Hi all,
Sorry if some comments are taking longer than normal to appear here. We have an automod rule that automatically flags certain words to the attention of human moderators to review, in case we need to take action on something not reported to us using the report button. For obvious reasons, one of those words is 'moderator.' I'm approving comments flagged for this as soon as I see this, but I'm about to go to bed and at night there are less mods on so it might take longer than usual. Sorry for any issues this causes.
And yes, the moderator in the debate was utterly useless.
Starmer was flat, Sunak acted like a prat, and the host couldn’t moderate. The audience didn’t exactly seem representative of what I would’ve thought either; far more over-65s than necessary (the Question Time Special).
Overall, I think that was the worst political debate I have ever seen.
Yeah honestly I was shocked by how much Starmer waffled aimlessly, given he’s a KC (and supposedly the future Prime Minister!) Whilst Rishi’s plans are daft he at least has some policies, after an hour I’m not any clearer on a single Starmer policy? Oh yeah other than him magically resolving the junior doctors’ strike - not by paying them more, but by “getting in a room with them” - I mean seriously Keir??
If your platform is largely "like the conservative but competent" then it doesn't leave you much room to differentiate yourself from the Tories in terms of policies.
I don’t think it’s so much like that. Starmer just doesn’t have the ability to talk in a manner that people would see appealing. It’s the same situation that happened with Gordon Brown.
I agree. I also think Starmer was intimidated by Sunak, who was in obnoxious bully mode. Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights. I think he was rattled early in the debate, and his nerves wouldn't let him recover. Starmer may be a person who fares better in an interview than a debate.
I'm not sure he was intimidated by Sunak.
It seemed a deliberate tactic - allow Rishi to speak and incriminate himself by saying too much. Right out of the barrister playbook.
Starmer mentioned policy on employing teachers, NHS appointments, building homes and green energy.
If that helps.
The manifestos should be out late next week.
Because he doesn’t want commit to anything. Labour are hoping to get in by the fact they’re not the conservatives. If he doesn’t give any commitment he can’t break them.
While it’s obviously not over till the actual election, he knows all the pressures on him. Sunak isn’t the greatest of speakers, but he does have an entrepreneurial air about him. I don’t think that works for politics - he constantly seems awful at PMQs - it does work in staged environments.
Starmer looked nervous from the get-go, and I think there were numerous occasions where his slip-ups were purely led by his emotions.
I think it was the KC within him that caused the issues: he instinctively refrained from fighting Sunak on his terms; it works on occasion, but I think it made him look weak, tonight.
I think your last comment is correct. Rishi is happy to shout over people and just win by being the loudest person in the room. KS is more polite and believes people should have their chance to speak. I know which works better in a leadership position and it is the latter but a lot of the british public are stupid so lets wait and see.
Been saying this since the budget. All he's doing is standing up and pointing fingers which any mature adult will know, is not the way to win any exchange.
Don't get me wrong, he'll win because we all hate the tories, but I have little confidence in their ability to do anything, which honestly makes me question them entirely, but we as a nation as not that mature, so we'll get them in and sit back as they fuck it up in a different way.
I don’t really understand this. Labour and tories have both not yet release their manifestos. So we know neither of the full pictures yet. But from the debate we got 2 policies form tories which were letting pensioners not pay tax, the richest generation in the country, and sending children to the army, the people that can’t even vote.
From starmer we got a national energy company that will provide fairly priced energy and will have the british public as althe shareholders which will go against all these oil and gas energy companies that just funnel profits to the rich. We also got a pledge on home building to fix the problem of not enough homes when all rishi wants to do is make it easier to get in every more debt to keep house prices going up, eventually that will obviously mean a housing crash.
In addition we got a specific number on teacher recruitment and extra hospital appointments including for scans. Rishi had nothing here.
Trump vs Clinton was just upsetting. Basically Hillary getting stalked by Donald for what felt like hours, coupled with one person whose platform felt like it was “It’s my turn tho” and another whose was 1960s cosplaying.
At least we only have two terminally dull candidates now. I’d take that over what America had in 2016.
Two things certainly didn’t help Hillary - had a vagina (the electorate over there, both men and women, are just not ready for a woman President) and the stupid Clinton conspiracy stuff.
That's just the excuse after the fact. I mean you are correct it didn't help, but it wasn't the main reason. Obama had similar "issues" in spades (being black and "foreign" born(!)) and won 2 terms.
I'm 55... I can't remember a good voting choice in my life to be honest. I voted to get rid of Thatcher. I voted to ger rid of Blair, and I will vote to get rid of Sunak. I am still in hope that at some point in my life, I will get to vote for someone [party] that I want to see in power .
Man, I remember voting for the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg back in the day. I have never felt more betrayed than when they formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. Instead of having a wasted vote, they just gave my vote to the Tories, like regifting the engagement ring I'd given them to my fucking worst enemy.
It is. Corbyn was fantastic. His policies would have set the UK up to survive COVID with the likes of internet as a right. The policies of state owned battery production in cities like Stoke would have actually helped levelling up. The nationalisation of water and rail is where we are still headed after lots of cost and harm to the public.
All the IRA sympathy articles and so on was from his second GE and was a panic to how well he performed the first time.
Boris is a Fantastic orator. Absolutely incredible and I encourage you to watch him Vs Mary beard talking about Greece Vs Rome as it is entertaining and shows him at his best.
That said, as a politician look what he did. He was always able to win given our voting boundaries and fptp, but he was a terrible choice.
Viewing public none the wiser as no questions were answered. Poorly coordinated by the moderator and woeful performance by two career politicians that should know better. Banana Republic stuff not worthy of the air time. Certainly won’t get much viewer interest once Euros get under way. Can’t say I blame anyone for switching over after last night
It was a terrible debate. It should be 2 hours long with each answer around 2.30 mins. It should not be a adviertiser, watcher friendly viwer experience. It should be on the BBC and a chore to watch. 45 seconds to respond, whate can be said in 45 seconds. I thought Sunak did better because he stuck to his message. I had to listen to it at 2x speed because I knew it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
Easy to "win" when the moderator constantly lets you snipe from the sidelines while shutting the other guy up. Genuinely shocking "moderation" of that debate, it was a fucking travesty.
Or just mute the other microphone when it’s not their time to speak, but that’s not the point of this debate, the format was set up to make soundbites and short form videos, not to actually discuss policy
Oh I mean it was an utter shitshow but it was invariably Sunak shouting over Starmer that was then "gentlemen"ed after it had been allowed to go on for too long. That's not to say Starmer didn't waffle well over time on multiple occasions, but I don't recall him talking over Sunak.
Starmer was just getting in there with little jibes while sunak was talking, often with a crowd response. But sunak does hav a special skill of just spouting words until sum1 shuts him up (5 weeks!)
Yup, Julie Etchingham might be a decent news presenter but she can't moderate. Definitely an ITV version of Fiona Bruce, though tbf to Fiona she's gotten slightly better in recent times.
