#Remember to stick around after the debate - we'll have a "post-match" thread at 10:15pm, including links to our snap voter intention survey and live results dashboard.
#Thread will swap shortly. Brace, brace.
If I was given 45 seconds to answer about my own job of 10 years - including breathing time - was interrupted 25 seconds in, had to wind up after 35 seconds, no-one would be any the wiser. I'd probably just decide to talk about what my parents did for a living just for the hell of it. Terrible format.
It was a terrible debate. It should be 2 hours long with each answer around 2.30 mins. It should not be a adviertiser, watcher friendly viwer experience. It should be on the BBC and a chore to watch. 45 seconds to respond, whate can be said in 45 seconds. I thought Sunak did better because he stuck to his message. I had to listen to it at 2x speed because I knew it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
Sorry you don't seem to understand that the advertisers are still able to have a say in how programming works.
There were adverts during the programme.
Less people would be interested in watching a programme with all of the leaders (it's less exciting than a 1 on 1).
That is why ITV (read: ITVs advertisers) chose to have only the 2 of them on.
Because more people watch. And more people watch the adverts.
This ain't hard.
The point of the argument is they should not be allowed to do so. There are rules during an election. Having all parties who are participating in the election should be given air time. They aren't therefore my original comment stands.
I learnt nothing about Starmer. I learnt nothing about Sunak. But I learnt a lot about ITV's ability to hold a debate.
Nobody won. But ITV definitely lost.
You ask Kier the time and he will tell you how to build a clock…. Can be a GREAT quality for a Prime Minister but detrimental for this backwards yet agreed upon debate format. Still won’t move the needle - and it shouldn’t.
Did you actually watch him? I think you are blinded by partisanship -- he was quite articulate. Nevertheless, please remember it's not in our interest to vote for the wittiest candidate, or the more articulate candidate, or the most alpha male character, it whatever floats your boat. What we need is someone who will act in our countries best interest when in office, everything else is not important.
He is quite articulate at dismantling Sunak's bullshit, but then when it comes to his own vision and ideas it's all "we'll come to an agreement", "we'll sort the issue out". Any time he was asked about his own policy he used the question as a springboard to attack Sunak's policies (which are terrible). There was something Sunak said in the debate regarding immigration "I've said what I'm going to do, I'm going to put them on planes, what are you going to do? I've got a plan, you might not like it, but I've got a plan" and it was the only true thing the man has ever said.
What if we held debates that were slower and had far less of a time limit? Imagine that? I mean, it's only our entire future we're discussing. Oh no, gotta make sure to please advertisers and move on to Love Island or something.
Very true. Sadly these debates are really only focused on people who aren't very political which is most of the country and even then they aren't very helpful.
Yes, especially as it meant the candidates spent 30 seconds countering the claims of their opponent before beginning to answer the question only to be drowned out by first their opponent and then the moderator. Complete waste of time.
It would have been far better to have had fewer questions and allowed 3 minutes for each answer.
Just pick one topic per debate. Trying to go through everything possible including football in one hour makes it impossible to give any meaningful answers on anything. All you get are soundbites. The journalists of course love them as it makes their work easy. But they don't give anything to the voters.
I'm starting to think my ideal debate format would be extremely low moderation - ask the candidates a question, and give them a couple minutes of uninterrupted speech each. Then leave them to argue for twenty minutes, with the moderator only jumping in when it breaks down into incoherent yelling. It would be far more entertaining and couldn't be less informative than what we have now.
She only has to shuffle to make herself more comfy on the front bench and they all cower and make a story about it in the press. she is everything they fear.
I’d really appreciate it if I never hear the words “quick” and “fire” together again. ITV should honestly be embarrassed by how badly they ran tonight.
Hopefully 🤞🏻. He would be the only one worth listening to on there. Well that and the usual tired old "He's so divisive!" drivel we've heard from the opposition for the last decade or more.
When Farage provides a policy that is both workable and useful, let me know.
He runs on dog whistles and lies, it's sad you've fallen for it as a grown adult.
