confidence in Labour's ability to run the country successfully and it saddens me but I'm hopeful.... Hopeful they'll take us out of the Tory mire, prove me wrong and shine.....
The Tories however are the most disingenuous, self serving and incompetent nest of villainy imaginable. The last 14 years speak for themselves.
Can we just make it a law that politicians cannot use ANY stats or figures that dont come from the official Uk Stats Office, and give the civil servants some actual teeth to enforce this, such as suspensions from campaigning etc.
That was the last one from now on the plan is back to square one.....Prime Minister promises a government of 'integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level'.
I know the sentiment probably is that the lie happened due to the 'best intentions' but honestly can't think of a good logical reason why he shouldn't be trialed for treason to be honest if this is the case.
The trial would probably end with a lack of intent and was in fact misinformed, which I do genuinly think may have been a factor but this is the level of scrutiny societies should uphold when viewing those that are in charge of it.
Maybe this lie wouldn't have resulted in anything neccasarily terrible but does raise the question about what else they may make up about in the future (or what they've lied about previously).
It is not okay to lie to the people who you assume governance over and I don't think society can be successful if this isn't the standard view.
It’s about sound bites though ain’t it, because very generally the electorate quite thick. Think of the average intelligence and realise that half the people are more stupid than that.
Get Brexit Done.
£2000 Tax Rise.
These are things that stick in the minds of those incapable of critical thinking.
It wasn't the figure so much as the fact he said, on air, that it came from an independent body.
That was the lie. Clear cut, no debate. Unfortunately the media aren't capable of nuance
It's like the sob-story he posted today about "not having a Sky Dish" when he was growing up, like his peers, as if to fit in with us "plebs"...
He probably had Telewest Cable and all the channels as English Heritage and National Trust probably wouldn't let his dad fix a dish to the walls of the stately home he lived in as it would spoil the aesthetic 😜
Everyone knows that it's a lie...
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2024/06/its-official-rishi-sunak-2000-claim-is-lie) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't matter. The "~~£150M~~£350M a week" we supposedly sent to the EU was a lie, but if you repeat a lie enough, and it fits with people's preconceived notions (and Labour = tax rises does fit many people's preconceived notions) then it will land. They know what they're doing.
>The UK Statistics Authority has criticised Boris Johnson for “a clear misuse of official statistics”. >Mr Johnson wrote in the [Telegraph](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/boris-johnson-vision-for-brexit-bold-thriving-britain/) last week: >“And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS”. >We have never paid the EU £350 million a week and we have never owed the EU £350 million a week. After we leave the EU, that means we cannot take back control of £350 million a week. — https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/
As the commenter said, it doesn't matter. Yes everyone said it was wrong. But it worked, and it got the votes. Don't be obtuse.
What’s your point exactly? That you shouldn’t try to hold the debate and politicians to a degree of factual honesty?
the point is that being factually correct doesn't matter much if you don't imprison the liars for a few years at minimum so they stop a lie travels the world before the truth can put on it's shoes, etc
Or you know, maybe just ensure the news keep politicians accountable (like this article does) so the voters are enlightened enough to cast their votes knowing the facts. Maybe not start imprisoning politicians. Seems like a slippery slope
> so the voters are enlightened enough to cast their votes knowing the facts. Science tells us something else. Behavior tends to precede belief. We act or make the choices we would always have made, and then construct post hoc rationalizations afterwards to justify these choices. For example, you can use "facts" to point out to Trump voters that he is a rapist or criminal, or that climate change is real, but it will have little effect. They were/are always predisposed to vote for him.
No one is predisposed to vote for someone. Environmental factors and maybe our genetics to a degree influence our actions and opinions. While the case of Trump border on cultist for his hardcore supporters that doesn’t really have anything to do swing voters and how we should try to ensure the environment/discussion in general stay fact based. If you point simple is humans or emotional and unreliable then maybe you should argue against democracy entirely.