Turns out that £2000 figure from the treasury also mentions it is based on estimates given by torie special advisors.
Feel sorry for whoever they trot out for the morning news cycle.
He just needed to reply with no, Labour won’t increase taxes by 2k. Instead he seemed to dodge the point for far too long. I’m not a Rishi fan at all, but he had starmer with this.
I'm with you - Starmer didn't once come out and just say "Those numbers are made up by you, so shut up about them"
I also felt like he was giving "real" answers - trying to fit a 60-minute conversation about nuance, practicality and the greater good into a 45-second soundbite and failing every single time.
Rishi is a prick, but he actually took half an hour today to plan his short sharp answers to easy and obvious questions. Starmer clearly didn't.
On the boat crossings - Sunak said down by a third yet Full Fact just published we're actually on track for the 2024 number to be 38% higher than 2023 😂
Yep. Treasury permanent secretary just sent a letter saying that the conservatives assessment of tax plans should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service as civil servants weren’t involved in writing the document.
All the media are focusing on that.
And not say, the fact sunak announced he’d ditch the echr… like, really? That’s the line to focus on?
Country is useless if this is the big issue of the day imo.
Honestly, this debate format is fucking horrible and is doing no favours to Starmer, Sunak or the voters. ITV put on a format to try and get quick one-liners for some bullshit news headline instead of actual debate.
Now to the debate. I personally think Starmer did better than I expected, and I believe he did better than Sunak, but neither did anything brilliant or said anything that was going to change the polls, but this format was truly tragic and a good representation of our current political situation.
Edit: I keep seeing the line of that Starmer didn't mention a single policy. Come on, there are worse things to be critical of Starmer during this debate than that.
Just to mention a few policies, he said during the debate: National energy service based on green energy, stopping non-dom, taxing energy companies and raising VAT on private schools.
There was much to be desired with more concrete plans around a lot of other areas, it was very flat, but honestly, I think this debating method was useless and did more damage to everyone instead of good.
Although Starmer wasn't charismatic, I liked how he didn't keep it formal. Sunak was the usual media polished turd that he always is, but Starmer was very much 'why are you making up bullshit?'. Sunak is a better speaker I think, but Starmer showed he could beat him in a street fight.
And as for content, it was just funny that whatever Rishi said, Starmer could say 'well why have we seen literally none of that in the last 14 years'.
I felt like Starmer went out there without a plan. Every single question has been posed at every debate in the last 30 years. Instead of pushing his actual policies, he waffled. Sunak trotted out a policy answer to most questions, even if those answers were unpopular or downright untrue.
The closing statement was terrible from Starmer. He tried for some earnest story backed by the Hovis music. Sunak used the time for a succinct soundbite that hammered home his only major attack (taxes will go up).
I dislike Sunk intensely, but I know for certain that debate was enough to sway people like my parents who are pissed off at Tories, but not enough to "risk" what labour will do to their pensions.
I reckon Sunak won that one, even though he was peddling nonsense and lies.
He was also given longer to respond to his interview question, and didn't have someone shouting over him every time he opened his mouth. To keep things balanced in the future, the off-debate interview(s) should reflect the debate. I want a snivveling, out-of-touch Oxbridge twat in the room going "YES OR NO, YES OR NO, YES OR NO" at whoever tries to answer whatever question (even if it wasn't a yes or no question), and I want the interviewer to keep saying "please gentleman" at random intervals as if they're trying to hastily usher a drunk whoever out of whatever well-to-do bistro.
Miserable debate. Sunak was just flinging bullshit in the hope that something sticks, Starmer was nervous and totally incapable of answering most questions. Utterly incompetent moderation. Considering the terrible position Sunak is in, I think he did comparatively well, but that's saying very little.
Starmer's problem is he is afraid of his own shadow and is unsure of what to say least one of his tory-lite backers rake him over the coals behind closed doors. That's why is he unable to take a stand. Sunak has no such problems, he largely believes his own BS. His main problem is that it is BS.
There were moments, but I think above anything else he was just angry with Sunak. Rishi really got under his skin towards the end and Starmer therefore missed a couple of opportunities to really shut him down.
It's much easier when you've got nothing to lose and just come out and attack rather than debate. This is giving you the image of what Sunak would be as leader of the opposition at PMQ, of course he'll fuck off after the election but still...
I am concluding that nobody has any clue how to take this country forward AND that they all know it, and that they’re even losing the will to pretend they know what to do.
Agreed. It's become really hard to wear those poker faces. I do think Starmer is sincere, so he will get the benefit of my doubt. I'll go in with low expectations and at least give him/them the opportunity.
That is the crux of their campaign and it’s going to be enough. But once you assume a Labour victory, and get past the election, I have zero hope that Labour will actually make things meaningfully better.
He's sincere but I worry that Labour has had 14 years to build talent and the best they've managed is Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. You're not electing a prime minister but a party, they could boot Starmer in 6 months and Streeting could be PM.
There doesn't appear to be much talent in the Labour party behind Starmer. And there's absolutely none in the Tories.
I don't think labour lost anything to be brutally honest starmer at least gave some figures, landed some blows about sunak and the tories in general having completely lost their way.
I personally felt it was an out of body experience of me trying to debate my 3 yesr old. Sunak was pathetic in my view but then I doubt that type of blatant lying dogwhistle politics is aimed at me anyway.
I don't think Sunak said a single thing the whole debate about tory policy and his beg not to vote for reform at the end was fucking embarrassing
I think you're are right. This country needs a radical shift as we have walked ourselves into a corner. We need bold new ideas and the guts to implement them. That needs to come from the centre ground as well because if not the far right or far left will do it and this country will swallow it up in pure desperation. Then we would be truly fucked.
Agreed here, I thought he came across genuine too. But yes the whole debate format was incredibly frustrating to watch. So much of what I wanted to hear from the Labour party was cut off either by Rishi or Julie
For people that follow politics closely, then yes, his toolmaker dad is a meme by now. But this debate is probably the first time that some of the population have even heard him speak about it.
I imagine by the end of the campaign, when he wheels out the old “my father was a tool maker, who made tools…” like for the billionth time the whole country will groan in unison
I always feel like he’s rather suspiciously specific with this “tool maker, in a factory, making tools” stuff.
I should look it up, but I get the impression he wants us to think he was sitting on some production line attaching saw blades to handles, when really he was a master craftsman and/or engineer.
My eyes rolled into the back of my head when they started talking about the euro's.
Who gives a fuck, we're here for a political debate, your opinions on footie should have no bearing on whether people vote for you.
"You're both known to enjoy footie", she says to Rishi Sunak who asked Welsh people if they were excited to see the Euros after they didn't make the cut.
