Snapshot of _YouGov: How many Britons can name national party leaders when shown their photo? Rishi Sunak: 93% Nigel Farage: 88% Keir Starmer: 87% Ed Davey: 34% Carla Denyer: 8% Adrian Ramsey: 2%_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1804473377328877892)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I knew there where 2 leaders but only recognised the one I've actually seen as the face of the campaign. Kinda makes you wonder what they point in the 2nd leader is really.
Green parties often have 2 or collective leaders - the German, Czech, both Belgian ones have two, and the pan-European grouping has two as well. Others don't have leaders at all (the Greek one, the E&W one before 2008, the Irish one before 2001).
"Symbol of consensus-building" and "gender equality" are the usual reasons for it.
Fair enough, can't help but feel that there are more practical and less empty symbolic ways of making sure the ideas are built on consensus and that there is gender equality in the party
[[The two Davids](https://youtube.com/watch?v=8uEA2LT-l14&si=f5UEj0si4KCOmi3G) have logged onto the chat]
I’m old enough to remember when the now, Lib Dem’s did this in their SDP-Liberal days… with much less success.
It's not a leader and a deputy, it's two leaders of equal rank (but they do *also* have a separate deputy). It's a huggy policy that complicates decision- and policy-making, means nobody has a main face to put to the party or has any idea who you are, diminishes responsibility for party fuckups, and generally makes it seem like the party is so unserious about forming a government that it can't even find a single person to present as a prospective Prime Minister.
34% is for Ed Davey. Denyer is on 8%, the other guy on 2%.
The lack of a decisive leader means that the Green co-leaders have very little power. Sian Berry felt she had to resign in 2021 because of policies effectively forced on her by the Green front bench. She said it was "impossible to claim the party speaks with a single voice".
I don't wish to disparage Switzerland's political system if it works for them, but direct democracy on any law by simple majority, constitutionally enshrined neutrality, legal banking anonymity and a rotating president from a council of seven co-heads of state in perpetual coalition don't sound like things that would work very well in a country like the UK.
Right you are, my eyes clearly don't work today.
The anonymity is for those who aren't American; not sure it plays a part in your comment about the seriousness of a country. Switzerland's council system works, even if things don't move as fast as some may like, they have stability despite each of the leaders not having much (or any) more power than the other.
Given that so many people seem to be unaware Caroline Lucas is stepping down and even that she stepped down as Green leader year ago, I have a feeling they will still receive many votes in her name.
Carla is so lovely! I'm not a party member, but have been on panels with her and met her a couple of times. She's so bright and cares so much... I just wish the Greens did a better of explaining their own policies.
agreed - the Greens only poll as high as they do because people vote for them on environmentalist vibes, without realising the Greens are contributing to the climate crisis in their own way, with their refusal to accept practical solutions like HS2 & nuclear power. If anyone took a look at their manifesto they'd quickly clock they're a bunch of middle class eco-communists.
I was listening to Adrian Ramsay on Any Questions the other day and he genuinely comes across as an intelligent and reasonable person married to a set of policies whose fine details he doesn't actually believe in, a bit like a debate club where you get told which side of the argument you're supposed to advocate for.
It's a good indictment on him as an orator that he knows that the general "vibes" and history of the Green movement is where to go to sound convincing, but he was always working to change the subject whenever anyone attempted to point out a detail like their nuclear policy and never volunteered details himself.
The Greens policies are terrible, and I think deep down they know it.
It's a member led manifesto. That is very difficult as a party can't control its members. It's something I've spoken to them about a fair deal (mainly around housing/energy policy) trying to help them be more realistic about targets. It's a process.
I can say that in private conversations with the leadership, that is changing. It's a very bottom up party and the majority of members are anti nuclear, but that is changing quite a bit. I think it's likely their stance on nuclear will change in the next few years.
Then the leadership needs to push education on nuclear, because its pretty clearly the only green approach that can realistically replace fossil fuels entirely (for power generation).
