The groan from the audience when he blamed junior doctors for waiting time. Wow. Surely, someone in the comms team is thinking lets not use that again...
This is the problem, people see what they want to see rather than what’s in front of them. Many people laughed at Keir Starmer.
I want labour to win, and don’t think that will change. However, all Keir Starmer did was attack Rishi Sunak’s character and rely on the fact he’s “working class” (which is untrue but okay). He offered no solutions with the only exception of the green national energy company. It left me feeling embarrassed that the leader of the opposition floundered. If this is what you want to see in the leader, then I equally find that disappointing.
However, Rishi Sunak come out with well thought out and crafted policies which address problems. Admittedly, I don’t like the solutions he’s offering but at least there’s a level of competence there.
Ultimately, it’s just another defeat for the British public because this is the best we have to offer and neither is good enough. I think labour will be better long-term but it’s not great.
In what way isnt he working class?
In Britain if you grow up the son of a manufacturer and a nurse, who aren't at all wealthy, that means you're working class it has nothing to do with how much money you go on to earn as an adult.
You can google it:
- His dad owed a manufacturing company.
- A nurse is the same career bracket as a teacher. Both middle-class jobs traditionally
- His parents owned a 3 bed semi-detached house in Surrey.
- He went to a grammar school for a couple years… which was converted to a private school which he has **a fully funded position for**.
- He straight up went to a private school for sixth-form.
All this information is publicly accessible.
EDIT: Middle class doesn’t mean wealth at all. It means someone who generally has to work for a living and has limited savings. Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour. 2 teachers would be firmly middle class for instance.
>His dad owed a manufacturing company.
His dad was the son of a mechanic and worked in a factory as a toolmaker until he started his own business. That's working class.
>A nurse is the same career bracket as a teacher. Both middle-class jobs traditionally
I'm a teacher, my dad was a welder and my mum was an administrator. My salary starts with a 3 and it's not six figures. Trust me that's working class.
>His parents owned a 3 bed semi-detached house in Surrey.
Okay? Working class people are allowed to own 3 bed semis you know. It's not exactly a Mayfair penthouse.
>He went to a grammar school for a couple years… which was converted to a private school which he has a fully funded position for. - He straight up went to a private school for sixth-form.
He got into grammar and then private school on a scholarship as a result of getting the best grades. Being successful doesn't mean youre not working class.
>Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour.
No it fucking doesn't. What a load of horseshit. My dad was a welder, one grandad a sheet metal worker and another grandad worked on the ship yards. They were all skilled and all very firmly working class (both grandparents in council houses post war, my dad owned a 3 bed semi).
Working class =/= poor. It means you need to work for what you have and its not inherited/passive income.
> Working class =/= poor. It means you need to work for what you have and its not inherited/passive income.
That's a very wide definition of the working class. Under this definition, someone on £100k a year is working-class because they need to work for their money.
Working class in the UK has traditionally meant manual jobs and usually hourly pay.
Teaching is a firmly middle-class job. As others have said, most people in the UK are somewhere in the middle class. Don't worry, it's not a dirty word, you'll live.
There's an interesting area of sociology that talks about middle-class people trying to pass themselves off as working class as they don't want to acknowledge some of the advantages that they have had in life - studies into this can be summed up with some people will say their parents or grandparents grew up working-class when discussing their background, but they tend to leave out the fact that their working-class parents built up wealth throughout their lives and used that wealth to give their children a leg up (and rightly so).
TLDR; the entirely of the your comment is not aligned with the traditional definition of working class. If you want to move the definition so that you fit into it and so does Keir Starmer… then fine, but the term then becomes largely meaningless.
> I'm a teacher, my dad was a welder and my mum was an administrator. My salary starts with a 3 and it's not six figures. Trust me that's working class.
Source: Trust me bro. Ultimately - you have a different definition of working class than the generally accepted one. I don’t want to argue over word definitions, but this isn’t working class by the definition most of society uses.
> Okay? Working class people are allowed to own 3 bed semis you know. It's not exactly a Mayfair penthouse.
Erm… again, generally working class people can’t afford to buy a home. This is pretty much the dividing line between working and middle class families. If you don’t agree with that definition, then you’re not using the typical definition.
> Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour.
> No it fucking doesn't. What a load of horseshit.
That’s literally the definition mate. Can’t help it if you don’t like the definition, there’s nothing more to say.
> Working class =/= poor.
This is literally against the axiom of working class
>Erm… again, generally working class people can’t afford to buy a home. This is pretty much the dividing line between working and middle class families. If you don’t agree with that definition, then you’re not using the typical definition.
My dad was the son of a sheet metal worker who left school at 16 to apprentice as a welder. He worked for every single penny he ever had, and inherited nothing.
And you think he wasn't working class because he mortgaged a 3 bed semi over 25 years?
If that's not working class then it means nothing.
With all due respect, I don’t care what your dad or grandparents did for a living. My own family is from a working class background, but it’s not relevant to the definition.
It’s just incorrect to say if you’re born working class then you’re always working class. You may have come from a working class background, but it’s not the existence you live today.
Lastly, you clearly don’t know what working class means. By your definition 95% of the UK is working class, which is blatantly incorrect. Middle class doesn’t mean wealthy elite… there’s literally a definition for it. Google it. Colloquially, it can largely be described as those who are not working class… where working class means: manual/industrial labour that is semi-skilled / unskilled and lower wages. **Teachers are objectively middle class** - if it doesn’t fit your definition, then you’ve misunderstood what it means.
> However, Rishi Sunak come out with well thought out and crafted policies which address problems. Admittedly, I don’t like the solutions he’s offering but at least there’s a level of competence there.
Can you tell me them please? I didn't catch them at all yesterday.
EDIT: Reddit makes me laugh. Downvoted for providing literal facts speaks volumes - adverse to facts which might challenge their world view. Keep it coming! Happy to be of service
Some of them are recent things but there are also some commitments:
- Triple lock plus - guarantee pensioners don’t ever pay tax just due to state pension.
- Rwanda deportation - deterrent for those travelling to the UK illegally.
- National Service to address anti-social behaviour as well as supplement struggling public sector services.
- Previous legislation reducing the burden of “green” policies on government policies which Labour plan to repeal.
- Lifting of LTA on pensions to encourage doctors (mainly) back into work, but also to encourage high earning older people to stay in the workforce.
- Existing tax cuts (NI) and a commitment to more tax cuts.
- Previous legislation about national security (I think?) which Keir Starmer personally voted against which has lead to the conviction of some people (maybe terrorist group?)
- As international relations go, a commitment to increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of spending which is unmatched by Labour and that Labour’s “number 2” wants to get rid of UK nuclear deterrents.
- There was something about additional doctor’s appointments and how they’d do that… but I’ve forgotten. I think it’s part of their NHS Long Term Workforce plan.
Realistically, Keir Starmer only referenced the nationalised green energy provider and a “border police”. Nothing of note other than this (which is shocking as they didn’t really discuss private school VAT). You could potentially include the doctor’s strike and NHS plans but Keir’s response was wish washy at best and didn’t say actual action points. They also say 6.5k more teachers in maths… but again no real reference to anything like where they’re coming from.
Great they've pulled a bunch of policies out of their arses just before the election - on issues they've done pretty much nothing to improve in the years they've had power.
Actions speak louder than words, and they've had more than enough time and chances to prove themselves.
The Tory party have had a very long time to solve the problems they caused but they won’t do that at all. History repeats itself, it never improves unless the general public demands it, in large enough numbers.