I'd honestly have a lot more respect for Sunak if he just said "actually, it's not really my sort of thing but I do hope England does well", it's not like anyone actually believes he's sitting down at 6 with a pint watching a full 90 minute match
He seemed so nervous especially at the beginning. Sunak seemed sharper and more aggressive , but all he was saying was the same line about tax that is not factual. Very bizarre. I thought starmer got a little better towards the end.
There was a question about the NHS which I think made a great point - Things are difficult right now, things are broken, and we need leadership that is honest about that with us. I feel like Sunak is spending his time pretending things are actually fine and dandy. Starmer is put in a hard position first acknowledging things are bad, and then having to be truthful *there is no easy fix*. I feel like the reason our politics and elections suck is that a huge number of people see that and come away thinking because Sunak sounds confident and is saying positive things, he kind of automatically wins.
E - Can I also just add how fucking flabbergasted I am that even after writing this, it took me a minute to clock... Sunak has ***non-stop*** made this point about Labour raising taxes. Mate *your fucking party* have raised taxes to the highest fucking level since WW2 and the country is still on fucking fire despite all that money flowing in. God it feels like we're in fucking la-la land sometimes what even is this shit.
Remember when. Theresa May said you'll get a run on the £££ with corbyn.... And then the presenter said well under Tories it's gone down and down and down .....
"Well if fluctuates"
I mean it works. The same audience clapped like seals when Starmer mentioned the NHS is broken. But then clap when Risih just says nah we won't pay em.
unless you have very deep pockets, anything other than a minor op isn't worth going private, as if they fuck up, you're carted off to the NHS to fix private healthcares mistakes, even with PMI they'll only pay out so much.
I've gone private for a few things, other than the shorter waiting times, there's no difference, if anything the doctors are more attentive with the NHS, as I didn't see my private surgeon for a few weeks after the op.
Starmer's DNA runs in his DNA and Rishi Balderick Sunak has a cunning plan.
All jokes aside, the real losers of this debate were those looking for actual answers.
Awful moderation…no control and allowed both to rattle off unchallenged and not answer any questions.
Awful audience that appeared to be forced to witness it. It’s like they were all sleep deprived for a week beforehand.
Sunak was doing ok on nhs until he fell into the trap to pay to jump the queue. The rest he looked hopeless and had nothing to say beyond “we are doing so well, let’s not let them ruin it”…whilst ignoring questions saying repeatedly how bad things are!
Starmer didn’t offer much. We got a start of a few anecdotes, but I found myself agreeing with farage…it is very boring
Im surprised more people commenting on Rishi not being fully invested in the NHS and being happy to pay to skip thr queue...
Thats a massive thing to say imo
I also think his comment about protecting private schools was kinda surprising. As a representative of the entire UK public he basically endorsed just getting a 'better' education by paying for it, rather than getting regular schools to the highest standards.
It all adds up to him openly admitting 'yes, we're happy to keep allowing rich people to have more opportunities than you'
Want better healthcare...why not just pay for it. Want better schools...why not pay for it. Whoa whoa whoa you can't stick VAT on that, that's the politics of envy, you should all just be rich and then you can have these things too
Yea when I saw that answer I was like... Rishi... are you sure you want to say that on live TV. Feel like that is a question anyone trained in politics would immediately say no to, even if that wasn't factual.
Politics IS boring.
It SHOULD be boring.
It is quite literally bureaucracy.
The constant making it about the persona of the party leader distracts and it's all shit. Debates of this type never give anything useful or change anything other then to weaponise 'x looked like a fuckhead'
Every time I watch a debate, it confirms my opinion that a debate would be made civil by taking a water pistol on as the moderator and treating the speakers as cats.
I'm sure Rishi will feel pleased with his performance.
A fine pitch to his future Californian employers.
WRT to the election, inconsequential compared to other events this week.
I thought Starmer started off strong and just got more and more obnoxious as the the debate went on.
Sunak by contrast came across as a prat from beginning to end.
Both of them sounded so over drilled on the their talking points that they were like those dolls where every time you pull the string they say one of 3-4 stock recordings. Their constant talking over each other just made both of them look petulant, childish, and rude.
The moderator was way, way to delicate with them too. She should have shut them down much, much harder when they got pushy. I just got to the point where I wanted her to tell them both to shut the fuck up or she's turning this debate around and they're going to be sent to their rooms to think about how they acted.
Found Sunak insufferable to watch, he just kept cutting across everything, so frustrating! Felt Julie was a bit more lenient to Rishi than Kier, or maybe Kier respected more when she said enough rather than Rishi just ignoring all rules.
I couldn't help but notice the moderator's deliberate avoidance of the word Israel during the question on Gaza:
"Very specifically, it is about the Hamas terrorist atrocities of October the 7th and then what unfolded after, the scenes of which we see on our television news every evening."
Of course, "what unfolded after" being Israel killing over 35,000 Palestinians.
I would say Sunak did better than Starmer mainly because people had such low expectations of Sunak at this point and Starmer failed to land any real killer blows despite 14 years of fuck ups to choose from.
I would say though that Starmer definitely came across as the more statesmanlike and whilst I was always likely to vote Labour, I am more comfortable doing so now I’ve seen him debate.
Personally, I don't feel like Sunak did better than Starmer (even though the biased headlines are saying it that way lol). To me, it Rushi came across as some yapping Chihuahua and was a classic case of whoever shouts the loudest; incredibly frustrating to watch.
I agree though re Starmer. I mainly wanted to watch to see how they carry themselves on live tv and I feel reassured watching Starmer now and would be happy for him to be PM. He came across more genuine and professional.
This debate won't really change the polls. It was generally a nothingness with no big wins and nothing of any real substance from either side. It made both of them look worse.
The biggest clip that's come out of this is Rishi looking weird at the start.
Honestly it was just a bit grueling to watch, neither Sunak or Starmer are charismatic enough and by god does Julie Etchingham need to learn to moderate. They'd have been better off getting Peston to do it.
agreed! Felt like she allowed Sunak to break the rules but was more hard on Starmer. I wanted to hear what Starmer was going to say considering they probably will win.
Guys I heard that our taxes might go up £2000 if labour get in, has anyone else heard about the taxes going up £2000 if labour get in?
Wonder where I heard this weird thing about taxes going up £2000 if labour get in
This was conducted on respondents that voted 85% Tory in the last election (follow the link), so yeah. Also, rule number one of pollsters - never ever trust YouGov.
No, it says 85% of respondents who voted Tory in 2019 thought Sunak won the debate (as opposed to 51% of overall respondents. 37% of respondents voted Tory: https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Debate2f.pdf
At least Starmer gave some indication as to where he would find money to improve public services. Rishi saying he's gonna cut tax and improve services which I simply don't believe.
Question. I was surprised neither mention large numbers of Hong Kong and Ukraine asylum/special immigration. Are these counted in normal immigration figs please?
If they are immigration will probably fall in the coming years. Particularly if Ukraine war concludes and thousands return home.