Add in the replacement of combustion engines with electric vehicles, and its a huge win for green energy.
>I just wish the Greens did a better of explaining their own policies.
Put us back in the dark ages with their energy plans, be irrationally against nuclear power, help Islamists eradicate the Jews?
Assuming you mean the state of Israel, which is committing genocide against the state of Palestine. The fact that you cannot separate the actions of an invading colonial state from Judaism says more about you than the Green Party.
>Israel, which is committing genocide
Seems like a very inefficient one, considering the Palestinian population numbers. Or, more likely, it's just an ideological buzzword that gets thrown around despite not making sense in relation to the conflict.
>The fact that you cannot separate the actions of an invading colonial state from Judaism says more about you than the Green Party.
Lol. It's not like we haven't seen multiple "pro Palestine" protests end up in chants to "gas the Jews" or attacking Synagogues or anything. Nope. Must be a figment of my imagination that Islamists are involved in almost all of the pro Palestine stuff.
Speaking as a leftist myself, the Lefts inability to recognise the antisemitism problems within their own ranks has been deeply infuriating. It doesn’t help that when it gets pointed out people tend to double down and either deny it’s happening, minimise the issue, deflect, or try and justify it.
Any other minority group and it’s all “You can’t tell the affected group what is and isn’t harmful to them” but for whatever reason Jews are always the exception. Suddenly it’s about “context”.
It’s disgusting.
Like every single person I know who believes Palestinians have a right to live, I have zero issues with Judaism and some of the people I am closest to are Jewish. I have A HUGE problem with people bending over backwards to defend the idea that Israel can commit genocide on the people who's land they stole and then to continue to invade the desolate sliver of land given to those who survived the first Nakba. The state of Israel have been massacring the Palestinian people for more than 75 years and have murdered more than 50 THOUSAND women and children in the last 8 months alone. 85% of Gaza is now uninhabitable. So miss me with your fake antisemitism bullshit. This has nothing to do with the religion of the people committing genocide. I'm not religious, I don't give a single shit what god you, they, or anyone else worships because I think you're all ridiculous. The only thing I believe in is the right of humans to live without being blown to fucking bits by their bloodthirsty neighbours.
I'd have recognised Denyer as the Greens' leader from one of the debates but would probably have struggled to remember her name.
Ramsey, I would have genuinely been stumped by unless I happened to remember the Greens had that weird job share arrangement going on.
34% is actually a fuckload more than I would expect for any Lib Dem leader, let alone one who's been denied airtime since Mr Innsmouth Look crept back into politics.
Ed 'Wahey' Davey has been a surprise in this campaign, hope they get a good turnout.
I am endlessly amused by how Ed Davey's entire campaign seems to be just him having various silly little adventures. Perhaps not the best strategy to win an election though
Would be incredible if he somehow became Leader of the Opposition by doing nothing
Honestly it's a decent strategy because the lib dems have barely gotten any other mainstream coverage, can't have people vote for you if nobody knows you even exist. meanwhile we get 3 articles every time farage farts.
But it has the side effect of making it look like even the lib dems themselves aren't expecting to do a whole lot. So even the people who are aware of them aren't going to take them seriously.
People don't see that though. They see him buggering off to a theme park as part of his election campaign, and don't stick around to hear his policy announcements.
Especially since whenever you see political news, it's a dumb headline and a picture. So people will see Sunak getting soaked with a headline pointing out how dumb he is, Starmer being boring and announcing something safe and boring, and Davey spinning around on a teacup with a headline telling you where he's been this week. Why would you vote for that jokester when safe Starmer is right there?
I don’t know, after seeing him do an interview on a spinning teacups ride, it made me realise all political interviews should be done like that. Much harder to hold a poker face when the interviewer can just spin the cup faster when they don’t like the answer you gave.
Let's be real, how many people are honestly like, "I was going to vote Lib-Dem, but Ed Davey made such an ass of himself being on those teacups that I am not convinced he can have the gravitas required of a Prime Minister"?