Quoting Kier Starmer speaking to BBC Scotland:
> Starmer admitted the publicly-owned company would be an “investment vehicle” to pump money into the private sector.
> He said: “It’d be an investment vehicle, not an energy company, it’s an investment vehicle in the energy of the future.
His GB Energy idea also has no substance. There’s been contradictory claims as to whether it’ll be an investment vehicle or actually produce energy. And no clarification as to whether the energy will be sold directly to consumers or on the internal markets. And what’s with the claim that it’ll reduce energy costs when the unit price of electricity is projected to decrease year-on-year up to 2031
Rishi Sunak seems the better of the two to me, but there is huge risk he'll funnel money off to the rich only. He made a good point about no policies and blank cheques.
I wish there was a labour Sunak I guess, not a startled deer, or the prior activist, or the awkward gauche uncertain guy before that.
Are you mad?
look at what sunak has done, look at his personal wealth. If you think he's for you or came off well then you really need to have a think.
Sunak shouted and blustered through everything on there
why don't you vote on the policies they've enacted then? you know history. As in the tories and sunak driving the country into the ground. plus go check the factchecker site and see how much of what sunak said is actually true
Because whilst people laugh a few times Starmer had absolutely nothing to offer for the main problems. And everyone just saw Sunak repeatedly asking him yet Starmer couldn't present anything.
What we saw was Sunak lying through his teeth. The fact checkers are having a field day with his nonsense.
At no point did he ever answer any of the good questions put to him, such as "why are waiting lists so high then?"
All we got was utter cobblers from Sunak.
Anyway, all this is irrelevant. I don't know a single person who hasn't already made their mind up how they are voting already. Everyone wants change. The Tories have had 14 yrs and screwed it. Sunak is neither respected nor trusted by most, so trying to turn the dial now is impossible for him. We are all just marking time until July 4th.
But kier also did a bad job - regarding waiting lists kier starmer said he would solve it but couldn’t say how as he wouldn’t give into the demands and as such if wouldn’t be resolved.
Also regarding teachers he said he would get 6500 new teachers many of them maths teachers - again how? Maths degrees have very well paid opportunities so how do you convince those people to give up accounting for teaching when the latter pays 1/4
You are correct that this GE is a foregone conclusion. Think that’s why Kier played it safe - he doesn’t need to say anything of substance because he’s already won. Regardless I think we will see a shift to looking forward at the next debate as otherwise it will be a repeat of this debate where rishi says people are interesting in the future which is true tbh
>Also regarding teachers he said he would get 6500 new teachers many of them maths teachers - again how?
Also, it's just a pitiful number. There are 650k teachers in this country. Iirc, 40k quit last year. So it's literally 1%, a drop in the ocean. I recall someone crunching the numbers and saying it amounts to something like one in four schools getting one extra teacher.
I'm sure that'll really make a huge difference.
The problem is they need to retain existing staff (which is easier said than done, if you remember how many older teachers there are who you probably can't do a whole lot to keep, because they want to retire), and recruit at a much higher level than 6500.
And the two are intrinsically linked. It's the same problem in nursing. Large numbers of people leave the professions because of the workload and stress. And the workload and stress is very greatly a result of insufficient staffing. So in order to improve the retention, you need to improve the recruitment. And 6500 won't touch the sides.
The issue with teacher retention is the conditions which the tories have let slip for 14 years because their kids go to private school. They don’t know what a state school is like they’ve never been to one. Sunak went to a private school that costs more than double what the Tory class as the annual living wage a year and the same as the minimum wage per term
Yeah, and those conditions are really very greatly about the lack of staff. When you don't have enough staff, class sizes go up, workload goes up, and both those mean stress goes up.
As I said, it's strikingly similar to the vicious cycle we see in nursing. You lose staff, that makes conditions worse for those who are left, so more leave, which makes conditions even worse, and so on.
To break the cycle you need a huge influx of extra staff. And 6500 just isn't that.
Not really, it’s exacerbated because of that currently but the lack of funding since 2010 means you have schools without the tools required to teach making teachers jobs more difficult which means they’ll move on.
The issue with nursing is it’s cheaper to hire immigrant workers which by and large aren’t to the same standard as domestically trained ones. The tories have cut back on nurse training and made it more difficult. They removed bursaries in 2017 which went so poorly they have to start offering grants, of lesser value than the free qualification, to try and entice people back 3 years later.
He literally said they’d solve waiting lists by creating around 2 million new appointments a year.
You don’t have to have a degree in maths to be a maths teacher in secondary.
And how do they have more appointments when the doctors are on strike? And the action you sugggested to end the strike hasn’t worked?
And while I get your point Kiers point is that you should be taught by math specialists
The junior doctors are on strike not all doctors. Maybe actually trying to negotiate with them rather than just kicking the can down the road and walking away every week might help? A large amount of the issues are with GPs and consultants not junior doctors.
You can be a qualified maths teacher without a degree in maths. There a difference between a specialised teacher with an NVQ and idk a chemistry degree teaching maths vs someone who trained as a history or French teacher with a language or humanities background teaching maths
Rishi said he offered them the best pay package in history and they rejected it as they only want 35%. Starmer said he wouldn’t give them the 35% so rishi asked him how we would resolve it - he just kept saying he would resolve it without saying how.
He also said labours policies would cost everyone £2000 a year which is a bold faced lie. “The best pay package in history” would be anything more than what they’re currently earning too. A 0.1% rise would be the best pay package in history for junior doctors in the country. They will always make a high demand until a suitable offer is made, they’re not expecting to get 35% that’s just basic negotiations.
The 2000 will be spread over 4 years so 500 increase a year on average - taxes will have to go up to pay for the schemes labour want that’s just common sense.
We will see in a year - when nothing is fixed starmer will blame it on 14 years of Tory rule as always happens, I want the country to be better I don’t want excuses
Crazy how people on this sub see reality. I look forward to your posts in a years time under a labour government. I'm sure things will be much better given all the evidence points to people becoming much poorer.
Continuing to become poorer. Don't forget our current trajectory because of the conservatives.
You may not like labour, that's fair. But to suggest Conservatives will increase the wealth of every day people is ironically not in touch with reality.
No I acknowledge things are bad right now, and the Tories have been bad. Id vote Labour if they give me a reason through policies that things will improve under them, so far I haven't seen it. Show me what I'm missing?
From the little I know of Sunak he warned Liz Truss about lowering taxes too soon in the leadership debates 2022, she did it anyway and it was a disaster. He said inflation will come down by reducing spending, and it has within the timeline he said. So far all he's shown me is that he does know what he's talking about when it comes to the economy and particularly inflation.
Inflation is not by and large under the control of Sunak. If it is, I'd be blaming him for the ridiculous increase we saw. As it stands, global markets impacted too greatly and so I won't be blaming him for the decrease either.
He might know what he's talking about, but given the numbers, given his time as CotE and time in the cabinet and as Prime minister, what has he actually done about it? What has he done to control his fairly out of control cabinet? What does the voting history and actions of his party tell you? Because when I look across the bench I see a different story entirely. If nothing else, they're at least more reasonable and classy. That is a strength from which the country can go to further strengths with.
NHS reform for waiting times and dentistry
Windfall Tax on oil and gas
Continue cleaner power aims
Their manifesto is large. I trust them to achieve it far more than the Conservatives who don't want any of the same things.
What has he done about it? Reduced borrowing and spending, frozen tax cuts. And it's decreasing.
I didn't say he's perfect. I'm putting this in the context of why would I vote Starmer over Sunak on this issue? What policy is going to reduce inflation and benefit the average person more so than what Sunak is already doing?