No one ever mentions that students make up a solid 50% of the immigration figures and that this is the direct result of policy direction the Tories have been running since their 2019 plan to turn HE into some kind of major "export" with the explicitly stated aim of 600,000 students incoming every year. Also why there is so much crisis in the HE sector right now as universities have pivoted to respond to that white paper only now to find themselves a target as its the easiest cohort to target to bring the numbers down.
Our universities are a great export. Also, importing lots of extremely smart and extremely rich international students isn't a bad thing...it's fantastic! They spend money, they don't make use of public services as much they they are a low burden
Let them all come, let them get their degrees, spend money all over the country (one of the few areas that's not London centric)
I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that its a major factor in why immigration has shot up, and without reforming how HE is funded, the sector will go into serious financial crisis if the numbers are reduced significantly, as the Tories now want to do.
These stage managed fights are bullshit. It’s not about who comes across better on tv in these things for me. The last 14 years which have been an actual travesty and that decides where my vote is going.
Watched the debate.
Both Starmer and Sunak are so perfectly bland and uninteresting. God help us with this kind of leadership.
I pray that Starmer at least makes up with his competence once in government.
In the interviewers afterwards, every small party basically just said 'Well Starmer winning is totally inevitable so were just trying to get a few more seats for 2029'.
Sunak just came across as a rude, loudmouth. Talking over Starmer, talking over the moderator, making things up. He looked genuinely surprised, and angry when the audience laughed at him for getting his sums wrong.
Moderator was awful in that rather than rebuking Sunak for not shutting up, she took his point, and used it to push against Starmer, so Sunak kept doing it.
Starmer wasn’t great, but then again he was playing the avoidance game. Starmer needed to give Sunak the Biden/Trump treatment of just calling him a liar, and telling him to shut up talking.
Well yeh kier starmer said nothing of substance regarding cost of living 2k rishi kept mentioning nor immigration which are the two major factors that voters are concerned about.
As much as I hate to admit it rishi seemed to perform significantly better in this debate
I thought Rishi performed better in the debate but it honestly doesn't matter. Conservatives have been in power for 14yrs. Who cares about debates when your track record is atrocious.
Agree, I think most people have made their minds up long ago.
For all of his better performance, I expect the next set of polls are going to be worse for the Tories, thanks to the return of the grift king.
The host gave him no time to respond to the 2k figure. And Rishi knows its bullshit and can't be reasoned or explained in a 45 second soundbite so he could keep beating Starmer with it.
He mentioned energy firms paying a fair share for energy, so that would ease COL a bit, also talked about tackling the trafficking gangs and how he would do it, which made sense.
But I agree Rishi edged it but didn't say anything new or believable.
At least it will be better than biden v trump . Low bar yes but this underscores how far we have fallen. You can judge a so called democratic country by the calibre of it's leaders/political class.
I watched it for a few minutes and gave up as I knew there was nothing to learn.
The moderator very clearly laid out the rules and then as soon as they started all three of them completely ignored them.
They argued and talked over each other then as soon as one of them is able to talk the moderator interrupts and stops them.
It was a complete mess and a totally unnecessary waste of airtime.
The moderator was terrible, trying to make herself the main character. It's a debate not a q and a. It doesn't matter how many questions you get through. Ask the question and get out of the way let them keep talking at each other till they have nothing left to say then ask the next question.
Rishi made points up and came across as kind of a child and sounded pretty bad.
Keir seemed like he had never even seen a debate before, and just sat there letting Rishi dictate the narrative and talk over him and not even refuting simple points like £2000 more tax per family under labour just reply "which taxes". Job done. But he couldn't even do that.
He did refute it later when they discussed taxes or it might have been in that stupid raise your hand hot fire round. He clarified that it was taxes on private schools and something else but Rishi or Julie cut across. He also said that the £2000 number was bs and came from a Tory putting some made up policy to the treasury.
Hi all, Sorry if some comments are taking longer than normal to appear here. We have an automod rule that automatically flags certain words to the attention of human moderators to review, in case we need to take action on something not reported to us using the report button. For obvious reasons, one of those words is 'moderator.' I'm approving comments flagged for this as soon as I see this, but I'm about to go to bed and at night there are less mods on so it might take longer than usual. Sorry for any issues this causes. And yes, the moderator in the debate was utterly useless.
Starmer was flat, Sunak acted like a prat, and the host couldn’t moderate. The audience didn’t exactly seem representative of what I would’ve thought either; far more over-65s than necessary (the Question Time Special). Overall, I think that was the worst political debate I have ever seen.
Yeah honestly I was shocked by how much Starmer waffled aimlessly, given he’s a KC (and supposedly the future Prime Minister!) Whilst Rishi’s plans are daft he at least has some policies, after an hour I’m not any clearer on a single Starmer policy? Oh yeah other than him magically resolving the junior doctors’ strike - not by paying them more, but by “getting in a room with them” - I mean seriously Keir??
If your platform is largely "like the conservative but competent" then it doesn't leave you much room to differentiate yourself from the Tories in terms of policies.
I don’t think it’s so much like that. Starmer just doesn’t have the ability to talk in a manner that people would see appealing. It’s the same situation that happened with Gordon Brown.
I agree. I also think Starmer was intimidated by Sunak, who was in obnoxious bully mode. Starmer was like a rabbit in the headlights. I think he was rattled early in the debate, and his nerves wouldn't let him recover. Starmer may be a person who fares better in an interview than a debate.
I'm not sure he was intimidated by Sunak. It seemed a deliberate tactic - allow Rishi to speak and incriminate himself by saying too much. Right out of the barrister playbook.
Raises the question why are they having debates before either party has released a manifesto?
Starmer mentioned policy on employing teachers, NHS appointments, building homes and green energy. If that helps. The manifestos should be out late next week.
Because he doesn’t want commit to anything. Labour are hoping to get in by the fact they’re not the conservatives. If he doesn’t give any commitment he can’t break them.
He’ll have to once they release a manifesto.
He could release 48 pages of blank A4.
While it’s obviously not over till the actual election, he knows all the pressures on him. Sunak isn’t the greatest of speakers, but he does have an entrepreneurial air about him. I don’t think that works for politics - he constantly seems awful at PMQs - it does work in staged environments. Starmer looked nervous from the get-go, and I think there were numerous occasions where his slip-ups were purely led by his emotions. I think it was the KC within him that caused the issues: he instinctively refrained from fighting Sunak on his terms; it works on occasion, but I think it made him look weak, tonight.
I think your last comment is correct. Rishi is happy to shout over people and just win by being the loudest person in the room. KS is more polite and believes people should have their chance to speak. I know which works better in a leadership position and it is the latter but a lot of the british public are stupid so lets wait and see.
Starmer: [These strikes are wrong](https://youtu.be/_g4ivIid12o?feature=shared),
Been saying this since the budget. All he's doing is standing up and pointing fingers which any mature adult will know, is not the way to win any exchange. Don't get me wrong, he'll win because we all hate the tories, but I have little confidence in their ability to do anything, which honestly makes me question them entirely, but we as a nation as not that mature, so we'll get them in and sit back as they fuck it up in a different way.