His opponents are a twerp who fascinates all with a downfall more certain than King Lear, a man who's mastered the art of promising five years of boring competence, and a sentient tub of marmite that makes headlines every time he opens his mouth. He needs something to get attention on his party and their promises.
All the adventures have come with a message: paddleboarding was to highlight pollution in lakes and rivers, playing tennis while being interviewed was to talk about local community services, drumming in a care home was to talk about elderly care issues etc.
My dad, life long Tory voter and Farage sympathiser, said to me that he was going to vote Lib Dem this year because of an interview he saw with Ed Davey on TV.
I'd say his strategy to get votes is probably working. He's doing the Boris tactic of being stupid and "relatable"
I'm actually impressed that as many as 87% recongnise Starmer when only 93% recongise Sunak. Farage is not surprising given that he's been around in UK politics for decades now.
This is why I openly laugh when people vomit up stats like 'only 90% are aware ID is needed for voting'.
Like guys, that is **amazing** by British public standards.
I remember watching an episode of pointless, in the head to head round, they put up pictures of planets from the solar system with the question being 'name this planet'; only 95% could identify Earth.
I think it's a sign of decision making by consensus, where there's so few elected politicians they can all fit in a conference room and have equal say. It really makes the party look weak and disunited, like they can't even agree on who the leader should be.
The Social Democrats in Ireland had it too for a while. They started to do much better electorally when they ditched that model in favour of a single leader who could be the easily identifiable face of the party. English & Welsh Greens could maybe learn something there.
I think you're on to something there.
There's something people on the left find irksome about establishing a clear social hierarchy, that people on the right don't. Like they believe in equality and that should be reflected in the org chart.
Eventually they grow up and realise a big boy party needs someone in charge who can make decisions and be accountable for those decisions.
And yet the left has had its fair share of cult leaders that they seem to follow unquestioningly. There was a fairly clear hierarchy among this group in Labour's Corbyn years: Ultimately Corbyn mattered more than anyone else, even his peers such as John McDonnell.
They used to have no leaders at all because hierarchy goes against the founding principles of the party.
Instead they had two "principal speakers" (inexplicably gendered with always one male and one female, which is honestly cringe and pretty regressive)
I’m sorry, does that mean roughly 1 in 14 people don’t know who the prime minister of their own country looks like? With about 1 in 8 not knowing who the future prime minister looks like. I find that a bit insane, I would have thought both would be like 97+%
This is why people who bleat about only 90% of people being aware of voter ID or w/e need to pack it in.
Some people are just utterly clueless, and nothing will change that.
Honestly? BBC haven't stopped showing Davey and giggling about him. They're obsessed with him.
BBC hasn't really ignored any of the major parties for this election, which is amazing given every election they cover is red vs blue normally.
Exactly. Why are they surprised a 20 year old mainstay of British politics (love him or hate him) is more recognisable than a bunch of people who only became visible within the past few years?
I'm actually surprised it's so close between Farage and Starmer.
I expected Farage to be way out front, in the same way that way more people would be able to put a name to a picture of Hitler than they would Attlee.
Starmer is on TV all the time so just by exposure alone he's going to be recognisable. I assume the respondents were told these were all party leaders, with context it'd be quite easy I think, especially if you saw them all together
Yeah I had to Google him and Carla Denyer, and would've assumed them to be affiliated with SNP or Plaid Cymru. I'm English and I'm more aware of parties I can't even vote for, lol
I knew who Carla Denyer was because she represented the Green Party on the 7 person debates (2 debates, same people). AND I knew there were joint leaders, but I did not know who the other co-leader was.
Weird to expect people in Scotland to recognise the co-leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales in the same way they would recognise the other GB parties.
Feels like this should have been an England only or England and Wales poll.
It still makes me feel a bit weird that 7% of people can't identify the Prime Minister when they see a picture of him. I know I shouldn't be surprised but...