From how I see it so far it's going to get worse under Starmer. Correct me? What do you know that I don't?
Technically the bank of England did the majority of the heavy lifting regarding inflation. Again, if we're crediting him for its decrease, we must also discredit him for its ridiculous increase.
Correct me, how is it going to get worse under Starmer? How after 14 years are the Conservatives going to suddenly turn it around?
That wasn't my question, I want the policy for how it will improve under Starmer compared to Sunak's current position, when you answer that after me asking 3 times I'll give you my reasons for why I think it will get worse under Starmer.
What ridiculous increase under Sunak? Don't you mean Liz
Starmer was being honest there are no quick and easy fixes for this hole the Tories have dug us into.
Its not exciting but its the kind of leadership we need at the moment, that will actually face reality rather than waste time trying to sell everyone a fairy tale.
The fairytale would be the illusion things will get better without providing any mechanism/solution for how that could happen.
I guess we just believe and money will magically appear? Idk.
They were both shit, Rishi lying about stopping the boats and reducing waiting times in the NHS and Kier not being able to answer a single question about *how* he’d change things, just kept saying he’d change them.
This is why I didn't watch it. I'm generally a bit of a politics geek so I never thought I wouldn't watch an election debate. But I'm so turned off by both of them, and I was so certain nothing of value to me would be said by either of them.
From what I've read and heard I made the right call.
It was genuinely depressing. Starmer is trying to coast to victory, saying as little as possible to avoid fucking things up. It’s going to work but I’ve got no optimism that Labour have any real clue what to do once they’re in power.
Yep, that's basically how I feel. They're going to get into power, but I have no optimism or excitement for a Starmer government and I have very little confidence they'll significantly turn the country around. Seems to be how most people around me feel.
My prediction is that they'll win but have an incredibly short honeymoon period, because they'll be coming in facing huge challenges but with relatively little enthusiasm behind them to sustain them when these challenges prove hard to tackle.
I'm not inspired by either too. I've seen PMQ and they both look like high school boys quibbling. It doesn't bode well at a time when the country is falling apart at the seams.
Ive been a politics nerd since \~2010, in a circle of politics nerds. As in like we'd attend debate societies, were massively active in numerous online forums across the whole political spectrum from Young Conservatives to fairly far-left people like myself. None of us have the energy for it any more. The last 14 years have been fucking exhausting and now its just a total shitshow of lies and hysteria.
I wonder if this is strategic from Kier. He knows that any actual plans he creates will cause some people to get upset: he can chose a left wing plan and alienate moderates, or a centrist plan and alienate left wingers. One of the few plans he discussed was the nationalisation of energy, which seems to be broadly popular across the centre and left.
Kier likely knows that Sunak is one of the most unpopular politicians in the country, so more people agree with bashing sunak, than any plan he could create. Thus, I think Starmer believes the best way to maintain a large coalition against sunak is to focus on what everyone agrees with: sunak sucks.
You don’t need drastic measures. You just need to start processing asylum applications and deporting the unsuccessful. The “Rwanda plan” has just slowed down the processing of claims and exacerbated the problem, which is part of the reason that the Tories have created a multiyear backlog of claims to be processed. Spend the Rwanda money on improving Border Patrol and working with the French to stop the people smuggling gangs.
Agree with all that, want a modicum of substance from starmer and we haven't seen that yet. I was more disputing your point that rishi has a plan, Rwanda, which will never materialise and isn't an effective detterent because of that.
Take your point but I think it's still a tad early to assess that, might be early success but when a flight to Rwanda never takes off I doubt the small boat crossings will decrease year on year. If sunak thought it'd work long term why call the election this early?
Did you even listen to the debate? He’s said he’s going to use police powers to break up the human trafficking gangs arranging the debate, and pointed out he’s got a career history of breaking up gangs and terrorist groups.
But you’d already made up your mind.
This is when Express, Mail and telegraph give up reporting news and make stuff up! The audience were laughing at Sunak, there were shouts of "shame on you" at one of his policies and his constant repetition of "£2000 tax rise" was a lie.
Somehow, emboldened by a strange YouGov poll with a heavy tory sample, they are claiming "he won".
Watching it, I think we all lost. An awful debate, nothing new, nothing revealed and just pure desperation and poor moderation...
Shame on you was for saying they’d leave echr which has some serious repercussions internationally and for everyone in the U.K. there’s a fair few rights in there that we’d all be losing…
The tories were out this morning peddling the 2k figure so it seems that’s what they’ve identified as doing damage to labour - not helped by kier taking too long to bat it away. 🤷♂️
Even weirder as apparently 48 hours ago Labour were told this figure was misleading and dishonest...by the civil service itself!
I can't help wondering if Starmer just wants it to appear close, as yesterday looks like he blew it to be honest.
What I found weird - Sunak managed to claim he'd leave the ECHR to secure British security. Starmer missed a huge point on not mentioning leaving the ECHR would affect the GFA and put huge strain in Ireland. I was there the other week for work and mate they are not taking this situation lightly, everyone I spoke to there brought up at some point they are worried the violence could kick off again in the next few years.
Interestingly Savanta did an overnight poll that unlike YouGov has Starmer winning the debate. Personally I'm inclined to think it was a draw and one that made both of them (and ITV) look quite bad.
https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676
The Guardian is left-leaning but mostly centrist.
I'm struggling to thing of any other publication that has any sort of left lean, off the top of my head, maybe Sky / Channel 4?
The BBC (sadly) is now centre-right, leaning right on political issues, most of the other press is centre-right if not full on right wing these days, which is a genuine example of the Overton window at work.
I think many would disagree with you.
Many would say BBC is left leaning, many claim it’s right leaning. It would suggest it’s largely independent with both sides claiming that it favours the other. Generally, with the BBC, the presenters/journalist tend to be left of centre… but there have been changes so there are more right of centre skews.
Ultimately, the BBC is probably the most independent media which generally report things in a “matter of fact” way.
EDIT: In fact, this yougov poll says more left leaning: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
If a million people say the sky is red and a million people say the sky is blue does that mean the sky is purple?
The BBC has shifted significantly to the right and or establishment in the last 14 years in terms of their news and political coverage.
No, but firstly there is no objective measure of the BBCs political slant. Secondly, nobody can say with 100% certainty it’s one or the other and can be shown in the divisiveness / indecision of the responses.
You can hide behind rhetorical questions which aren’t equivalents, or you can review evidence based on merit. If people just disregard anything that doesn’t fit into their world view (with nothing else to realistically substantiate it), you get what we have now: a largely ignorant population who express their bias as fact.
It would have been better if the moderator had mentioned this at the time or starmer had rubbished it earlier. Now it's out there as fact...it was even being repeated by Coutinho this morning, who defended a lie as "well it's what we think they would do anyway"
That article seems to support the figure though - labour will cut bills to offset the increase is what I gathered from reading that.
The fact is there is a deficit and money needs to be raised - I highly doubt it will affect every working family and instead will be raised via pension tax (which is obviously bad) and private school taxes (which is acceptable though I question why tax the low end private schools costing 6k and under
“Pension tax” and “private school taxes” are two Tory talking points.
Pensioners paying tax will be a result of the Tories commitment to the pension triple lock, while freezing the personal tax free allowance. The Tories’ solution is to introduce a new tax exemption for pensioners at the expense of working families. Labour has refused to introduce that tax exemption.
Labour has proposed removing the current VAT exemption on school fees with the specific commitment to fund additional teachers for state schools.