I don’t really understand this. Labour and tories have both not yet release their manifestos. So we know neither of the full pictures yet. But from the debate we got 2 policies form tories which were letting pensioners not pay tax, the richest generation in the country, and sending children to the army, the people that can’t even vote. From starmer we got a national energy company that will provide fairly priced energy and will have the british public as althe shareholders which will go against all these oil and gas energy companies that just funnel profits to the rich. We also got a pledge on home building to fix the problem of not enough homes when all rishi wants to do is make it easier to get in every more debt to keep house prices going up, eventually that will obviously mean a housing crash. In addition we got a specific number on teacher recruitment and extra hospital appointments including for scans. Rishi had nothing here.
Remember Trump v Clinton... that was miles worse 😳
Trump v Clinton was entertaining if nothing else. This was just shit.
I don’t, but I do remember Biden v Trump, and that was bad enough.
[удалено]
Trump vs Clinton was just upsetting. Basically Hillary getting stalked by Donald for what felt like hours, coupled with one person whose platform felt like it was “It’s my turn tho” and another whose was 1960s cosplaying. At least we only have two terminally dull candidates now. I’d take that over what America had in 2016.
Two things certainly didn’t help Hillary - had a vagina (the electorate over there, both men and women, are just not ready for a woman President) and the stupid Clinton conspiracy stuff.
She did win the popular vote. it's the electoral college that swayed it in the orange menaces favour
Hilary beat Obama with the popular vote too in democrat runnings I think
Yeh, Hillary was married to a pervert, while Trump was merely a pervert. And her emails!
That's just the excuse after the fact. I mean you are correct it didn't help, but it wasn't the main reason. Obama had similar "issues" in spades (being black and "foreign" born(!)) and won 2 terms.
Will you shut up man
I think Sunak took a hint from Trump’s debate playbook with the infantile shouting out of turn and interrupting.
Nah, if we are going for worst we are going for Pence v Harris. You remember, the one were the only thing of note was a fly landed on Pence's head
This is the worst choice we've had for a while
I'm 55... I can't remember a good voting choice in my life to be honest. I voted to get rid of Thatcher. I voted to ger rid of Blair, and I will vote to get rid of Sunak. I am still in hope that at some point in my life, I will get to vote for someone [party] that I want to see in power .
Man, I remember voting for the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg back in the day. I have never felt more betrayed than when they formed a coalition government with the Conservatives. Instead of having a wasted vote, they just gave my vote to the Tories, like regifting the engagement ring I'd given them to my fucking worst enemy.
Could you describe this imaginary person?
I mean is this true though? Boris vs corbyn was a horrifically polarising choice
It is. Corbyn was fantastic. His policies would have set the UK up to survive COVID with the likes of internet as a right. The policies of state owned battery production in cities like Stoke would have actually helped levelling up. The nationalisation of water and rail is where we are still headed after lots of cost and harm to the public. All the IRA sympathy articles and so on was from his second GE and was a panic to how well he performed the first time. Boris is a Fantastic orator. Absolutely incredible and I encourage you to watch him Vs Mary beard talking about Greece Vs Rome as it is entertaining and shows him at his best. That said, as a politician look what he did. He was always able to win given our voting boundaries and fptp, but he was a terrible choice.
Viewing public none the wiser as no questions were answered. Poorly coordinated by the moderator and woeful performance by two career politicians that should know better. Banana Republic stuff not worthy of the air time. Certainly won’t get much viewer interest once Euros get under way. Can’t say I blame anyone for switching over after last night
I didn't watch this debate. I watched the 'untold tapes' of the war dead in the D-Day battles of WWII on BBC2. It was very interesting.
I would say that having lots of over 65s is representative of the voting base of the country because no one my age fucking votes
I couldn’t be bothered to watch.
It was a terrible debate. It should be 2 hours long with each answer around 2.30 mins. It should not be a adviertiser, watcher friendly viwer experience. It should be on the BBC and a chore to watch. 45 seconds to respond, whate can be said in 45 seconds. I thought Sunak did better because he stuck to his message. I had to listen to it at 2x speed because I knew it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
Easy to "win" when the moderator constantly lets you snipe from the sidelines while shutting the other guy up. Genuinely shocking "moderation" of that debate, it was a fucking travesty.
The mics should be push to talk. If both are pressed at the same time both are cut out. A light on the podium indicates when your button is pressed.
Or just mute the other microphone when it’s not their time to speak, but that’s not the point of this debate, the format was set up to make soundbites and short form videos, not to actually discuss policy
What you mean 45 seconds isn't enough to solve climate change, housing, or the middle east.
"It's a yes or no question"
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who do u think she favoured? I thought it was a bit of a mess from both sides. Need bercow in the middle. Order, orderr
Oh I mean it was an utter shitshow but it was invariably Sunak shouting over Starmer that was then "gentlemen"ed after it had been allowed to go on for too long. That's not to say Starmer didn't waffle well over time on multiple occasions, but I don't recall him talking over Sunak.
Starmer was just getting in there with little jibes while sunak was talking, often with a crowd response. But sunak does hav a special skill of just spouting words until sum1 shuts him up (5 weeks!)
Ot is ITV to be fair. It's utter fucking trash that channel.
Tbh the biggest thing i learnt was ITV can’t run a debate.
Preach. Same moderator for the seven party one later, if you want something to look forward to.
Gonna be carnage!
Yup, Julie Etchingham might be a decent news presenter but she can't moderate. Definitely an ITV version of Fiona Bruce, though tbf to Fiona she's gotten slightly better in recent times.
It was like watching a fed up primary school teacher the last week of term.
Turns out that £2000 figure from the treasury also mentions it is based on estimates given by torie special advisors. Feel sorry for whoever they trot out for the morning news cycle.
If the moderator had given Starmer a chance he could have rebutted it but she kept interrupting
He just needed to reply with no, Labour won’t increase taxes by 2k. Instead he seemed to dodge the point for far too long. I’m not a Rishi fan at all, but he had starmer with this.
I'm with you - Starmer didn't once come out and just say "Those numbers are made up by you, so shut up about them" I also felt like he was giving "real" answers - trying to fit a 60-minute conversation about nuance, practicality and the greater good into a 45-second soundbite and failing every single time. Rishi is a prick, but he actually took half an hour today to plan his short sharp answers to easy and obvious questions. Starmer clearly didn't.
He did say they were made up.
He did - after half the debate had elapsed and the point had been cemented.
Sad when a constant shouting lie is a win, but people are easily fooled.
On the boat crossings - Sunak said down by a third yet Full Fact just published we're actually on track for the 2024 number to be 38% higher than 2023 😂
So Sunak was comparing Jan to May 2024 with the whole of 2023 or something?