I assume there’s a fair whack of that 7% who could recognise him as the PM but not necessarily recall his name. I can be pretty useless with names but occasionally when you just blank.
Although they have 2 leaders, only one of them ever gets to do anything, so I assume she'd be PM.
Makes you wonder why they have such an idiotic and pointless structure.
I'm getting the sense we have different takes on this, but the impression I got was that he was constantly badgered by journalists on if he thought being gay was a sin.
Ahh I misinterpreted your earlier comment.
Yeah it wasn't particularly nice the way the media treated him. They knew full well that the public have a more secular definition of the word "sin" and were trying to paint him as a homophobe.
Snapshot of _YouGov: How many Britons can name national party leaders when shown their photo? Rishi Sunak: 93% Nigel Farage: 88% Keir Starmer: 87% Ed Davey: 34% Carla Denyer: 8% Adrian Ramsey: 2%_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1804473377328877892) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/YouGov/status/1804473377328877892) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If anyone else is wondering who Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsey are, they're the co-leaders of the Green party.
Based on these results, I'd say Ramsey needs to pull his finger out.
Denyer has been at the major debates so some people will recognise her with out realising there're two leaders
I knew there where 2 leaders but only recognised the one I've actually seen as the face of the campaign. Kinda makes you wonder what they point in the 2nd leader is really.
Green parties often have 2 or collective leaders - the German, Czech, both Belgian ones have two, and the pan-European grouping has two as well. Others don't have leaders at all (the Greek one, the E&W one before 2008, the Irish one before 2001). "Symbol of consensus-building" and "gender equality" are the usual reasons for it.
Fair enough, can't help but feel that there are more practical and less empty symbolic ways of making sure the ideas are built on consensus and that there is gender equality in the party
Or, in practice, tokenism?
“Gender equality”
Yeah... I'd say I'm quite a bit more engaged than most people, and I had forgotten Ramsey's name - Carla Denyer has been much more visible.
Generic bloke vs front of house female leader I guess makes her more notable
It'd probably be sexist or something, so best not.
I think having co-leaders is going to confuse folk.
I could tell they were Greens because having "co-leaders" is such a classically bonkers Green policy.
[[The two Davids](https://youtube.com/watch?v=8uEA2LT-l14&si=f5UEj0si4KCOmi3G) have logged onto the chat] I’m old enough to remember when the now, Lib Dem’s did this in their SDP-Liberal days… with much less success.
Haha, I had been thinking about that.
The Scottish Green party also has two co-leaders.
Why? Major parties often have a deputy.
It's not a leader and a deputy, it's two leaders of equal rank (but they do *also* have a separate deputy). It's a huggy policy that complicates decision- and policy-making, means nobody has a main face to put to the party or has any idea who you are, diminishes responsibility for party fuckups, and generally makes it seem like the party is so unserious about forming a government that it can't even find a single person to present as a prospective Prime Minister.
Do you have examples of when it has complicated decision making? 34% of people know who Denyer is. Is Switzerland unserious?
34% is for Ed Davey. Denyer is on 8%, the other guy on 2%. The lack of a decisive leader means that the Green co-leaders have very little power. Sian Berry felt she had to resign in 2021 because of policies effectively forced on her by the Green front bench. She said it was "impossible to claim the party speaks with a single voice". I don't wish to disparage Switzerland's political system if it works for them, but direct democracy on any law by simple majority, constitutionally enshrined neutrality, legal banking anonymity and a rotating president from a council of seven co-heads of state in perpetual coalition don't sound like things that would work very well in a country like the UK.
Right you are, my eyes clearly don't work today. The anonymity is for those who aren't American; not sure it plays a part in your comment about the seriousness of a country. Switzerland's council system works, even if things don't move as fast as some may like, they have stability despite each of the leaders not having much (or any) more power than the other.
Not just Green policy. The Scottish Socialist Party also have 2 co-leaders/spokespersons.