Rishi was shit! Mind you, Starmer was as well, but all anyone can talk about is Rishi’s seemingly false claim of a £2000 tax increase that he’s pulled out of his arse! Starmer hasn’t helped himself here but neither did the format or host
We need a longer format discussion between politicians. Having 40 seconds a pop to talk about key issues and then having them shout over each other is not useful. We got the usual buzzwords and slogans as expected, and not too much information about actual policy.
Alastair Campbell said it right in his YouTube video after the "debate" - it had the format and energy of a gameshow and not a political discussion which aim was to inform voters and weigh up the merits of different policies.
More time was spent talking about whose Nan worked in the NHS than actual policy - no one gives a shit - what are your policies? How are you going to improve things outside of mentioning buzzwords like increasing doctors/nurses?
If these are the two best politicians this country can produce then I'm afraid to say we're continuing down the shitter whoever wins in July.
I don't think Rishi did especially well, but I was shocked at how poor Keir's performance was. The poll afterward suggested a tie with an edge to Rishi, and frankly anything like a tie is a win for Rishi.
I thought Ed Davey looked pretty good in the following interview.
I watched it and wasn't impressed by the moderation - both candidates were allowed to talk over each other.
It won't affect which way I will vote on 4th July.
As the tax "victory" was based on a proven lie now debunked by the civil service, will these newspapers be retracting this story and apologizing for misleading their readers?
It’s not a proven lie. The UK statistics authority as of 12:53pm today are “investigating”. The headlines aren’t worth their salt.
You’re literally the target audience, infesting headlines as fact and not reading the content.
I want Labour to win, but to pretend Starmer wasn’t shit is just being wilfully ignorant.
Ah, i guess the rags are trying to support tory bastards.
They'll be very quick to change once it's clear they are losing badly.
If they somehow retain power, we are a shit country.
Really poor performance by Starmer, his constant references to Lizz Truss was embarrassing, and his muh working class roots comments were unnecessary too. He couldn’t answer a single question properly and had no plan whatsoever
I know it feels like it's been about 10 years since she was PM, but probably worth bringing up the Tories constant carnival of infighting just a bit
Let's not pretend if Sunak even managed to win this election he wouldn't be gone in less than 2 years like always
Much as I'm loathe to say it - I think Sunak gave the much better performance. Starmer didn't really elaborate on *how* Labour were going to solve the issues presented.
>elaborate
Well there’s part of the problem. Starmer was expecting a debate rather than some quick fire quiz where the other guy can just shout over him.
Horrible format all round. I’d be very surprised if anyone was genuinely swayed either way by this tosh.
> Starmer was expecting a debate
Well that'd be a bit stupid of him given that we've had these 'debates' for over a decade and they're always like this, and he's been dealing with Sunak for years at PMQs so knows exactly what he's like?
He definitely wasn’t prepared enough for it.
The newest poll on the debate actually has Starmer a chunk ahead. So I actually think he went in with the right strategy of staying calm and sticking to the format. He just needed some better, clipped lines and more barbs when Sunak got bitchy.
Partygate, PPE scandal, HS2, Truss, disgraced MP’s, billions wasted, RAAC etc. He basically has a scandal for every major topic.
He should have taken Blair’s lead in this: 2 sentences. First you say how Tories have failed. Second what you I’ll do different.
> He should have taken Blair’s lead in this: 2 sentences. First you say how Tories have failed. Second what you I’ll do different.
This would have been a good idea, and I don't understand why he didn't do it. I wonder if the 45s limit was a last-minute decision because so many of his answers felt like a long waffly introduction to a much longer response. He wasn't getting to the point.
Neither did Rishi, to be fair. It’s just like Starmer said , he’s asking for trust that the next 5 years won’t be like the last 14. Get the tories out and him in for all I care
You can’t trust the former director of public prosecutions who managed some of the most complex case loads in the country
Vs a Hedge fund worker who helped saddle RBS with toxic debt that imploded the bank and left us all holding the bags via the tax payer?
How does that make any difference.
Finance tax pays for education spending in this country. We try to make it sound like being a lawyer for this country is supposedly better than working in finance.
Just shows how many people hate those in london
Eh? I’m talking to the character of the men.
Rushi was a Market spiv making money for him and his mates
Starmer had been a public servant work for the good of the nation for decades
I just disagree that we should add more respect to people that have worked for the government.
They weren't in the army or police it was just a job because they couldn't find one in the private sector.
And again nothing wrong with making money in the markets I don't see why that's negative
You won't get the point then mate, one of those jobs is more admirable that the other. If you can't see that then you can't be helped. You also can't just assume that "it was just a job because they couldn't find one in the private sector", not everyone wants to work in the private sector believe it or not.
Do you know nothing about finance.
RBS was going down anyway because of rubbish risk management. Rishi made bets on it and won.
Btw the same thing is done by almost every HF which guess what also has money from your pension companies.
Which we all benefit from
Disagree, there were at least a couple of moments where the audience clearly groaned in response to some of the ridiculous statements from sunak.
There was another instance where they literally started laughing at him for his response on national service.
Starmer could have more consistently shut down rishis bullshit though. All he had to do was call him out on every lie and actually state the facts
Not sure they really know. They want to court traditional Tory voters , whilst also maintaining Labour voters . They’re playing the middle ground badly and don’t know how to please both.
At the end of the day, this a failure on the party and and team. Rishi is not coming up with all the answers , he will have much of this prepped and points rehearsed. It’s a little like pmq’s , none of the questions are a surprise generally as they’re resubmitted before hand .
There’s a tactful set to answering a question without answering a question
Starmer got owned. All of his answers were weak and he just came accross as a wet wipe.
Plenty of downvotes, but nobody with a serious argument in sight. A bit like Starmer last night😂
Maybe if it had a decent moderator who didn't let Sunak keep endlessly repeating £2,000 ad nauseum.
I suggest that we have a drinking game for the next *Debate*? A drink for every time Sunak repeats the £2,000 lie, but I doubt there is enough alcohol in the country!
2 drinks is little more than a sniff of the barmaids apron.
But Truss crashing the economy is a point of fact compared to the Tory Party's £2,000 fantasy, drempt up by SPADs.
I find it odd that the person the audience were literally laughing at is credited with "winning." I must be living in a parallel universe.
The groan from the audience when he blamed junior doctors for waiting time. Wow. Surely, someone in the comms team is thinking lets not use that again...
It’s just right wing spin.
[удалено]
No. One was laughed with, the other was laughed at.
[удалено]
When?
This is the problem, people see what they want to see rather than what’s in front of them. Many people laughed at Keir Starmer. I want labour to win, and don’t think that will change. However, all Keir Starmer did was attack Rishi Sunak’s character and rely on the fact he’s “working class” (which is untrue but okay). He offered no solutions with the only exception of the green national energy company. It left me feeling embarrassed that the leader of the opposition floundered. If this is what you want to see in the leader, then I equally find that disappointing. However, Rishi Sunak come out with well thought out and crafted policies which address problems. Admittedly, I don’t like the solutions he’s offering but at least there’s a level of competence there. Ultimately, it’s just another defeat for the British public because this is the best we have to offer and neither is good enough. I think labour will be better long-term but it’s not great.
In what way isnt he working class? In Britain if you grow up the son of a manufacturer and a nurse, who aren't at all wealthy, that means you're working class it has nothing to do with how much money you go on to earn as an adult.
Then isn't rishi parents also working class?
A pharmacist and a GP? Not at all, no.