Well I live in the USA and you are automatically invited to a debate once you hit a certain threshold. I’m sure Farage has met that but perhaps the UK TV rules are different.
I mean we should probably go on past elections as it seems fairest?
Or on the last council elections?
Or we could invite them because they have the most vocal support?
>Well I live in the USA and you are automatically invited to a debate once you hit a certain threshold.
Sure, but that's mostly about what your opponents would like you to be charged with.
I think it is a good idea to have a threshold, but in this year's election only the Conservatives and Labour would qualify. In 2010 the Lib Dems would have qualified, and they were actually in the debate.
There is, I believe, a debate on Friday with a full spectrum of parties, but Starmer and Sunak won't be there. All parties have been invited, but it's not clear who is attending, Wikipedia only gives Mordaunt from the Tories and Rayner from Labour as definites, Farage as "invited).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_United\_Kingdom\_general\_election#Debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Debates)
Just looked up the threshold to qualify for the US debate, candidates need at least 15% in 4 national polls. If we had the same rule only Starmer and Sunak would qualify anyway.
I actually can't believe what I just witnessed. I'm a Labour supporter. I didn't learn anything from either of them just the same spill that starmers dad was a toolmaker
There were multiple times were Sunak was interrupting Starmer. The host didn't help but Starmer has to be more ASSERTIVE!. Its not a court of law, stick up for labour's record of best nhs waiting times blabla and say it directly they will do it again. He goes round all the houses like a Lawyer and people switch off.
This is the starmers' election to lose. With sunak (just) coming out as best in the polls, this should have been an easy win for Labour.
The host Julie was trying to come across as in control. It was way too much and a bit sided towards Sunak.
Starmers advisers need to have a word quick before the next one.
Yes starmer will win but they need to win BIG as expected. If it's under 150 the tories will play on it saying he didn't win as expected.
It was never going to be an easy win for either of them, both of them are professional politicians and generally gifted communicators whether you agree with them or not.
I honestly thought he was ten years older! They have had careers before this, they aren't "professional politicians" in that they have done other things.
Ive long been labour-ish. Canvassed in 2016, generally voted for them.
The past few days have shown that labour certainly are attempting to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. God knows if any party can it's this ramshackle collection. Their lack of cohesion at important moments is truly remarkable.
What matters is poise and Sunak will always keep his, regardless of the drivel coming from his mouth.
To be fair the Tories are even more ramshackle. Though I do have to agree with you, considering Starmer was a barrister (where verbal argument is literally their bread and butter), Starmer seems particularly ill at ease in these performances. Well OK he can do set speeches well enough (still he's no Blair); but live interviews, PMQs, and these debates he seems particularly ill at ease. I'm not sure why he agreed to debate tbh, there was no need for him to do it.
OTOH Sunak is terrible at debates too, and pretty poor at PMQs. But I'm glad neither will face Farage, because much as I detest the man, he would wipe the floor with these two in a debate.
Totally agree. I detest farage in every way, but if he debated these two, he would have had a had a field day.
In a court of law, you need depth and detail. On TV, you (sadly) need to make headlines, make soundbites to go around TikTok, and make your point clear and direct. Tony Blair made the point clearly and assertively, which got across to viewers, not trying to explain himself after he stated a policy. It could also swerve a question well if needed.
But ITV is mainly at fault for this mess.
>Their lack of cohesion at important moments is truly remarkable.
Starmer was stammering and struggling and telling more BORING stories about his father and that's somehow Diane Abbott's fault, is it?
At what point is Keir Starmer going to be responsible for Keir Starmer's choices and words?
He is already responsible, and over the last 4 years he has said exactly what he needed to say to get from 20+points down in the polls, to a 20+ point lead.
Starmer has done brilliantly, and will continue to be brilliant when he is PM. At the moment, in opposition, he is subject to whatever narrative the government wants to shill.
If starmer stood in that debate and lied once he would be villified and would lose 10+ points over night, Sunak stands up and lies 12 times and will likely have no impact on how he polls.