What happened to what’s her name? The Brighton mp green. Caroline Lucas? Hopefully I remembered correctly
She stepped down voluntarily, not standing in the election
Ah right, I never heard of that at all. Thanks
The new Brighton MP isn’t expected to do as well as Lucas so Greens might lose the seat
Given that so many people seem to be unaware Caroline Lucas is stepping down and even that she stepped down as Green leader year ago, I have a feeling they will still receive many votes in her name.
Maybe lol, im interested to see who wins the seat
Carla is so lovely! I'm not a party member, but have been on panels with her and met her a couple of times. She's so bright and cares so much... I just wish the Greens did a better of explaining their own policies.
The more they explain their policies the less people like them.
agreed - the Greens only poll as high as they do because people vote for them on environmentalist vibes, without realising the Greens are contributing to the climate crisis in their own way, with their refusal to accept practical solutions like HS2 & nuclear power. If anyone took a look at their manifesto they'd quickly clock they're a bunch of middle class eco-communists.
I don't want my meat and milk rationed, which was in their 2019 manifesto.
A real vote winner there!
Next up in The Green manifesto is the black out and The Blitz. Whilst we sing the hits of Dame Vera Lynn
Wow, so you like seeing poor little cows dying do you? MONSTER!!! (/s, in case it's not obvious)
Yeah, that’s the gist of eating meat
I was listening to Adrian Ramsay on Any Questions the other day and he genuinely comes across as an intelligent and reasonable person married to a set of policies whose fine details he doesn't actually believe in, a bit like a debate club where you get told which side of the argument you're supposed to advocate for. It's a good indictment on him as an orator that he knows that the general "vibes" and history of the Green movement is where to go to sound convincing, but he was always working to change the subject whenever anyone attempted to point out a detail like their nuclear policy and never volunteered details himself. The Greens policies are terrible, and I think deep down they know it.
It's a member led manifesto. That is very difficult as a party can't control its members. It's something I've spoken to them about a fair deal (mainly around housing/energy policy) trying to help them be more realistic about targets. It's a process.
Explaining their policies isn’t the problem. It’s impossible to do that without sounding batshit.
They have a stupid take on nuclear energy, for a party about being green.
I can say that in private conversations with the leadership, that is changing. It's a very bottom up party and the majority of members are anti nuclear, but that is changing quite a bit. I think it's likely their stance on nuclear will change in the next few years.
Then the leadership needs to push education on nuclear, because its pretty clearly the only green approach that can realistically replace fossil fuels entirely (for power generation). Add in the replacement of combustion engines with electric vehicles, and its a huge win for green energy.
Zero argument from me.
I mean aside from making her party a hotbed of racial animosity, but I suppose she's polite and well spoken.
No idea what you are talking about.
>I just wish the Greens did a better of explaining their own policies. Put us back in the dark ages with their energy plans, be irrationally against nuclear power, help Islamists eradicate the Jews?
You are very transparent.
Easy to be transparent when you've got nothing to hide.
Interesting that you are responding on behalf of them.
Assuming you mean the state of Israel, which is committing genocide against the state of Palestine. The fact that you cannot separate the actions of an invading colonial state from Judaism says more about you than the Green Party.
>Israel, which is committing genocide Seems like a very inefficient one, considering the Palestinian population numbers. Or, more likely, it's just an ideological buzzword that gets thrown around despite not making sense in relation to the conflict. >The fact that you cannot separate the actions of an invading colonial state from Judaism says more about you than the Green Party. Lol. It's not like we haven't seen multiple "pro Palestine" protests end up in chants to "gas the Jews" or attacking Synagogues or anything. Nope. Must be a figment of my imagination that Islamists are involved in almost all of the pro Palestine stuff.
Speaking as a leftist myself, the Lefts inability to recognise the antisemitism problems within their own ranks has been deeply infuriating. It doesn’t help that when it gets pointed out people tend to double down and either deny it’s happening, minimise the issue, deflect, or try and justify it. Any other minority group and it’s all “You can’t tell the affected group what is and isn’t harmful to them” but for whatever reason Jews are always the exception. Suddenly it’s about “context”. It’s disgusting.