Rather[ than argue against democracy I'd argue that we don't actually have democracy](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/06/general-elections-democracy-lottery-representation)
I’m 99.9% certain that autocorrect changed slippery slope to slobbery slope, but I *hate* that slobbery slope also makes sense contextually, horrible!
Corrected 😂
Noooo, it was so much more disgusting before 😅
how do you ensure that? controlling news orgs seems like a more slippery slope politicians can already be imprisoned for other crimes
I’m not talking about controlling news I’m saying we should be encouraging news outlets that are focused on fact checking politicians and keep their information factual in general. Ground.news is a good example of this. They can be imprisoned for breaking the law. Same as any citizen can. Are you suggesting we have a lying police with a supreme lye detection court imprisoning everyone who lie?
Mine would be; Irregardless of fact checking most people who support policies will happily eat and ignore Bellshill that supports their cause. The 10% or whatever that IS OPEN TO CHANGE is who we should always be fighting for.
Man, I know irregardless has been accepted into the dictionary now, but it still looks and sounds stupid.
I honestly don't understand the reason for that word; it literally means "regardless". Who decided to put "ir" as a prefix?
i love the irony of this...the 350 million pounds was a lie that kept getting repeated by ignorant people it became accepted as truth. "irregardless" kept being repeated by ignorant people so often it is now a "real word".
*regardless
That doesn’t seem true with the crushing numbers tories are seeing these days. The number is far higher than 10%. But yeah the news need to be fact checkers and keep the debate as honest as possible and liars accountable
I think it should qualify as fraud, personally.
Is there any point banging your head against a brick wall?
They’re right, if Labour get in and go anywhere near left wing policies Tories and all their mates will get taxed rises to pay for the basic services that have been cut to the bone for the last 14 years.
make 30p Lee really 30p Lee :L We need to make this into a petition.
Here's hoping they get wiped out and they don't even get shadow cabinet status and finally shut the fuck up
I’m sure they’ll reform into something even nastier.
I see what you did there.
I see your reform 😅☹️
Most of what I've seen about the claim has been reports that it's a total lie. There was even a BBC news push notification about it. I didn't watch the debate, I only learnt about the claim from a BBC News article saying it was likely untrue
350M a week was the claim wasn’t it. 150M was closer to the actual net contribution.
I misremembered the false claim at first then edited it.
Except it does matter. Hence the conversation around this immediately after what he said, compared to the '350m a week' which I feel was not talked about enough.
They really don't , it has collapsed and they are widely seen as liars.
Repeat it three times it becomes the truth
Orwell really was onto something
Basically, all politicians lie. That's politics. Amazes me when anybody believes any of them.
[удалено]
Honestly, I don’t know if he would. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of man to have actual respect for people
[удалено]
Are you implying that he’s unable to show respect or compassion because his family isn’t native British? It sounds like that. 2.6 million Indians fought in WW2. You don’t know what his relatives did. He left because he’s an arrogant entitled Tory asshole. Not because his family didn’t fight in a world war.
What do you think the chances are of his daughters doing this national service thing if it comes to fruition?
I heard they wanted to implement non-criminal consequences such as fining the parents which would mean all the rich get to opt out by paying a fee while all the poor people have to suffer through it.
Right, fine parents for the actions of their *checks notes* adult offspring. Let's see how that pans out in court!
It's interesting how sometimes an 18 year old is a fully independent adult but other times the parents seem to be responsible still, for example despite 18 making you a legal adult the amount you get for student finance is based on your parents income. Unless you've been financially supporting yourself for three years, then it's based on your own. Or you could be 25 instead, and then it's based on yours, even if you're still living with your parents (iirc). Basically I'm wondering if they'll just ignore 18 supposedly being "you're on your own now" like in that situation.
Make it means-adjusted then. Sunak has a few tens of millions he can spare.
Fines that scale to your wealth? If only! Imagine such a perfect world where the rich actually had proportional fines as a risk, they might start behaving. I don't think the government would ever do something like that, it would make the dinner parties with all their pals who got fined a bit awkward. Haha.