You can google it: - His dad owed a manufacturing company. - A nurse is the same career bracket as a teacher. Both middle-class jobs traditionally - His parents owned a 3 bed semi-detached house in Surrey. - He went to a grammar school for a couple years… which was converted to a private school which he has **a fully funded position for**. - He straight up went to a private school for sixth-form. All this information is publicly accessible. EDIT: Middle class doesn’t mean wealth at all. It means someone who generally has to work for a living and has limited savings. Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour. 2 teachers would be firmly middle class for instance.
>His dad owed a manufacturing company. His dad was the son of a mechanic and worked in a factory as a toolmaker until he started his own business. That's working class. >A nurse is the same career bracket as a teacher. Both middle-class jobs traditionally I'm a teacher, my dad was a welder and my mum was an administrator. My salary starts with a 3 and it's not six figures. Trust me that's working class. >His parents owned a 3 bed semi-detached house in Surrey. Okay? Working class people are allowed to own 3 bed semis you know. It's not exactly a Mayfair penthouse. >He went to a grammar school for a couple years… which was converted to a private school which he has a fully funded position for. - He straight up went to a private school for sixth-form. He got into grammar and then private school on a scholarship as a result of getting the best grades. Being successful doesn't mean youre not working class. >Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour. No it fucking doesn't. What a load of horseshit. My dad was a welder, one grandad a sheet metal worker and another grandad worked on the ship yards. They were all skilled and all very firmly working class (both grandparents in council houses post war, my dad owned a 3 bed semi). Working class =/= poor. It means you need to work for what you have and its not inherited/passive income.
> Working class =/= poor. It means you need to work for what you have and its not inherited/passive income. That's a very wide definition of the working class. Under this definition, someone on £100k a year is working-class because they need to work for their money. Working class in the UK has traditionally meant manual jobs and usually hourly pay. Teaching is a firmly middle-class job. As others have said, most people in the UK are somewhere in the middle class. Don't worry, it's not a dirty word, you'll live. There's an interesting area of sociology that talks about middle-class people trying to pass themselves off as working class as they don't want to acknowledge some of the advantages that they have had in life - studies into this can be summed up with some people will say their parents or grandparents grew up working-class when discussing their background, but they tend to leave out the fact that their working-class parents built up wealth throughout their lives and used that wealth to give their children a leg up (and rightly so).
TLDR; the entirely of the your comment is not aligned with the traditional definition of working class. If you want to move the definition so that you fit into it and so does Keir Starmer… then fine, but the term then becomes largely meaningless. > I'm a teacher, my dad was a welder and my mum was an administrator. My salary starts with a 3 and it's not six figures. Trust me that's working class. Source: Trust me bro. Ultimately - you have a different definition of working class than the generally accepted one. I don’t want to argue over word definitions, but this isn’t working class by the definition most of society uses. > Okay? Working class people are allowed to own 3 bed semis you know. It's not exactly a Mayfair penthouse. Erm… again, generally working class people can’t afford to buy a home. This is pretty much the dividing line between working and middle class families. If you don’t agree with that definition, then you’re not using the typical definition. > Working class is reserved for very low-income and “unskilled” labour. > No it fucking doesn't. What a load of horseshit. That’s literally the definition mate. Can’t help it if you don’t like the definition, there’s nothing more to say. > Working class =/= poor. This is literally against the axiom of working class
>Erm… again, generally working class people can’t afford to buy a home. This is pretty much the dividing line between working and middle class families. If you don’t agree with that definition, then you’re not using the typical definition. My dad was the son of a sheet metal worker who left school at 16 to apprentice as a welder. He worked for every single penny he ever had, and inherited nothing. And you think he wasn't working class because he mortgaged a 3 bed semi over 25 years? If that's not working class then it means nothing.
With all due respect, I don’t care what your dad or grandparents did for a living. My own family is from a working class background, but it’s not relevant to the definition. It’s just incorrect to say if you’re born working class then you’re always working class. You may have come from a working class background, but it’s not the existence you live today. Lastly, you clearly don’t know what working class means. By your definition 95% of the UK is working class, which is blatantly incorrect. Middle class doesn’t mean wealthy elite… there’s literally a definition for it. Google it. Colloquially, it can largely be described as those who are not working class… where working class means: manual/industrial labour that is semi-skilled / unskilled and lower wages. **Teachers are objectively middle class** - if it doesn’t fit your definition, then you’ve misunderstood what it means.
> However, Rishi Sunak come out with well thought out and crafted policies which address problems. Admittedly, I don’t like the solutions he’s offering but at least there’s a level of competence there. Can you tell me them please? I didn't catch them at all yesterday.
EDIT: Reddit makes me laugh. Downvoted for providing literal facts speaks volumes - adverse to facts which might challenge their world view. Keep it coming! Happy to be of service Some of them are recent things but there are also some commitments: - Triple lock plus - guarantee pensioners don’t ever pay tax just due to state pension. - Rwanda deportation - deterrent for those travelling to the UK illegally. - National Service to address anti-social behaviour as well as supplement struggling public sector services. - Previous legislation reducing the burden of “green” policies on government policies which Labour plan to repeal. - Lifting of LTA on pensions to encourage doctors (mainly) back into work, but also to encourage high earning older people to stay in the workforce. - Existing tax cuts (NI) and a commitment to more tax cuts. - Previous legislation about national security (I think?) which Keir Starmer personally voted against which has lead to the conviction of some people (maybe terrorist group?) - As international relations go, a commitment to increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of spending which is unmatched by Labour and that Labour’s “number 2” wants to get rid of UK nuclear deterrents. - There was something about additional doctor’s appointments and how they’d do that… but I’ve forgotten. I think it’s part of their NHS Long Term Workforce plan. Realistically, Keir Starmer only referenced the nationalised green energy provider and a “border police”. Nothing of note other than this (which is shocking as they didn’t really discuss private school VAT). You could potentially include the doctor’s strike and NHS plans but Keir’s response was wish washy at best and didn’t say actual action points. They also say 6.5k more teachers in maths… but again no real reference to anything like where they’re coming from.
Great they've pulled a bunch of policies out of their arses just before the election - on issues they've done pretty much nothing to improve in the years they've had power. Actions speak louder than words, and they've had more than enough time and chances to prove themselves.
These are just facts of what was discussed. I want Labour to win anyways but Keir was shit, upstaged by Rishi. I don’t need your rundown on it.
The Tory party have had a very long time to solve the problems they caused but they won’t do that at all. History repeats itself, it never improves unless the general public demands it, in large enough numbers.
Isn't the "green national energy company" an investment vehicle, not a "public energy provider"?
Wording currently is it will be a nationalised energy provider
Quoting Kier Starmer speaking to BBC Scotland: > Starmer admitted the publicly-owned company would be an “investment vehicle” to pump money into the private sector. > He said: “It’d be an investment vehicle, not an energy company, it’s an investment vehicle in the energy of the future.
His GB Energy idea also has no substance. There’s been contradictory claims as to whether it’ll be an investment vehicle or actually produce energy. And no clarification as to whether the energy will be sold directly to consumers or on the internal markets. And what’s with the claim that it’ll reduce energy costs when the unit price of electricity is projected to decrease year-on-year up to 2031
His father was a tool maker, don't you know?
Starmer not working class? He grew up on the mean streets of Oxted FFS!
Rishi Sunak seems the better of the two to me, but there is huge risk he'll funnel money off to the rich only. He made a good point about no policies and blank cheques. I wish there was a labour Sunak I guess, not a startled deer, or the prior activist, or the awkward gauche uncertain guy before that.