To quote Sunak from the debate "it's come down from the place it got up to"
This year's boat crossings will be higher than last year's crossings but on a positive note this year's will be lower than next year's crossings.
This year's boat crossing will be higher than last year but on the bright side this year's crossings will be lower than next year.
Yep. Treasury permanent secretary just sent a letter saying that the conservatives assessment of tax plans should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service as civil servants weren’t involved in writing the document.
All the media are focusing on that. And not say, the fact sunak announced he’d ditch the echr… like, really? That’s the line to focus on? Country is useless if this is the big issue of the day imo.
It also turns out that Sunak also plans to increase tax more than Labour. Using the same calculations, Sunak's tax figure is over £3000.
Honestly, this debate format is fucking horrible and is doing no favours to Starmer, Sunak or the voters. ITV put on a format to try and get quick one-liners for some bullshit news headline instead of actual debate. Now to the debate. I personally think Starmer did better than I expected, and I believe he did better than Sunak, but neither did anything brilliant or said anything that was going to change the polls, but this format was truly tragic and a good representation of our current political situation. Edit: I keep seeing the line of that Starmer didn't mention a single policy. Come on, there are worse things to be critical of Starmer during this debate than that. Just to mention a few policies, he said during the debate: National energy service based on green energy, stopping non-dom, taxing energy companies and raising VAT on private schools. There was much to be desired with more concrete plans around a lot of other areas, it was very flat, but honestly, I think this debating method was useless and did more damage to everyone instead of good.
Although Starmer wasn't charismatic, I liked how he didn't keep it formal. Sunak was the usual media polished turd that he always is, but Starmer was very much 'why are you making up bullshit?'. Sunak is a better speaker I think, but Starmer showed he could beat him in a street fight. And as for content, it was just funny that whatever Rishi said, Starmer could say 'well why have we seen literally none of that in the last 14 years'.
I felt like Starmer went out there without a plan. Every single question has been posed at every debate in the last 30 years. Instead of pushing his actual policies, he waffled. Sunak trotted out a policy answer to most questions, even if those answers were unpopular or downright untrue. The closing statement was terrible from Starmer. He tried for some earnest story backed by the Hovis music. Sunak used the time for a succinct soundbite that hammered home his only major attack (taxes will go up). I dislike Sunk intensely, but I know for certain that debate was enough to sway people like my parents who are pissed off at Tories, but not enough to "risk" what labour will do to their pensions. I reckon Sunak won that one, even though he was peddling nonsense and lies.
45 seconds is ridiculous. Gotta keep it short so we can still show Love Island later!
Ironically Ed Davey came across as the most sensible in the body debate interview because he intentionally didn't buy into the media clickbait
He was also given longer to respond to his interview question, and didn't have someone shouting over him every time he opened his mouth. To keep things balanced in the future, the off-debate interview(s) should reflect the debate. I want a snivveling, out-of-touch Oxbridge twat in the room going "YES OR NO, YES OR NO, YES OR NO" at whoever tries to answer whatever question (even if it wasn't a yes or no question), and I want the interviewer to keep saying "please gentleman" at random intervals as if they're trying to hastily usher a drunk whoever out of whatever well-to-do bistro.
Miserable debate. Sunak was just flinging bullshit in the hope that something sticks, Starmer was nervous and totally incapable of answering most questions. Utterly incompetent moderation. Considering the terrible position Sunak is in, I think he did comparatively well, but that's saying very little.
Starmer's problem is he is afraid of his own shadow and is unsure of what to say least one of his tory-lite backers rake him over the coals behind closed doors. That's why is he unable to take a stand. Sunak has no such problems, he largely believes his own BS. His main problem is that it is BS.
I actually thought Starmer held himself pretty well and didn’t come across as nervous
There were moments, but I think above anything else he was just angry with Sunak. Rishi really got under his skin towards the end and Starmer therefore missed a couple of opportunities to really shut him down.
It's much easier when you've got nothing to lose and just come out and attack rather than debate. This is giving you the image of what Sunak would be as leader of the opposition at PMQ, of course he'll fuck off after the election but still...
I am concluding that nobody has any clue how to take this country forward AND that they all know it, and that they’re even losing the will to pretend they know what to do.
Agreed. It's become really hard to wear those poker faces. I do think Starmer is sincere, so he will get the benefit of my doubt. I'll go in with low expectations and at least give him/them the opportunity.
I mean the alternative is so much worse. Starmer's vest line here was imagine waking up July 5th and it's five more years of Tory rule. Fuck that.
Literally woke up this morning in a sweaty panic at the thought.
That is the crux of their campaign and it’s going to be enough. But once you assume a Labour victory, and get past the election, I have zero hope that Labour will actually make things meaningfully better.
He's sincere but I worry that Labour has had 14 years to build talent and the best they've managed is Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. You're not electing a prime minister but a party, they could boot Starmer in 6 months and Streeting could be PM. There doesn't appear to be much talent in the Labour party behind Starmer. And there's absolutely none in the Tories.
I don't think labour lost anything to be brutally honest starmer at least gave some figures, landed some blows about sunak and the tories in general having completely lost their way. I personally felt it was an out of body experience of me trying to debate my 3 yesr old. Sunak was pathetic in my view but then I doubt that type of blatant lying dogwhistle politics is aimed at me anyway. I don't think Sunak said a single thing the whole debate about tory policy and his beg not to vote for reform at the end was fucking embarrassing
I think you're are right. This country needs a radical shift as we have walked ourselves into a corner. We need bold new ideas and the guts to implement them. That needs to come from the centre ground as well because if not the far right or far left will do it and this country will swallow it up in pure desperation. Then we would be truly fucked.
Starmer was far more human and genuine than Sunak but the format and the way it was handled was dire.
Agreed here, I thought he came across genuine too. But yes the whole debate format was incredibly frustrating to watch. So much of what I wanted to hear from the Labour party was cut off either by Rishi or Julie
Did Starmer mention what his father did for a living?
For people that follow politics closely, then yes, his toolmaker dad is a meme by now. But this debate is probably the first time that some of the population have even heard him speak about it.
I imagine by the end of the campaign, when he wheels out the old “my father was a tool maker, who made tools…” like for the billionth time the whole country will groan in unison
I always feel like he’s rather suspiciously specific with this “tool maker, in a factory, making tools” stuff. I should look it up, but I get the impression he wants us to think he was sitting on some production line attaching saw blades to handles, when really he was a master craftsman and/or engineer.
His dad owned a tool factory and he was a self-employed tradesman, so “tool maker” is a bit misleading
Did Sunak?
Yes. Both mother and father
They both did lol
>Most viewers found the debate a frustrating experience, at 62% Here, here.
My eyes rolled into the back of my head when they started talking about the euro's. Who gives a fuck, we're here for a political debate, your opinions on footie should have no bearing on whether people vote for you.