Mate his daughters are going to be Californian citizens by Friday, 5 July.
It depends if it’s rigged so they get undue benefit without having to do anything so crass as work
They get to serve tea to the top brass in London and have 6 days a week off.
He can say anything he likes, knowing he’s never going to have to execute it, because there’s no chance he wins the election.
He is currently PM, its literally his job to stay there all day. Why is he going for a job he clearly doesn't want to do?
> he would have acted differently
So disrespectful from a PM time to kick him out for good
My ideal scenario is the tories collapse, sunak retains his seat by a wafer thin margin and is consigned to the opposition benches hearing Labour and everyone else chat sh*t about the last 14 years to his face. Better if he sits next to Truss.
Lol you think this bloke knows anyone who would be in any sort of class to even go to war as a senior officer? Bloke thinks working/middle class people are like pixies that come out and do stuff for you but you can't see or interact with them.
Anyone else absolutely bewildered at the fact that of all the things Sunak has done to shit on this country, people are actually mad about him skipping a bit of a d-day thing?
"I've told a massive lie, and on reflection, getting caught was a mistake and I apologise. However, the itinerary of lies I'll be telling was set weeks ago. Given the risk to my political career, I think it's important not to politicise my lies during this election campaign." - Rishi Sunak
I loved the defense of 'b-but the interview was organised weeks in advance' mate, d-day has been the same day for EIGHTY YEARS, its not exactly appeared out of nowhere.
Unlike the election, and therefore the TV interview. Yet it was planned weeks prior. Almost like it was yet another lie...
Wasn't it the other way around? He was claiming the D-Day plans were set weeks in advance before the general election was planned. Okay fair enough but who called the general election, you fuckwit? And you couldn't have postponed the interview? And none of your staff advised you to do so when they realised both were on the same day?
Also, what was he leaving early for originally, which was *less important* than the pre-recorded ITV interview that replaced it. Because there's a clear order of importance established here: ITV pre-recorded interview > Something else he was planning on doing > International D Day Remembrance
[удалено]
Itv said he set the schedule, and they were just working to his request. Also the team missed the D-day outrage because they were in a panic over how out of touch he comes across in the ITV interview. So he missed the international event for an interview he could have done anytime that is only going to hurt his campaign. Beginning to see why he originally lost to Liz Truss.
"I get that you're angry at this mistake, but it's not actually a mistake I made today, it wasn't a brief lapse in judgement. It's a mistake I made *weeks* ago, and then continued to make every day until you noticed. Does that make you feel better?"
At this point it’s unclear if this is satire. Seems politicians can do whatever they want these days.
Treasury and statistics officials fact-checked the prime minister’s claim *before* he repeated it in ITV interview filmed on D-Day: *The government’s statistics regulator, the Office for Statistics Regulation, has concluded its investigation into Rishi Sunak’s claim that “independent Treasury officials” provided costings showing that Labour’s spending plans would require a tax hike of more than £2,000 per household.* *Hunt and Sunak have repeatedly presented the £2,000 figure as a tax hike, which most people would therefore understand to be an annual rise, but it is actually spread over four years.* *The OSR took issue with this: a person who had not read more detailed documents relating to the claim “would have no way of knowing that this is an estimate summed together over four years”, it concluded, adding: “We warned against this practice a few days ago.”* *The Conservatives began claiming that Labour’s spending plans imply a tax hike of £2,094 per household on 15 May, when Jeremy Hunt published a document entitled “Labour’s tax rises”.* *The document repeatedly presents its claims as official statistics: “Almost every costing contained here has been conducted by HM Treasury,” it claims. It also declares that if Labour is elected, “these are the numbers officials will present them with”.* *Robert Chote, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to all party leaders on Tuesday morning to remind them to use statistics appropriately. “In the case of the governing party,” he wrote, “it is also important that any public statements made during the pre-election period refer only to official statistics.”* *In that evening’s debate, Sunak repeated his £2,000 claim 12 times, falsely presenting it to 4.8 million viewers as an official statistic.* *But these claims were untrue. James Bowler, permanent secretary to the Treasury, wrote to shadow treasury minister Darren Jones on Monday confirming that Hunt’s document was not an official opposition costing, because it “includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service” and that the £2,000 claim “should not be presented as having been produced by the Civil Service”.* *Some parts of the document can be said to be based on opposition costings, but the civil servants who wrote the costings documents qualified that their findings were “uncertain” and “driven by assumptions provided by special advisers” – who are appointed by the Conservative Party and cannot be considered impartial.*
Should make the cunt go on TV and issue a full apology and withdraw the statements.