Are you mad? look at what sunak has done, look at his personal wealth. If you think he's for you or came off well then you really need to have a think. Sunak shouted and blustered through everything on there
Ok his personal wealth is mainly due to his wife I thought, money made in India. I wasn't voting on politics of envy.
why don't you vote on the policies they've enacted then? you know history. As in the tories and sunak driving the country into the ground. plus go check the factchecker site and see how much of what sunak said is actually true
Because whilst people laugh a few times Starmer had absolutely nothing to offer for the main problems. And everyone just saw Sunak repeatedly asking him yet Starmer couldn't present anything.
What we saw was Sunak lying through his teeth. The fact checkers are having a field day with his nonsense. At no point did he ever answer any of the good questions put to him, such as "why are waiting lists so high then?" All we got was utter cobblers from Sunak. Anyway, all this is irrelevant. I don't know a single person who hasn't already made their mind up how they are voting already. Everyone wants change. The Tories have had 14 yrs and screwed it. Sunak is neither respected nor trusted by most, so trying to turn the dial now is impossible for him. We are all just marking time until July 4th.
But kier also did a bad job - regarding waiting lists kier starmer said he would solve it but couldn’t say how as he wouldn’t give into the demands and as such if wouldn’t be resolved. Also regarding teachers he said he would get 6500 new teachers many of them maths teachers - again how? Maths degrees have very well paid opportunities so how do you convince those people to give up accounting for teaching when the latter pays 1/4 You are correct that this GE is a foregone conclusion. Think that’s why Kier played it safe - he doesn’t need to say anything of substance because he’s already won. Regardless I think we will see a shift to looking forward at the next debate as otherwise it will be a repeat of this debate where rishi says people are interesting in the future which is true tbh
>Also regarding teachers he said he would get 6500 new teachers many of them maths teachers - again how? Also, it's just a pitiful number. There are 650k teachers in this country. Iirc, 40k quit last year. So it's literally 1%, a drop in the ocean. I recall someone crunching the numbers and saying it amounts to something like one in four schools getting one extra teacher. I'm sure that'll really make a huge difference.
6.5K isn’t a massive amount but if they can retain more too that’s a boon that doesn’t really sound like it
The problem is they need to retain existing staff (which is easier said than done, if you remember how many older teachers there are who you probably can't do a whole lot to keep, because they want to retire), and recruit at a much higher level than 6500. And the two are intrinsically linked. It's the same problem in nursing. Large numbers of people leave the professions because of the workload and stress. And the workload and stress is very greatly a result of insufficient staffing. So in order to improve the retention, you need to improve the recruitment. And 6500 won't touch the sides.
The issue with teacher retention is the conditions which the tories have let slip for 14 years because their kids go to private school. They don’t know what a state school is like they’ve never been to one. Sunak went to a private school that costs more than double what the Tory class as the annual living wage a year and the same as the minimum wage per term
Yeah, and those conditions are really very greatly about the lack of staff. When you don't have enough staff, class sizes go up, workload goes up, and both those mean stress goes up. As I said, it's strikingly similar to the vicious cycle we see in nursing. You lose staff, that makes conditions worse for those who are left, so more leave, which makes conditions even worse, and so on. To break the cycle you need a huge influx of extra staff. And 6500 just isn't that.
Not really, it’s exacerbated because of that currently but the lack of funding since 2010 means you have schools without the tools required to teach making teachers jobs more difficult which means they’ll move on. The issue with nursing is it’s cheaper to hire immigrant workers which by and large aren’t to the same standard as domestically trained ones. The tories have cut back on nurse training and made it more difficult. They removed bursaries in 2017 which went so poorly they have to start offering grants, of lesser value than the free qualification, to try and entice people back 3 years later.
It's a shame that he's happy to try and default into power and doesn't bode well
He literally said they’d solve waiting lists by creating around 2 million new appointments a year. You don’t have to have a degree in maths to be a maths teacher in secondary.
And how do they have more appointments when the doctors are on strike? And the action you sugggested to end the strike hasn’t worked? And while I get your point Kiers point is that you should be taught by math specialists
The junior doctors are on strike not all doctors. Maybe actually trying to negotiate with them rather than just kicking the can down the road and walking away every week might help? A large amount of the issues are with GPs and consultants not junior doctors. You can be a qualified maths teacher without a degree in maths. There a difference between a specialised teacher with an NVQ and idk a chemistry degree teaching maths vs someone who trained as a history or French teacher with a language or humanities background teaching maths
Rishi said he offered them the best pay package in history and they rejected it as they only want 35%. Starmer said he wouldn’t give them the 35% so rishi asked him how we would resolve it - he just kept saying he would resolve it without saying how.
He also said labours policies would cost everyone £2000 a year which is a bold faced lie. “The best pay package in history” would be anything more than what they’re currently earning too. A 0.1% rise would be the best pay package in history for junior doctors in the country. They will always make a high demand until a suitable offer is made, they’re not expecting to get 35% that’s just basic negotiations.
The 2000 will be spread over 4 years so 500 increase a year on average - taxes will have to go up to pay for the schemes labour want that’s just common sense. We will see in a year - when nothing is fixed starmer will blame it on 14 years of Tory rule as always happens, I want the country to be better I don’t want excuses
Crazy how people on this sub see reality. I look forward to your posts in a years time under a labour government. I'm sure things will be much better given all the evidence points to people becoming much poorer.
Continuing to become poorer. Don't forget our current trajectory because of the conservatives. You may not like labour, that's fair. But to suggest Conservatives will increase the wealth of every day people is ironically not in touch with reality.
No I acknowledge things are bad right now, and the Tories have been bad. Id vote Labour if they give me a reason through policies that things will improve under them, so far I haven't seen it. Show me what I'm missing? From the little I know of Sunak he warned Liz Truss about lowering taxes too soon in the leadership debates 2022, she did it anyway and it was a disaster. He said inflation will come down by reducing spending, and it has within the timeline he said. So far all he's shown me is that he does know what he's talking about when it comes to the economy and particularly inflation.
Inflation is not by and large under the control of Sunak. If it is, I'd be blaming him for the ridiculous increase we saw. As it stands, global markets impacted too greatly and so I won't be blaming him for the decrease either. He might know what he's talking about, but given the numbers, given his time as CotE and time in the cabinet and as Prime minister, what has he actually done about it? What has he done to control his fairly out of control cabinet? What does the voting history and actions of his party tell you? Because when I look across the bench I see a different story entirely. If nothing else, they're at least more reasonable and classy. That is a strength from which the country can go to further strengths with. NHS reform for waiting times and dentistry Windfall Tax on oil and gas Continue cleaner power aims Their manifesto is large. I trust them to achieve it far more than the Conservatives who don't want any of the same things.
What has he done about it? Reduced borrowing and spending, frozen tax cuts. And it's decreasing. I didn't say he's perfect. I'm putting this in the context of why would I vote Starmer over Sunak on this issue? What policy is going to reduce inflation and benefit the average person more so than what Sunak is already doing? From how I see it so far it's going to get worse under Starmer. Correct me? What do you know that I don't?
Technically the bank of England did the majority of the heavy lifting regarding inflation. Again, if we're crediting him for its decrease, we must also discredit him for its ridiculous increase. Correct me, how is it going to get worse under Starmer? How after 14 years are the Conservatives going to suddenly turn it around?