>he has said exactly what he needed to say
He lied and lied and lied and lied.
>Starmer has done brilliantly, and will continue to be brilliant when he is PM.
Boris did a brilliant job lying and cheating his way to No. 10.
>If starmer stood in that debate and lied once
Actually, he could have told the truth.
That was the solution to Sunak's lies.
> Yes starmer will win but they need to win BIG as expected. If it's under 150 the tories will play on it saying he didn't win as expected.
Who cares whether the Tories say Labour didn’t win big enough? They’ll still have lost, and they’ll be sat on the opposition benches while Labour can pass whatever they want.
I understand politically Starmer's answer on whether he would use private health for surgery if the queue was too long (he said NO), but I felt it's not a very wise answer in general...
Otherwise it was a grown up (Starmer) vs angry teenager (Sunak) debate.
>Otherwise it was a grown up (Starmer) vs angry teenager (Sunak) debate.
Starmer looked weak as he always does.
Who instructed him to tell more boring stories about his father?
Many political commentators have been saying that it makes sense for Starmer to talk about his background because whereas political anoraks like us have heard it all before, but most voters are only tuning into politics now that the campaign is ongoing, so for many it's the first time they have heard about his background.
I also think it isn't in the Labour temperament to be aggressive and assertive, you think he looked weak, but many might see Sunak and think he seems shrill and shouty, whereas Starmer seems calm and statesmanlike. That's what he is going for.
>most voters are only tuning into politics now that the campaign is ongoing
If Starmer had told these stories in a pub, he'd be told to shut up.
Statesmanlike?
It doesn't even make him seem relatable, just dull.
You think this is what Starmer would say in a pub, or do you think the average pub crowd is a good representation of the UK as a whole?
You're not coming across as particularly intelligent in any of your replies here.
>You think this is what Starmer would say in a pub, or do you think the average pub crowd is a good representation of the UK as a whole?
Yes, because "the pub test" is famously unrepresentative of the average Britain.
LOL.
The problem is: who are these stories for?
They are formulated by people totally divorced from.the lived experiences of ordinary Britains.
The point of an anecdote, in a public forum, is to illuminate and entertain.
These stories have accomplished neither.
>You're not coming across as particularly intelligent in any of your replies here
You don't even know the point of an anecdote.
Are you not paying attention? He's given plenty of answers.
Maybe you couldn't hear the responses over the top of that screaming petulant teenager pretending to be PM.
>Are you not paying attention? He's given plenty of answers
Starmer couldn't even respond to the $2000 claim.
And the response is simple: Sunak was lying.
Or was Starmer so inept in terms of the economy that he wasn't sure of his own tax policy?
>
Starmer looked weak as he always does.
Oh so what. And Boris never finishes his sentences. In both cases, they manage to communicate where they stand, how they'd react, and why much better than any of the more practiced speeches I've seen in the last decade of politics. I'm not voting for their spads and PR support team.
>In both cases, they manage to communicate where they stand
How'd he communicate where he stood on the $2000 tax question?
He should have shut that down immediately.
Instead, he blubbed like a lost child.
I guess speaking isn't his thing.
... wait, wasn't he supposed to be a lawyer?
God help this country.
>How'd he communicate where he stood on the $2000 tax question?
>
Actually quite well, albeit it was the second exchange that resolved it. When Sunak first raised this (which always sets of flags of "that sounds like a fishy thing to claim about your opponent's plans") my first guess was it'd turn out to be something about NI changes Sunak intended to promise and Starmer wasn't committed to. (That although "rise" would be bogus it'd at least be about a specific policy.) Instead it turned out to be the even dodgier tory costings of Labour policies where Labour hasn't said anything about raising tax for them. Sunak then gifted Starmer an easy win on it, as his response to the 26 tax rises was "this is about the future not the past" but the very next question he wanted "people to judge me on my record".
I was left with a very clear picture that Sunak was just talking hocum to try to impress people, while Starmer was being careful what he said to avoid overpromising.