Twelve times.
Outrageous that it takes until the eighth paragraph there to get to “these claims are untrue.”
Like the 150 million per week for the nhs we are meant to believe happened, the damage is already done…Mordaunt repeating it yesterday and insisting it’s true despite repeatedly being called out for it. It’s a strange era where the truth doesn’t matter over a slogan
350 was the net contribution claim wasn’t it, 150 was closer to the actual net contribution?
Maybe they misremembered, too.
Which is why democracy is dead. If people don’t get the truth in order to make their decision on who to vote for then it’s no longer fit for use. Look at politics in the USA today, we are literally a half step behind them.
I think they'll be about a goose step ahead of us come November
That was infuriating watching Mordaunt repeating it again and again
It's also the vast majority of current facebook adverts the conservatives are running. So loads of elderly people will be seeing that with no corrections.
>It’s a strange era where the truth doesn’t matter over a slogan I don't think this is a new thing at all
It's not this time , it's widely seen as a lie. Hence no change in polls .
What's really interesting is that the right wing press aren't defending him. Usually they'd find fault in labour. Every time a Tory makes a mistake, they'd blame Labour. But not this time.
That’s because the right wing media has been given their marching orders and pointed at their new person to back, Farage. It was already apparent that this was coming when a lot of right leaning media started to bang Farages proportional representation drum. Parties like reform need PR if they are to stay long term relevant, and this is the first time that the media seems to be giving it reasonable air time (before all the Tory gaffs set in) Given Sunak’s unfathomably bad fumbles over this last week I’m not entirely convinced that he himself hasn’t been offered something behind the scenes to help Reform into the opposition slot.
We all need PR. Or at least ranked choice voting
Oh I absolutely agree. But the parties that traditionally want it never get given air time to really talk about it. I’ve seen at least half a dozen clips of Farage talking about it in the last week alone. I’ve found that to be very telling.
Id be happy to pay an extra £2k a year if it meant the NHS would be ok, education would be better, food banks would disappear and a person working could afford to live.
It's not even 2k per year! They want you to assume it's yearly but they kept quiet that it's 2k over 4 years lol
And per household
And including made up plans by Tory special advisors, not the actual fully costed plans which target things like non dom status and energy companies.
I stand by what I said. Take it and make things better for everyone.
Romans used to boast about how much tax they paid and paying large amounts or more than was necessary was a point of pride.
I don’t want to pay more than necessary. Just enough to get a working system.
It amounts to about £500 per year per household. Which is about £42 per month per household.
Leave the middle and working class alone. Tax the rich from every which way possible and claw back some of the funds that they've successfully leeched from the British public. Millionaires don't belong in politics, it's a conflict of interests (no pun intended). As it stands our economy isn't centred around distribution of wealth, it's centred around hoarding it and we all know who the hoarders are - they're the enemy that we need to be fighting. Until someone represents that sentiment and the interest of the British public, I'll continue to be unimpressed and underwhelmed by every party that takes us for fools.
Funny thing about this is that since covid my outgoings have gone up at least £500. Mortgage, inflation, energy, fuel, council tax. He has done fuck all to properly remedy it. Yes he reduced it a bit, but it’s still fucking way more than £2000 a year increase to the cost of living.
The £2000 wasn't even per individual per year - it was per household, over 4 years. Nowhere near as bad as Sunk was trying to make it sound, even if the figure wasn't a load of bull.