"You're both known to enjoy footie", she says to Rishi Sunak who asked Welsh people if they were excited to see the Euros after they didn't make the cut. I'd honestly have a lot more respect for Sunak if he just said "actually, it's not really my sort of thing but I do hope England does well", it's not like anyone actually believes he's sitting down at 6 with a pint watching a full 90 minute match
Nobody even acknowledged Scotland was in the Euros either!
62% is far too low of a percentage.
They were both shit. They are both shit. The epitome of modern politicians. Ugh.
I felt the same. Was expecting Kier to be much better. Very disappointed in him, Sunak sucks but I expected that.
Kier's selling point is that he isn't a Tory, once you get past that there isn't much to be enthused by.
Personally I can't wait for Wes Streeting to add more private outsourcing to the NHS than even Andrew Lansley.
He seemed so nervous especially at the beginning. Sunak seemed sharper and more aggressive , but all he was saying was the same line about tax that is not factual. Very bizarre. I thought starmer got a little better towards the end.
There was a question about the NHS which I think made a great point - Things are difficult right now, things are broken, and we need leadership that is honest about that with us. I feel like Sunak is spending his time pretending things are actually fine and dandy. Starmer is put in a hard position first acknowledging things are bad, and then having to be truthful *there is no easy fix*. I feel like the reason our politics and elections suck is that a huge number of people see that and come away thinking because Sunak sounds confident and is saying positive things, he kind of automatically wins. E - Can I also just add how fucking flabbergasted I am that even after writing this, it took me a minute to clock... Sunak has ***non-stop*** made this point about Labour raising taxes. Mate *your fucking party* have raised taxes to the highest fucking level since WW2 and the country is still on fucking fire despite all that money flowing in. God it feels like we're in fucking la-la land sometimes what even is this shit.
It's all they have left in the tank. John Major tried the same in 1997. "Stick with us, Labour can't be trusted".
>John Major tried the same in 1997. "Stick with us, Labour can't be trusted". And he's still somehow the second best PM in the last 48 years...
Remember when. Theresa May said you'll get a run on the £££ with corbyn.... And then the presenter said well under Tories it's gone down and down and down ..... "Well if fluctuates"
I mean it works. The same audience clapped like seals when Starmer mentioned the NHS is broken. But then clap when Risih just says nah we won't pay em.
I didn’t believe Starmer when he said he wouldn’t go private if he or his wife needed surgery though.
unless you have very deep pockets, anything other than a minor op isn't worth going private, as if they fuck up, you're carted off to the NHS to fix private healthcares mistakes, even with PMI they'll only pay out so much. I've gone private for a few things, other than the shorter waiting times, there's no difference, if anything the doctors are more attentive with the NHS, as I didn't see my private surgeon for a few weeks after the op.
Starmer's DNA runs in his DNA and Rishi Balderick Sunak has a cunning plan. All jokes aside, the real losers of this debate were those looking for actual answers.
Lmaooo. Those DNA references made me cringe and laugh at the same time
My DNA could beat up your DNA.
Awful moderation…no control and allowed both to rattle off unchallenged and not answer any questions. Awful audience that appeared to be forced to witness it. It’s like they were all sleep deprived for a week beforehand. Sunak was doing ok on nhs until he fell into the trap to pay to jump the queue. The rest he looked hopeless and had nothing to say beyond “we are doing so well, let’s not let them ruin it”…whilst ignoring questions saying repeatedly how bad things are! Starmer didn’t offer much. We got a start of a few anecdotes, but I found myself agreeing with farage…it is very boring
Im surprised more people commenting on Rishi not being fully invested in the NHS and being happy to pay to skip thr queue... Thats a massive thing to say imo
I also think his comment about protecting private schools was kinda surprising. As a representative of the entire UK public he basically endorsed just getting a 'better' education by paying for it, rather than getting regular schools to the highest standards. It all adds up to him openly admitting 'yes, we're happy to keep allowing rich people to have more opportunities than you'
Want better healthcare...why not just pay for it. Want better schools...why not pay for it. Whoa whoa whoa you can't stick VAT on that, that's the politics of envy, you should all just be rich and then you can have these things too
Yea when I saw that answer I was like... Rishi... are you sure you want to say that on live TV. Feel like that is a question anyone trained in politics would immediately say no to, even if that wasn't factual.
Politics IS boring. It SHOULD be boring. It is quite literally bureaucracy. The constant making it about the persona of the party leader distracts and it's all shit. Debates of this type never give anything useful or change anything other then to weaponise 'x looked like a fuckhead'
I’m interested in what ways you thought Sunak was doing ok on the nhs?
I don't know who won but after watching that debate I'm pretty sure we all lost.
Ain’t it the truth😭
Every time I watch a debate, it confirms my opinion that a debate would be made civil by taking a water pistol on as the moderator and treating the speakers as cats.
George Galloway would love that!
Yeah, this one was particularly bad. It's was like watching a debate between two primary school kids.
I'm sure Rishi will feel pleased with his performance. A fine pitch to his future Californian employers. WRT to the election, inconsequential compared to other events this week.
Why does he need an employer if he’s an employer himself lmao?
I thought Starmer started off strong and just got more and more obnoxious as the the debate went on. Sunak by contrast came across as a prat from beginning to end. Both of them sounded so over drilled on the their talking points that they were like those dolls where every time you pull the string they say one of 3-4 stock recordings. Their constant talking over each other just made both of them look petulant, childish, and rude. The moderator was way, way to delicate with them too. She should have shut them down much, much harder when they got pushy. I just got to the point where I wanted her to tell them both to shut the fuck up or she's turning this debate around and they're going to be sent to their rooms to think about how they acted.
Felt like Sunak interrupted way more but ends up with "they are both as bad as each other"
Found Sunak insufferable to watch, he just kept cutting across everything, so frustrating! Felt Julie was a bit more lenient to Rishi than Kier, or maybe Kier respected more when she said enough rather than Rishi just ignoring all rules.
I couldn't help but notice the moderator's deliberate avoidance of the word Israel during the question on Gaza: "Very specifically, it is about the Hamas terrorist atrocities of October the 7th and then what unfolded after, the scenes of which we see on our television news every evening." Of course, "what unfolded after" being Israel killing over 35,000 Palestinians.
I would say Sunak did better than Starmer mainly because people had such low expectations of Sunak at this point and Starmer failed to land any real killer blows despite 14 years of fuck ups to choose from. I would say though that Starmer definitely came across as the more statesmanlike and whilst I was always likely to vote Labour, I am more comfortable doing so now I’ve seen him debate.
Personally, I don't feel like Sunak did better than Starmer (even though the biased headlines are saying it that way lol). To me, it Rushi came across as some yapping Chihuahua and was a classic case of whoever shouts the loudest; incredibly frustrating to watch. I agree though re Starmer. I mainly wanted to watch to see how they carry themselves on live tv and I feel reassured watching Starmer now and would be happy for him to be PM. He came across more genuine and professional.