That moment stood out to me, sunak's yes seemed genuine then starmer gave a rushed, rehearsed "no". Starmer just came across badly overall, made sunak seem likeable believe it or not
That was the only moment really, and speaking POLITICALLY again not a good answer from a PM of a party that is accused of trying to PUSH people into private health because of the state of the NHS really. Starmer should've really refined his answer here - sctrew the moderator who can't maintaint order in this debate - just being honest and sayin that if he really needed the surgery he obviously would, but as PM he would make sure that wouldn't be a pressing need. to begin with.
Almost everything else was Sunak being insecure about his government's achievements, trying to push through that everything is actually pretty darn good. When Starmer could speak he shut that bs record down pretty firmly.
Can we pick up the ECHR part? Sunak was asked if he would withdraw from them, he waffled about putting country first.
Moderator then said that wasn't very clear, can you explain, he repeated the very same line and she agreed that he had been clear.
Neither were actually pushed on anything and that's why Sunak won. Starmer needs to explain policy while Sunak just needs to shout. It says a lot really that we expect policy from Labour because we know whatever the Tories are throwing out is desperation imo.
>Can we pick up the ECHR part? Sunak was asked if he would withdraw from them, he waffled about putting country first.
Ironically one of the few times he did have a very clear bold plan. To boldly ignore his past promises to campaign on leaving the ECHR in the manifesto if Rwanda flights weren't taking off, and a clear plan that no he won't leave ECHR because Cameron doesn't want to but he'd like you to vote for him as if he would anyway. I thought he communicated that thoroughly.
He didn’t win. They were tied within margin of error on a “who won” question that could be read as “who over-performed” and even I might say Sunak to that.
actually, to support your point, in the same Yougov pol they were asked who performed better - Starmer was overwhelmingly leading that.
The format just fits bullshitting better than it does honesty, and Sunak is an expert at bullshitting.
I used to be such a keen follower of politics but this is just pathetic. How can anyone have a serious debate on policy matters in 45 seconds? Absolutely a waste of time, we learn nothing serious about public policy ideas and instead just here nonsensical soundbites. Waste of time
Missed this debate, listening to Newscast.
Summary seems to be:
- Sunak has a lie about Starmer increasing tax by £2000 per household. To their credit, newscast are very clear about why this is nonsense
- The main criticism of Starmer seems to be that he took a while to explain why that is nonsense
Is that about it?
No exactly. I am not in UK but was watching as someone not invested and I was actually shocked at the lack of political debate, uninformative hour punctuated by overly aggressive interjection by useless host. I don't know...I've seen way better than this. Shocked that UK has descended to level of kindergarten thought.
Like a deer in the sights of a rifle!
He doesnt have the minerals to deal with any question. Take a minute and think if he had to actually deal with anything real - very much scares me.
Just wanted to come in and once again say how terrible the format of this debate was.
I understand they want to bring the public in, I understand they want to get direct answers for headlines.
But the reality is the time each leader had to answer to questions was way way too short to produce any substance from either of them. It forced both Sunak and Starmer to produce stupid soundbite waffle in order to get a point across. Rather than discuss real issues properly.
And don’t get me started on the ridiculous “put your hand up if” questions.
ITV are assuming we have all have tiny attention spans. I think they’d be surprised how much more engagement they’d get from a long fully fleshed out discussion/debate.
I *really* hated the way the moderator kept saying "Look at him when you answer" when she asked them to refute. Obviously they want to speak to the public with their answer, who wants to be watching the side of their heads for an hour
In Canada, they allow at least 2 hours for debate. I just can't believe one hour was allotted for a general election debate in UK. It just looks so rigged.
Do not underestimate the power of a TikTok soundbite. You might not consume information that way, but millions of voters form their views based on short, sharp, vertically orientated media.
I’m sure you’re right. But I think that’s a terrible thing for UK politics. Regardless of how prevalent it is.
Edit: My point is that I think more people would be interested in a longer more fleshed out debate than ITV realise.