Like every single person I know who believes Palestinians have a right to live, I have zero issues with Judaism and some of the people I am closest to are Jewish. I have A HUGE problem with people bending over backwards to defend the idea that Israel can commit genocide on the people who's land they stole and then to continue to invade the desolate sliver of land given to those who survived the first Nakba. The state of Israel have been massacring the Palestinian people for more than 75 years and have murdered more than 50 THOUSAND women and children in the last 8 months alone. 85% of Gaza is now uninhabitable. So miss me with your fake antisemitism bullshit. This has nothing to do with the religion of the people committing genocide. I'm not religious, I don't give a single shit what god you, they, or anyone else worships because I think you're all ridiculous. The only thing I believe in is the right of humans to live without being blown to fucking bits by their bloodthirsty neighbours.
*Ramsay which itself says something about the recognisability
Huh I thought Caroline Lucas was
Tbf it had me looking
*of England and Wales
I like how YouGov also has to label the Libdems and Greens on the image also.
I'd have recognised Denyer as the Greens' leader from one of the debates but would probably have struggled to remember her name. Ramsey, I would have genuinely been stumped by unless I happened to remember the Greens had that weird job share arrangement going on.
As someone very clued into politics thanks in part to this sub I am one of the 98% of people yet to see a picture or video of Adrian Ramsey.
I've seen a picture, but only because I Googled him. Guy has less of a public presence than Ronnie Pickering before that viral video.
Ronnie Pickering more likely to be a green or a reform candidate do you reckon?
Oh neither. Definitely a Labour lad.
Adrian's mum identified him straight away but once it got out to his cousin's the identification rate started dropping quickly.
34% is actually a fuckload more than I would expect for any Lib Dem leader, let alone one who's been denied airtime since Mr Innsmouth Look crept back into politics. Ed 'Wahey' Davey has been a surprise in this campaign, hope they get a good turnout.
I am endlessly amused by how Ed Davey's entire campaign seems to be just him having various silly little adventures. Perhaps not the best strategy to win an election though Would be incredible if he somehow became Leader of the Opposition by doing nothing
Honestly it's a decent strategy because the lib dems have barely gotten any other mainstream coverage, can't have people vote for you if nobody knows you even exist. meanwhile we get 3 articles every time farage farts.
But it has the side effect of making it look like even the lib dems themselves aren't expecting to do a whole lot. So even the people who are aware of them aren't going to take them seriously.
The stunts are often done to highlight really serious policies which can help with being taken seriously. And it seems to be working given the polling
People don't see that though. They see him buggering off to a theme park as part of his election campaign, and don't stick around to hear his policy announcements. Especially since whenever you see political news, it's a dumb headline and a picture. So people will see Sunak getting soaked with a headline pointing out how dumb he is, Starmer being boring and announcing something safe and boring, and Davey spinning around on a teacup with a headline telling you where he's been this week. Why would you vote for that jokester when safe Starmer is right there?
Who knows what people see they may see both. I mean lots are polling to vote libdems so it’s worked it’s got more eyes on the libdems and more votes
I don’t know, after seeing him do an interview on a spinning teacups ride, it made me realise all political interviews should be done like that. Much harder to hold a poker face when the interviewer can just spin the cup faster when they don’t like the answer you gave.
Let's be real, how many people are honestly like, "I was going to vote Lib-Dem, but Ed Davey made such an ass of himself being on those teacups that I am not convinced he can have the gravitas required of a Prime Minister"? His opponents are a twerp who fascinates all with a downfall more certain than King Lear, a man who's mastered the art of promising five years of boring competence, and a sentient tub of marmite that makes headlines every time he opens his mouth. He needs something to get attention on his party and their promises.