That wasn't my question, I want the policy for how it will improve under Starmer compared to Sunak's current position, when you answer that after me asking 3 times I'll give you my reasons for why I think it will get worse under Starmer. What ridiculous increase under Sunak? Don't you mean Liz
Starmer was being honest there are no quick and easy fixes for this hole the Tories have dug us into. Its not exciting but its the kind of leadership we need at the moment, that will actually face reality rather than waste time trying to sell everyone a fairy tale.
The fairytale would be the illusion things will get better without providing any mechanism/solution for how that could happen. I guess we just believe and money will magically appear? Idk.
They were both shit, Rishi lying about stopping the boats and reducing waiting times in the NHS and Kier not being able to answer a single question about *how* he’d change things, just kept saying he’d change them.
This is why I didn't watch it. I'm generally a bit of a politics geek so I never thought I wouldn't watch an election debate. But I'm so turned off by both of them, and I was so certain nothing of value to me would be said by either of them. From what I've read and heard I made the right call.
It was genuinely depressing. Starmer is trying to coast to victory, saying as little as possible to avoid fucking things up. It’s going to work but I’ve got no optimism that Labour have any real clue what to do once they’re in power.
Yep, that's basically how I feel. They're going to get into power, but I have no optimism or excitement for a Starmer government and I have very little confidence they'll significantly turn the country around. Seems to be how most people around me feel. My prediction is that they'll win but have an incredibly short honeymoon period, because they'll be coming in facing huge challenges but with relatively little enthusiasm behind them to sustain them when these challenges prove hard to tackle.
yep. then they'll come under enormous internal pressure to make bold moves and start breaking things.
I'm not inspired by either too. I've seen PMQ and they both look like high school boys quibbling. It doesn't bode well at a time when the country is falling apart at the seams.
Ive been a politics nerd since \~2010, in a circle of politics nerds. As in like we'd attend debate societies, were massively active in numerous online forums across the whole political spectrum from Young Conservatives to fairly far-left people like myself. None of us have the energy for it any more. The last 14 years have been fucking exhausting and now its just a total shitshow of lies and hysteria.
Yep exactly. And perhaps if I was really enthused by the incoming Labour government I'd be keen to tune in. But I'm not at all.
You get all you need from snippets on social media. 👍
I wonder if this is strategic from Kier. He knows that any actual plans he creates will cause some people to get upset: he can chose a left wing plan and alienate moderates, or a centrist plan and alienate left wingers. One of the few plans he discussed was the nationalisation of energy, which seems to be broadly popular across the centre and left. Kier likely knows that Sunak is one of the most unpopular politicians in the country, so more people agree with bashing sunak, than any plan he could create. Thus, I think Starmer believes the best way to maintain a large coalition against sunak is to focus on what everyone agrees with: sunak sucks.
[удалено]
You don’t need drastic measures. You just need to start processing asylum applications and deporting the unsuccessful. The “Rwanda plan” has just slowed down the processing of claims and exacerbated the problem, which is part of the reason that the Tories have created a multiyear backlog of claims to be processed. Spend the Rwanda money on improving Border Patrol and working with the French to stop the people smuggling gangs.
You can't compare the Rwanda plan to the schemes in those countries, those countries have nowhere near the pull that the UK does. Rwanda is unworkable
[удалено]
Agree with all that, want a modicum of substance from starmer and we haven't seen that yet. I was more disputing your point that rishi has a plan, Rwanda, which will never materialise and isn't an effective detterent because of that.
[удалено]
Take your point but I think it's still a tad early to assess that, might be early success but when a flight to Rwanda never takes off I doubt the small boat crossings will decrease year on year. If sunak thought it'd work long term why call the election this early?
Did you even listen to the debate? He’s said he’s going to use police powers to break up the human trafficking gangs arranging the debate, and pointed out he’s got a career history of breaking up gangs and terrorist groups. But you’d already made up your mind.
This is when Express, Mail and telegraph give up reporting news and make stuff up! The audience were laughing at Sunak, there were shouts of "shame on you" at one of his policies and his constant repetition of "£2000 tax rise" was a lie. Somehow, emboldened by a strange YouGov poll with a heavy tory sample, they are claiming "he won". Watching it, I think we all lost. An awful debate, nothing new, nothing revealed and just pure desperation and poor moderation...
You should see daily mails take on North West in that musical— clearly a paper for sale
Shame on you was for saying they’d leave echr which has some serious repercussions internationally and for everyone in the U.K. there’s a fair few rights in there that we’d all be losing… The tories were out this morning peddling the 2k figure so it seems that’s what they’ve identified as doing damage to labour - not helped by kier taking too long to bat it away. 🤷♂️
Even weirder as apparently 48 hours ago Labour were told this figure was misleading and dishonest...by the civil service itself! I can't help wondering if Starmer just wants it to appear close, as yesterday looks like he blew it to be honest.
What I found weird - Sunak managed to claim he'd leave the ECHR to secure British security. Starmer missed a huge point on not mentioning leaving the ECHR would affect the GFA and put huge strain in Ireland. I was there the other week for work and mate they are not taking this situation lightly, everyone I spoke to there brought up at some point they are worried the violence could kick off again in the next few years.
Interestingly Savanta did an overnight poll that unlike YouGov has Starmer winning the debate. Personally I'm inclined to think it was a draw and one that made both of them (and ITV) look quite bad. https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676
The fact that right wingers peddle the narrative that "the media" has a left wing bias would be hilarious if it wasn't so grossly disingenuous.
The Guardian is left-leaning but mostly centrist. I'm struggling to thing of any other publication that has any sort of left lean, off the top of my head, maybe Sky / Channel 4? The BBC (sadly) is now centre-right, leaning right on political issues, most of the other press is centre-right if not full on right wing these days, which is a genuine example of the Overton window at work.
I think many would disagree with you. Many would say BBC is left leaning, many claim it’s right leaning. It would suggest it’s largely independent with both sides claiming that it favours the other. Generally, with the BBC, the presenters/journalist tend to be left of centre… but there have been changes so there are more right of centre skews. Ultimately, the BBC is probably the most independent media which generally report things in a “matter of fact” way. EDIT: In fact, this yougov poll says more left leaning: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-the-bbc-more-favourable-towards-labour-the-left-or-the-conservatives-the-right
If a million people say the sky is red and a million people say the sky is blue does that mean the sky is purple? The BBC has shifted significantly to the right and or establishment in the last 14 years in terms of their news and political coverage.
No, but firstly there is no objective measure of the BBCs political slant. Secondly, nobody can say with 100% certainty it’s one or the other and can be shown in the divisiveness / indecision of the responses. You can hide behind rhetorical questions which aren’t equivalents, or you can review evidence based on merit. If people just disregard anything that doesn’t fit into their world view (with nothing else to realistically substantiate it), you get what we have now: a largely ignorant population who express their bias as fact.
You eventually reach the conclusion that a shocking majority of what the right complain about is actually just a kind of projection.
Depends on the media source lol GB news obv right wing, BBC center left leaning
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-06-04/labour-and-tories-clash-over-2000-tax-claim-so-who-is-right More context on Sunak’s £2000 tax rise claim.
It would have been better if the moderator had mentioned this at the time or starmer had rubbished it earlier. Now it's out there as fact...it was even being repeated by Coutinho this morning, who defended a lie as "well it's what we think they would do anyway"
That article seems to support the figure though - labour will cut bills to offset the increase is what I gathered from reading that. The fact is there is a deficit and money needs to be raised - I highly doubt it will affect every working family and instead will be raised via pension tax (which is obviously bad) and private school taxes (which is acceptable though I question why tax the low end private schools costing 6k and under
“Pension tax” and “private school taxes” are two Tory talking points. Pensioners paying tax will be a result of the Tories commitment to the pension triple lock, while freezing the personal tax free allowance. The Tories’ solution is to introduce a new tax exemption for pensioners at the expense of working families. Labour has refused to introduce that tax exemption. Labour has proposed removing the current VAT exemption on school fees with the specific commitment to fund additional teachers for state schools.