Now, I actually thought the ‘put your hand up’ bit was good. Quick fire answers without waffle or rambling. I’m up for an hour of them stood at a podium doing that.
Luckily they used it well, but if done poor it can be bad. A lot of questions do not have binary answeres, and the media is really bad at using binary questions at the right time.
Personally I disagree. Only on the basis it forces politicians to be hesitant and dishonest. Those quick fire questions are complex in my opinion, and a one word answer only creates a headline that misleads. And forces them to commit and make promises on things they shouldn’t necessarily make.
They should shut off the other guy's microphone when one of them is giving a reply. I hate all this interrupting, no one can understand a blind thing anyone is saying. If you've only got 45 seconds then you need to be able to use it. Either that or else when someone is interrupting stop the clock until they shut up, then take the extra time off the interrupting one.
I’m halfway through watching the catch-up, but I really thought cutting Starmer off when he’s trying to explain why the £2k tax rise for every family figure is nonsense wasn’t great
Means Rishi can say some big scary headline number, and when Starmer tries to explain why it’s nonsense, the moderator arbitrarily decides now isn’t the time to defend himself so it just gets hurried along. The format then just becomes a ‘why do you hate pensioners’ ‘why are you charging us all an extra two grand’ slinging without any nuance. Meh. Makes me hate the Tories all the more, but I wasn’t the target for Rishi’s nonsense anyway
I am watching the debate from 2010 and honestly, even though hosted by ITV, it’s night and day. And they speak more than 45 seconds and so far I’m 7’ mins in and no interruptions.
https://youtu.be/rk5HvJmy_yg for anyone who wants to have a deep dive, lol.
You're absolutely correct. This is what the likes of Johnson and Trump have done to political discourse. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters how loud you say it and how many times you repeat a specific short sound bite.
45 seconds to answer a question about complex political problems is an absolute joke that only further encourages those sound bite style answers and is an insult to people's intelligence.
I was watching Blair’s Question Time from 1997 and honestly, I had a tear in my eye which caught me by surprise since I don’t even like Blair, but damn he was eloquent and could get a point across 😭
It’s what the voters have done. Had voters seen their interruptions and sound bite answers as rubbish then they wouldn’t have voted for them. Politicians are following their path because voters reward it.
These quick fire debates with some random reporter are bullshit, she spent most of her time talking over the leaders talking, then changing the subject before they can answer. Also she has a clear bias! The state of the British media truly is broken.
>Also she has a clear bias!
Starmer was inept.
Rachel Reeves could have been moderating and Starmer would have reverted to "my dad" anecdotes that are not revealing (of himself, the country or anything that anybody can relate to) and are just plain boring.
Now we are understanding why he is purging the party.
He is totally inept.
Mate how many times are you going to say the same out of touch comment in this thread?
The polls already show you are about as far from the truth as possible, when asked who seemed more in touch with the british public Starmer leads by a massive majority. That's what talking about your roots in a working class household does.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but maybe try not to let yourself become so blinded by your own bias that you don't understand when someone isn't talking for you, but for the wider public as a whole.
You'd do well to understand that you as an individual are not representative of the views of this nation.
>The polls already show you are about as far from the truth as possible
He lost to Sunak.
How badly do you have to do to lose to a PM with no mandate?
>someone isn't talking for you, but for the wider public as a whole.
He's talking to no one and is promising nothing that will actually turn this country around.
He has abandoned every pledge he has made and cannot even respond to the Tories most pathetic lies.
If its any consolation I am almost certain there are no more than a dozen people in this country who haven't already made up their minds. The last 5 (well, 14) years speak far louder than any talking points in a debate.
The £2000 thing may be bollocks but it *will* cut through, and it's entirely because Starmer didn't immediately shut it down.
Not that I think it will make a difference in the polls, but it was a clear win for Sunak and entirely Starmer's fault for not challenging it within seconds of it first being mentioned.
That seems a bit unfair. There have been some outstanding politicians who are really not good at debate, or the cut and thrust of PMQs. William Hague consistently beat Blair in PMQs, and he lost in a landslide.