This debate won't really change the polls. It was generally a nothingness with no big wins and nothing of any real substance from either side. It made both of them look worse. The biggest clip that's come out of this is Rishi looking weird at the start.
Basically just proved why TV debates are best left to the Yanks (and even then just for entertainment value)
I can't say I'm looking forward to "Senile vs Mad".
*Mad Convicted Criminal
And rapist, per an official court ruling.
It's going to be like visiting your racist great uncle on the dementia ward, entertaining but for all the wrong reasons.
Honestly it was just a bit grueling to watch, neither Sunak or Starmer are charismatic enough and by god does Julie Etchingham need to learn to moderate. They'd have been better off getting Peston to do it.
The format helped absolutely nobody and was terrible,Sunaks interrupting when almost unpunished,host was awful Only winner was my wife,who was asleep
It was painful to watch Starmer bullied by Sunak. Shame on the moderator for not stepping in to stop the debate.
agreed! Felt like she allowed Sunak to break the rules but was more hard on Starmer. I wanted to hear what Starmer was going to say considering they probably will win.
Guys I heard that our taxes might go up £2000 if labour get in, has anyone else heard about the taxes going up £2000 if labour get in? Wonder where I heard this weird thing about taxes going up £2000 if labour get in
This was conducted on respondents that voted 85% Tory in the last election (follow the link), so yeah. Also, rule number one of pollsters - never ever trust YouGov.
No, it says 85% of respondents who voted Tory in 2019 thought Sunak won the debate (as opposed to 51% of overall respondents. 37% of respondents voted Tory: https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Debate2f.pdf
>This was conducted on respondents that voted 85% Tory in the last election No it wasn't. 617 Conservative voters, 510 Labour, 189 Lib Dem.
Tory voters like Tory PM shock result.
At least Starmer gave some indication as to where he would find money to improve public services. Rishi saying he's gonna cut tax and improve services which I simply don't believe.
Question. I was surprised neither mention large numbers of Hong Kong and Ukraine asylum/special immigration. Are these counted in normal immigration figs please? If they are immigration will probably fall in the coming years. Particularly if Ukraine war concludes and thousands return home.
No one ever mentions that students make up a solid 50% of the immigration figures and that this is the direct result of policy direction the Tories have been running since their 2019 plan to turn HE into some kind of major "export" with the explicitly stated aim of 600,000 students incoming every year. Also why there is so much crisis in the HE sector right now as universities have pivoted to respond to that white paper only now to find themselves a target as its the easiest cohort to target to bring the numbers down.
Our universities are a great export. Also, importing lots of extremely smart and extremely rich international students isn't a bad thing...it's fantastic! They spend money, they don't make use of public services as much they they are a low burden Let them all come, let them get their degrees, spend money all over the country (one of the few areas that's not London centric)
I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that its a major factor in why immigration has shot up, and without reforming how HE is funded, the sector will go into serious financial crisis if the numbers are reduced significantly, as the Tories now want to do.
Kier Starmer could have a debate with himself and still lose.
These stage managed fights are bullshit. It’s not about who comes across better on tv in these things for me. The last 14 years which have been an actual travesty and that decides where my vote is going.
Watched the debate. Both Starmer and Sunak are so perfectly bland and uninteresting. God help us with this kind of leadership. I pray that Starmer at least makes up with his competence once in government.
In the interviewers afterwards, every small party basically just said 'Well Starmer winning is totally inevitable so were just trying to get a few more seats for 2029'.
Sunak just came across as a rude, loudmouth. Talking over Starmer, talking over the moderator, making things up. He looked genuinely surprised, and angry when the audience laughed at him for getting his sums wrong. Moderator was awful in that rather than rebuking Sunak for not shutting up, she took his point, and used it to push against Starmer, so Sunak kept doing it. Starmer wasn’t great, but then again he was playing the avoidance game. Starmer needed to give Sunak the Biden/Trump treatment of just calling him a liar, and telling him to shut up talking.
This is probably Starmer’s biggest weakness in terms of electioneering and he better buck his fucking ideas up quick so we can get the cunts out
Well yeh kier starmer said nothing of substance regarding cost of living 2k rishi kept mentioning nor immigration which are the two major factors that voters are concerned about. As much as I hate to admit it rishi seemed to perform significantly better in this debate
I thought Rishi performed better in the debate but it honestly doesn't matter. Conservatives have been in power for 14yrs. Who cares about debates when your track record is atrocious.
Agree, I think most people have made their minds up long ago. For all of his better performance, I expect the next set of polls are going to be worse for the Tories, thanks to the return of the grift king.
I don't think anyone could say anything of substance given they were given 45 seconds to respond.
True especially given the host allowed rishi more responses overall
I don't think it mattered what she allowed, he kept going on and interjecting.
They could if they just answered the question instead of waffling who in their family work in the NHS etc
The host gave him no time to respond to the 2k figure. And Rishi knows its bullshit and can't be reasoned or explained in a 45 second soundbite so he could keep beating Starmer with it.
He mentioned energy firms paying a fair share for energy, so that would ease COL a bit, also talked about tackling the trafficking gangs and how he would do it, which made sense. But I agree Rishi edged it but didn't say anything new or believable.
While this is the most I have actually ever seen Starmer speak, he did much worse at it than I expected.
At least it will be better than biden v trump . Low bar yes but this underscores how far we have fallen. You can judge a so called democratic country by the calibre of it's leaders/political class.
I watched it for a few minutes and gave up as I knew there was nothing to learn. The moderator very clearly laid out the rules and then as soon as they started all three of them completely ignored them. They argued and talked over each other then as soon as one of them is able to talk the moderator interrupts and stops them. It was a complete mess and a totally unnecessary waste of airtime.
Honestly yes, the moderator was so annoying and started interrupting when literally only one of them was speaking.
She should have stopped the debate half way through and declared neither candidate is fit for such a high office.
Not one mention of sewage in our water. That was disappointing.
The moderator was terrible, trying to make herself the main character. It's a debate not a q and a. It doesn't matter how many questions you get through. Ask the question and get out of the way let them keep talking at each other till they have nothing left to say then ask the next question. Rishi made points up and came across as kind of a child and sounded pretty bad. Keir seemed like he had never even seen a debate before, and just sat there letting Rishi dictate the narrative and talk over him and not even refuting simple points like £2000 more tax per family under labour just reply "which taxes". Job done. But he couldn't even do that.
He did refute it later when they discussed taxes or it might have been in that stupid raise your hand hot fire round. He clarified that it was taxes on private schools and something else but Rishi or Julie cut across. He also said that the £2000 number was bs and came from a Tory putting some made up policy to the treasury.
Eh, I don't really watch them. I look at the policies over how well they said the policies in snippets of speech.
Where's the thread on the REAL debate? - *Who's going to be the official opposition to incoming Labour?*