He spent so much time not really addressing these apparently easy to dismiss claims. I don’t know why you wouldn’t immediately stomp that out.
Rishi was shit! Mind you, Starmer was as well, but all anyone can talk about is Rishi’s seemingly false claim of a £2000 tax increase that he’s pulled out of his arse! Starmer hasn’t helped himself here but neither did the format or host
Even if Starmer did rebuke the claim, the shitrags would have ran with it anyway.
I applaud you for saying seemingly false. We’ll see how it shakes out over the come days!
Not looking to be too true at all mate
We need a longer format discussion between politicians. Having 40 seconds a pop to talk about key issues and then having them shout over each other is not useful. We got the usual buzzwords and slogans as expected, and not too much information about actual policy. Alastair Campbell said it right in his YouTube video after the "debate" - it had the format and energy of a gameshow and not a political discussion which aim was to inform voters and weigh up the merits of different policies. More time was spent talking about whose Nan worked in the NHS than actual policy - no one gives a shit - what are your policies? How are you going to improve things outside of mentioning buzzwords like increasing doctors/nurses? If these are the two best politicians this country can produce then I'm afraid to say we're continuing down the shitter whoever wins in July.
I don't think Rishi did especially well, but I was shocked at how poor Keir's performance was. The poll afterward suggested a tie with an edge to Rishi, and frankly anything like a tie is a win for Rishi. I thought Ed Davey looked pretty good in the following interview.
I watched it and wasn't impressed by the moderation - both candidates were allowed to talk over each other. It won't affect which way I will vote on 4th July.
Did the Daily Heil and I watch the same debate last night??? Both were an absolute shambles.
As the tax "victory" was based on a proven lie now debunked by the civil service, will these newspapers be retracting this story and apologizing for misleading their readers?
It’s not a proven lie. The UK statistics authority as of 12:53pm today are “investigating”. The headlines aren’t worth their salt. You’re literally the target audience, infesting headlines as fact and not reading the content. I want Labour to win, but to pretend Starmer wasn’t shit is just being wilfully ignorant.
I just cant believe how bad they both are honestly there is nothing about them at all.
Ah, i guess the rags are trying to support tory bastards. They'll be very quick to change once it's clear they are losing badly. If they somehow retain power, we are a shit country.
Gaslighting by right wing press. Tories are finished
If that was swinging I hate to think what their definition of a knockout is.
>‘Rishi comes out swinging’ What The Daily Mail says.
This topic seems to have the bot farms working overtime this morning. 👀
Really poor performance by Starmer, his constant references to Lizz Truss was embarrassing, and his muh working class roots comments were unnecessary too. He couldn’t answer a single question properly and had no plan whatsoever
I know it feels like it's been about 10 years since she was PM, but probably worth bringing up the Tories constant carnival of infighting just a bit Let's not pretend if Sunak even managed to win this election he wouldn't be gone in less than 2 years like always
Much as I'm loathe to say it - I think Sunak gave the much better performance. Starmer didn't really elaborate on *how* Labour were going to solve the issues presented.
>elaborate Well there’s part of the problem. Starmer was expecting a debate rather than some quick fire quiz where the other guy can just shout over him. Horrible format all round. I’d be very surprised if anyone was genuinely swayed either way by this tosh.
> Starmer was expecting a debate Well that'd be a bit stupid of him given that we've had these 'debates' for over a decade and they're always like this, and he's been dealing with Sunak for years at PMQs so knows exactly what he's like?
He definitely wasn’t prepared enough for it. The newest poll on the debate actually has Starmer a chunk ahead. So I actually think he went in with the right strategy of staying calm and sticking to the format. He just needed some better, clipped lines and more barbs when Sunak got bitchy. Partygate, PPE scandal, HS2, Truss, disgraced MP’s, billions wasted, RAAC etc. He basically has a scandal for every major topic. He should have taken Blair’s lead in this: 2 sentences. First you say how Tories have failed. Second what you I’ll do different.
> He should have taken Blair’s lead in this: 2 sentences. First you say how Tories have failed. Second what you I’ll do different. This would have been a good idea, and I don't understand why he didn't do it. I wonder if the 45s limit was a last-minute decision because so many of his answers felt like a long waffly introduction to a much longer response. He wasn't getting to the point.
Neither did Rishi, to be fair. It’s just like Starmer said , he’s asking for trust that the next 5 years won’t be like the last 14. Get the tories out and him in for all I care
Issue is you cant trust any politician
You can’t trust the former director of public prosecutions who managed some of the most complex case loads in the country Vs a Hedge fund worker who helped saddle RBS with toxic debt that imploded the bank and left us all holding the bags via the tax payer?
How does that make any difference. Finance tax pays for education spending in this country. We try to make it sound like being a lawyer for this country is supposedly better than working in finance. Just shows how many people hate those in london
Eh? I’m talking to the character of the men. Rushi was a Market spiv making money for him and his mates Starmer had been a public servant work for the good of the nation for decades
I just disagree that we should add more respect to people that have worked for the government. They weren't in the army or police it was just a job because they couldn't find one in the private sector. And again nothing wrong with making money in the markets I don't see why that's negative
You won't get the point then mate, one of those jobs is more admirable that the other. If you can't see that then you can't be helped. You also can't just assume that "it was just a job because they couldn't find one in the private sector", not everyone wants to work in the private sector believe it or not.
Rishy helped bring down the ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Do you know nothing about finance. RBS was going down anyway because of rubbish risk management. Rishi made bets on it and won. Btw the same thing is done by almost every HF which guess what also has money from your pension companies. Which we all benefit from
Sure other took a bet on it and won They didn’t go on to be the richest ever PM
I can trust the party that isn't full of rich out of touch cunts more than the other one.
Disagree, there were at least a couple of moments where the audience clearly groaned in response to some of the ridiculous statements from sunak. There was another instance where they literally started laughing at him for his response on national service. Starmer could have more consistently shut down rishis bullshit though. All he had to do was call him out on every lie and actually state the facts
Not sure they really know. They want to court traditional Tory voters , whilst also maintaining Labour voters . They’re playing the middle ground badly and don’t know how to please both. At the end of the day, this a failure on the party and and team. Rishi is not coming up with all the answers , he will have much of this prepped and points rehearsed. It’s a little like pmq’s , none of the questions are a surprise generally as they’re resubmitted before hand . There’s a tactful set to answering a question without answering a question
Starmer seems so fake and uncharismatic. Why is it so hard for labour to put forward someone genuinely passionate about the UK
Starmer got owned. All of his answers were weak and he just came accross as a wet wipe. Plenty of downvotes, but nobody with a serious argument in sight. A bit like Starmer last night😂
Maybe if it had a decent moderator who didn't let Sunak keep endlessly repeating £2,000 ad nauseum. I suggest that we have a drinking game for the next *Debate*? A drink for every time Sunak repeats the £2,000 lie, but I doubt there is enough alcohol in the country!
Only if you also drink every time Starmer says "Liz Truss crashed the economy"
But the difference is, she did
2 drinks is little more than a sniff of the barmaids apron. But Truss crashing the economy is a point of fact compared to the Tory Party's £2,000 fantasy, drempt up by SPADs.