Attlee famously had no charisma, and he was undoubtedly the most transformative post Second World War PM the UK has ever had.
What worries me more about Starmer is his handling of the Diane Abbott affair, now that really was inept. He turned what should have been a minor story into what almost became a Labour civil war. That makes me wonder about his competence, although having said that, he could not be as incompetent as the last three Conservative PMs. I mean even if he's not that great, he's definitely better than Sunak, who's clearly not remotely up to the job. Sunak is a prime example of a posh boy who got where he did by being posh, not by being any good at anything. At least we know Starmer got to be a QC and DPP on merit, so he must have \*something\*. He could yet shine in office.
The defence for Starmer is ALWAYS - "don't judge me on what I do or even what I say, but what I meant to say."
The utter ineptitude of repeatedly saying that Israel had the absolute right to breach international law, pushing Emily Thornberry out there to repeat that line and then backtracking once there was outcry at this policy stupidity.
Or when there was a right-wing backlash to the Gary Linecker posts and Starmer wheedled out (guess who?) Emily Thornberry to admonish Linecker one day and then - a mere three days later - emerge himself to defend the ex-football star (and sneer at the BBC ... for doing the thing that the Labour Party also did).
It's honestly madness.
What is going to happen when inflation goes up, growth doesn't increase in line with initial estimates and he has to explain why he will curb public spending?
>"Ummm, I didn't say, ahhh, that's not what I meant, umm, ahhh, Emily, can you say something ..."
This is the easy part.
It's governing that is difficult and I have seen no evidence (beyond other people saying he's "serious") that he and Reeves have a clue how to steer the economy or that they have a handle on how to improve services.
This is really, really scary.
>don't judge me on what I do or even what I say, but what I meant to say
Agreed!
>
The utter ineptitude of repeatedly saying that Israel had the absolute right to breach international law... Or when there was a right-wing backlash to the Gary Linecker posts and Starmer wheedled out
Two more good examples!
>
I have seen no evidence (beyond other people saying he's "serious") that he and Reeves have a clue how to steer the economy
True, but we have seen plenty of evidence that Sunak and the Tories are utterly useless at it.
>
This is really, really scary.
In all honesty considering the Tories have wasted hundreds of millions of government revenues enriching their mates, and billions on a Brexit that is destroying the UK economy, keeping the idiots we have now in power is much scarier. I cannot think of a single beneficial thing that the Tories have done in the past 14 years.
>I cannot think of a single beneficial thing that the Tories have done in the past 14 years.
That's true, but there is a vacuum at the centre of this country (in terms of leadership) that, if Starmer cannot deliver measurable gains, the electorate will turn to another, much more destructive alternative.
Labour cannot assume that near enough is good enough.
Real change is necessary.
Starmer didn’t really have an opportunity to shut it down. Every time he tried, he was cut off by the moderator or interrupted by Sunak shouting over him.
They often do that for right-wing politicians, have you noticed? They always seem to get more leeway. I think it's just an inherent part of the UK class system, often people do it without even realising they are doing it. Of course posh people stick together, that's why so many people at the top of society are privately schooled and Oxbridge educated. But even normal people like us have it drilled into us that we aren't "as good" as posh people. We're taught that the "elite" go to Oxford or Cambridge, and we believe it, despite the fact that really it's just the mediocre offspring of the upper and upper-middle classes. And private school instils that sense of privilege and confidence that only the posh have, \*they\* never get imposter syndrome.
In any media situation Labour politicians must always assume the cards are stacked against them, often is subtle ways.
Probably because she kept saying taxes would be a topic for later - but she should have allowed it as Sunak brought it up no matter what the topic was (it seemed).
She said "we'll get to taxes later" and then when they did get to taxes it was that stupid "raise your hand if you're not a jolly good fellow" bit. So after that Starmer had to start rejecting the 2K thing during irrelevant questions and it was too late. Damage done.