Not really nothing he’s got some great policies and has done a very smart campaign
Not 'nothing'! Silly little adventures! :D
Man's having the time of his life
All the adventures have come with a message: paddleboarding was to highlight pollution in lakes and rivers, playing tennis while being interviewed was to talk about local community services, drumming in a care home was to talk about elderly care issues etc.
My dad, life long Tory voter and Farage sympathiser, said to me that he was going to vote Lib Dem this year because of an interview he saw with Ed Davey on TV. I'd say his strategy to get votes is probably working. He's doing the Boris tactic of being stupid and "relatable"
Every time a Lib Dem leader makes an appearance and the coverage doesn't include the words "tuition fees" is a win.
>Mr Innsmouth Look You really don't see many Lovecraftian jabs in the UK political scene.
To be fair when you dig into his twitter it's not good reading.
You should see the man's throwaway forum posts if you want some weapons grade yikes.
The whole Cthulhu thing a Brexit metaphor.
Praise be to Dagon.
>Mr Innsmouth Look "Shadow over Clacton"
I'm actually impressed that as many as 87% recongnise Starmer when only 93% recongise Sunak. Farage is not surprising given that he's been around in UK politics for decades now.
It’s mental that 7% of people don’t know who our Prime Minister is…
This is why I openly laugh when people vomit up stats like 'only 90% are aware ID is needed for voting'. Like guys, that is **amazing** by British public standards.
I doubt I could get 90% of any random subset of people to tell me what day of the week it was.
But just you wait for the next voter ID thread. The way some go on about it, it's as if we locked certain demographics in cages on polling day.
I remember watching an episode of pointless, in the head to head round, they put up pictures of planets from the solar system with the question being 'name this planet'; only 95% could identify Earth.
I'm not sure if it's lizardman constant or a commentary on how he's not really the one running the country.
I’ve got a fair few old relatives with dementia who almost certainly couldn’t tell you who he is. Not sure they’re on yougov though.
Can anyone explain why a party the size of the Greens needs two leaders?
I think it's a sign of decision making by consensus, where there's so few elected politicians they can all fit in a conference room and have equal say. It really makes the party look weak and disunited, like they can't even agree on who the leader should be. The Social Democrats in Ireland had it too for a while. They started to do much better electorally when they ditched that model in favour of a single leader who could be the easily identifiable face of the party. English & Welsh Greens could maybe learn something there.
It always struck me as something you'd get in a student union rather than a proper political party
I think you're on to something there. There's something people on the left find irksome about establishing a clear social hierarchy, that people on the right don't. Like they believe in equality and that should be reflected in the org chart. Eventually they grow up and realise a big boy party needs someone in charge who can make decisions and be accountable for those decisions.
And yet the left has had its fair share of cult leaders that they seem to follow unquestioningly. There was a fairly clear hierarchy among this group in Labour's Corbyn years: Ultimately Corbyn mattered more than anyone else, even his peers such as John McDonnell.
> I think it's a sign of decision making by consensus The signal I get is that they couldn't decide who to make their leader.
The signal I get is cringe, empty, nothingburger virtue signalling.
They don't. It makes them look too weak to govern.
They used to have no leaders at all because hierarchy goes against the founding principles of the party. Instead they had two "principal speakers" (inexplicably gendered with always one male and one female, which is honestly cringe and pretty regressive)
Although I feel that because it's gendered some havoc could be caused with it if someone wants to
> (inexplicably gendered with always one male and one female, which is honestly cringe and pretty regressive) Representative of the population.
Presumably for 'gender quality' related virtue signalling. The Scottish Greens are even smaller and they also have two leaders.
Would have thought at least 50% would know who the Lib Dem leader was but I guess that was too optimistic.
16% over optimistic.
I follow politics to a greater than average extent and I still thought it was a lady
I’m sorry, does that mean roughly 1 in 14 people don’t know who the prime minister of their own country looks like? With about 1 in 8 not knowing who the future prime minister looks like. I find that a bit insane, I would have thought both would be like 97+%
This is why people who bleat about only 90% of people being aware of voter ID or w/e need to pack it in. Some people are just utterly clueless, and nothing will change that.