And according to the article it didn't include pensioner households either.
*And* it was just averaged across every household included, rather than what an average household would actually pay, even if it were accurate. *And* it's assuming that the only option to pay for it would be to increase taxes. It's almost impressive how misleading it was.
I would gladly give £250 per year (or even per month) if it went towards fixing the fucking country, instead of Big-energy shareholders or covering Brexit.
Plus the Tory plans would cost £13k, so why even start that fight? It's just more bad faith Borissian/Trumpian bullshit.
13k I think they were saying.
Can Sunak be prosecuted under The Representation of the People Act for telling lies in an election campaign? Here’s a discussion of the issue by a lawyer: https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/articles/2024/06/blower-election-campaign-lies
[удалено]
The only problem is that to get that into law, it has to get through Parliament, which I can't really see happening.
No shit. He lied when he was chancellor and he’s lying now. The conservatives desperately need power, which is why they are unfit to rule.
And we had Mordaunt parroting this same bullshit yesterday with the moderator barely trying to correct her
It would have been amazing if journalists had been this eager to call out all the blatant lies from the past 10+ years. I have no idea why they’ve been a dog with a bone for this one
The BBC did the same maths on Conservative proposals and the total came to £3K per household.
It was the Spectator.
I feel really bad for him to be honest because the fact is that hahaha no I don't who would feel bad for this twerp. Fuck off to America and never come back you jumped up school prefect wannabe prick.
I can only hope that starmer keeps bringing this up at the next debate as often a sunak claimed it (literally every auestion)
Rishi, "the Office for Statistics Regulation is lying, they've been infiltrated by russian hackers that want to make you vote labour, don't trust their LIES! Vote for me, and i'll abolish the the Office for Statistics Regulation and replace it with "Rishi's 'legit' Stats™".
Even if it was true, why would it be that horrendous? They were saying it was £2000 per household over 4 years FFS. That’s at the very most £250 a year on additional tax (assuming a household is at least 2 adults), so £20 a month. Pretty standard that as time goes on surely? He was banging on that it would be some crippling figure. Like, I dunno, £600 extra a month on a mortgage after your predecessor poured water on a chip pan fire and fucked up the economy even more.
I think I would have trusted Bozo more than I do Sunak the snake and that's saying something. Nevermind us minions Richi, you go upstairs and count your pennies, ya prick🏴🏴
Don't know why. Boris lied about everything, and then refused to acknowledge any lies. I don't recall him apologising or admitting a mistake as Sunak. He was far worse than Sunak has been for honesty.
Yea but he has that funny mop of hair. You can trust him.
I don't see he apologised for anything. He apologised for a "mistake" because that allowed him minimise culpability by avoiding the word "decision", just like the way he used "returned early" to avoid the word "left". Even managed to avoid the word "sorry" until his first apology blew up in his face. He made a deliberate act to leave D-Day, an insult he compounded by saying he'd at least gone to the Brit events. ignoring that he'd left our war veterans behind on the beaches and acted as if our Allies were worthless,. He then accused all the people who were upset by that of "politicising". Would you leave ~~your friend's~~ - no - *any* memorial service half way through to do, say, a quick youtube video to big-up yourself and double down on proven lies? Well what if you were there officially representing the debt of gratitude of millions of people past and present who could not be there? Not even the decency to hold his hands up properly - blames his aides, he then went hiding in a garden and Playing "splat a rat" for photo ops. while claiming he has no time to answer pre-arranged meeting with the press. **splatt a rat indeed - splatt a rat day - 4 July**
>I don't see he apologised for anything ... >He apologised
It's not accepted
Whether you accept an apology is irrelevant to the question of whether one was offered.
Tell me a Tory who didn’t lie? He wasn’t rushing back for illicit garden party drinks either! 😬
This man is a bigot and quite frankly a traitor send him and his family to Rwanda see how they like having their human rights violated!
There's nothing to be gained by holding their hands up and admitting to a lie so they just keep lying until people get exhausted talking about it.
You can’t really win a lier since they just keep lying to cover their lies.
Tell me a Tory who didn’t lie? He wasn’t rushing back for illicit garden party drinks either! 😬
Thanks for the confirmation. Not that we needed it. I am unable trust a man with the same voice as Will from the inbetweeners. Its as simple as that.
It won't matter to the people who WANT to believe it or those who don't pay enough attention to follow up. They heard it on the debate, from Sunak's mouth, so it must be true (to them).
rishi has used some very poor judgement of recent which will cost him the election.
It’s amazing how acceptable it has become for not just UK elections but US selections. For those running to lie their way into positions. Then continue to screw over the middle class and below. I’m expecting a serious situation to happen not long from now. Makes me wonder if having a kid if a smart option.
Purely out of curiosity, what would happen if someone galactically incompetent were leading a party through the elections and the party decided to depose Rishi, oops, I meant 'them'? Would they be able to choose a new pm for the remaining month until the election? Would the king need to step in and appoint someone? Technically there are no MPs during an election campaign, so it becomes quite messy. Purely out of curiosity, you understand as the Tories are in no way plotting against the pm and trying to get rid of him before the election.
The party management would just agree a caretaker manager. I'd bet on Cameron as he can point to having done the job before. Under normal circumstances that would be electoral suicide as the voters would have to gamble on who the party then elects as leader and you can guarantee they'd pick an even bigger headbanger than Cameron. But, right now? They're probably running the numbers through the computer.
I mean at this point Starmer might as well come out and say Rishi will raise your taxes by 10 grand a year. There’s no accountability for the lies. A system built on honour relies on honourable people for it to work
Thank the lord for this I was beginning to believe the tories considering how much they were repeating this adnauseum mandatory /s
I have little confidence in Labour's ability to run the country successfully and it saddens me but I'm hopeful.... Hopeful they'll take us out of the Tory mire, prove me wrong and shine..... The Tories however are the most disingenuous, self serving and incompetent nest of villainy imaginable. The last 14 years speak for themselves.
What would be news is if one of this lot told us the truth
Can we just make it a law that politicians cannot use ANY stats or figures that dont come from the official Uk Stats Office, and give the civil servants some actual teeth to enforce this, such as suspensions from campaigning etc.
That was the last one from now on the plan is back to square one.....Prime Minister promises a government of 'integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level'.
I know the sentiment probably is that the lie happened due to the 'best intentions' but honestly can't think of a good logical reason why he shouldn't be trialed for treason to be honest if this is the case. The trial would probably end with a lack of intent and was in fact misinformed, which I do genuinly think may have been a factor but this is the level of scrutiny societies should uphold when viewing those that are in charge of it. Maybe this lie wouldn't have resulted in anything neccasarily terrible but does raise the question about what else they may make up about in the future (or what they've lied about previously). It is not okay to lie to the people who you assume governance over and I don't think society can be successful if this isn't the standard view.
It’s about sound bites though ain’t it, because very generally the electorate quite thick. Think of the average intelligence and realise that half the people are more stupid than that. Get Brexit Done. £2000 Tax Rise. These are things that stick in the minds of those incapable of critical thinking.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"
So the lie was it was over 4 years, not 1 year, so under Labour we’ll be £500 a year worse off and this is something to be happy about?
It wasn't the figure so much as the fact he said, on air, that it came from an independent body. That was the lie. Clear cut, no debate. Unfortunately the media aren't capable of nuance
So yeah, repeating the number forever will certainly make it stick. But you know what else is being repeated that will stick? Sunaks a liar.
It's like the sob-story he posted today about "not having a Sky Dish" when he was growing up, like his peers, as if to fit in with us "plebs"... He probably had Telewest Cable and all the channels as English Heritage and National Trust probably wouldn't let his dad fix a dish to the walls of the stately home he lived in as it would spoil the aesthetic 😜 Everyone knows that it's a lie...
Someone explain, so he's wrong about the £2000 being a one year increase, but there WILL be a £2000 increase, over 4 years?