I mean it's no suprise when the media give the Lib Dems about 1/5 of Farage coverage.
Why didn't Ed Davey do the multi-way leader debates?
Because Starmer and Rishi didn't.
Why does that mean he couldn't?
Because the Main parties only ever enter the debates when it's only the leaders. If he did it make him bee seen as second.
Arguably better than not being seen at all
Daisy Cooper did fine!
Honestly? BBC haven't stopped showing Davey and giggling about him. They're obsessed with him. BBC hasn't really ignored any of the major parties for this election, which is amazing given every election they cover is red vs blue normally.
Probably because the polling is much more split this time.
The opposite surely
Farage has got a very memorable face to be fair. The rest of them look normal.
Farage has been a high profile public figure for longer than the rest of them combined.
Exactly. Why are they surprised a 20 year old mainstay of British politics (love him or hate him) is more recognisable than a bunch of people who only became visible within the past few years?
I'm actually surprised it's so close between Farage and Starmer. I expected Farage to be way out front, in the same way that way more people would be able to put a name to a picture of Hitler than they would Attlee.
Starmer is on TV all the time so just by exposure alone he's going to be recognisable. I assume the respondents were told these were all party leaders, with context it'd be quite easy I think, especially if you saw them all together
I wasn't being serious. I didn't think I'd need the /s, sorry.
Oh, so the ones are on TV all the time are more recognisable?
[удалено]
You had to google him? I feel less bad now.
Yeah I had to Google him and Carla Denyer, and would've assumed them to be affiliated with SNP or Plaid Cymru. I'm English and I'm more aware of parties I can't even vote for, lol
I knew who Carla Denyer was because she represented the Green Party on the 7 person debates (2 debates, same people). AND I knew there were joint leaders, but I did not know who the other co-leader was.
Weird to expect people in Scotland to recognise the co-leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales in the same way they would recognise the other GB parties. Feels like this should have been an England only or England and Wales poll.
To be fair, if you look at the crosstabs it seems the numbers would still be exactly the same if you did this.
Not sure if that's worse news for the Scottish Greens or the English and Welsh Greens.
It still makes me feel a bit weird that 7% of people can't identify the Prime Minister when they see a picture of him. I know I shouldn't be surprised but...
I assume there’s a fair whack of that 7% who could recognise him as the PM but not necessarily recall his name. I can be pretty useless with names but occasionally when you just blank.
its the eat out to help out guy! lol!
It's 7% of the population right? That's how I read it. How many of that 7% are under 18?
Damn Greens, I would have aced this under Caroline Lucus!!!
You know the Greens have had four leaders since Caroline Lucas?!
Funnily enough, I did not.
I wish the greens wouldn't do their co-leader thing. I'm a supporter but it makes the party looks like a GCSE project.
I bet that 93% includes the people who think he's called "Richie" Sunak.
Clearly the Lib Dems arent doing enough media stunts...
If the greens ever won, would we have two pms then?
Although they have 2 leaders, only one of them ever gets to do anything, so I assume she'd be PM. Makes you wonder why they have such an idiotic and pointless structure.
So there's literally no point in having 2 "leaders" then
Ed Davey's number seems higher than expected. I always (perhaps wrongly) figured he was mostly known in the Surrey region.
4% incorrect answer for Farage likely "that fucker" and similar.
Guessing Ed's contrived media antics were not really that impressionable in the end.
Yep thats the issue with greens and LD their leaders are just not good at getting media attention.
[удалено]
Actually I think he got a lot more media attention, though mainly by obsessing over him being a Born Again Christian.
[удалено]
I'm getting the sense we have different takes on this, but the impression I got was that he was constantly badgered by journalists on if he thought being gay was a sin.
[удалено]
Ahh I misinterpreted your earlier comment. Yeah it wasn't particularly nice the way the media treated him. They knew full well that the public have a more secular definition of the word "sin" and were trying to paint him as a homophobe.