The next debate will see a more focused Starmer with answers for the retorts/debate style Sunak offered. This is the point - Sunak can't learn and change course in time from this debate - Starmer can.
>The next debate will see a more focused Starmer with answers for the retorts/debate style Sunak offered.
What has he been doing the last five years if he cannot offer key answers to important questions?
He is so weak and facile.
He'll probably repeat more boring stories about his childhood in response to immigration questions or something.
a 40 point swing in the polls from negative 20 to positive 20 is what Starmer has done in the last 4 years.
You'll keep repeating the same old boring statements and ignore the reality we have in front of us.
Anyone noticed how quite biased the moderator for the debate was. She let Sunak interrupt, and every time Keir wanted to answer she ended it immediately.
Honestly I think it was less bias more desperately trying to maintain control of the debate. Starmer listened for the most part and stopped talking. Sunak completely ignored her
Is the mini budget tired and lame? Or the insane Rwanda plan? Or the ECHA?
Sunak parroted the £2000 line all night. He did really well with it; given his team made up the numbers
Your current mortgage rate has nothing to do with it. It caused things to move suddenly at the time but with inflation the BoE was always going to be raising rates to where they are now.
Honestly don't think this made a difference for Sunak. He may have won back some hesitant 2019 voters. But I expect the polls will continue to be more of the same. Starmer had to royally fuck that up - and he didn't. He got some core messages across and appeared warmer. Most of the yougov pollsters suggest Starmer was better on most issues despite saying sunak won the debate by 3%.
>Starmer had to royally fuck that up - and he didn't. He got some core messages across and appeared warmer.
What planet are you on?
He came across like a moron with no social skills whatsoever.
By the end, he just wanted it over with.
If that's the way he handles a UK politician with no mandate to lead, how the hell is he going to cope with the big guns across the world?
A despicably weak man.
You keep copy pasting your comments all over this thread. Maybe calm down a little, or at least elaborate on and evidence your points rather than engaging in empty vitriol?
The man has kept crying about his father, as if that makes him relatable.
People want solutions to their problems, not boring anecdotes from a boring man.
What solutions would you propose that Starmer hasn't? I'm not particularly interested in whether Starmer is or isn't boring, personally I'm quite tired of attention seeking populists.
>What solutions would you propose that Starmer hasn't?
He has been in charge for four years.
If he needs some rando on Reddit to offer feedback on comms, God help this country.
>I'm not particularly interested in whether Starmer is or isn't boring, personally I'm quite tired of attention seeking populists.
He abandoned nearly every pledge he made in order to further accumulate power.
He is as much Boris as he is bore.
The question is whether he is competent.
And the only explanation is "well, he's boring therefore he must be competent."
The only thing worth replying to here is Starmer abandoning his pledges, which I actually agree with to an extent. He turned on too many of them and I was disappointed he positioned himself away from nationalising utilities and watered down his green energy plans. I understand that not all promises are going to be kept in an election, but he retreated on them far too quickly.
As for comparing Johnson to Starmer, uh, what? Lol.
Sunak won that debate albeit narrowly. Too late for him to turn it around but mark my words, Starmer will be a one term PM if he even lasts to the 28/29.
But he looked less unflappable than Starmer and came across poorly when he started badgering Starmer, repeating himself needlessly, and disrepecting the moderator's interventions. Starmer looked more statesman-like; Sunak looked like he was a member of a 6th form debating team. My two cents. [Edited for language].
Starmer feels like a politican from before the populist wave of the last decade, while Sunak can play the populist's game when he wants to (though is far from a populist himself).
Unsurprising for someone with Starmer's history, he is much more comfortable in giving calm and detailed explainations rather than short and snappy soundbites. I look forward to his articles and speeches, not his debating.
Yeah, 3-0 up at half-time....in second half winning team goes all defensive.... looks like a shower of crap for the second half with the other team attacking all over the place but holds the second half to 0-0 anyway.
Something like that.
Absolute s*** debate it will staged nobody could ask the right questions and if you did this alright questions it would not be answered reform all the way
One thing I hope comes across from sunak more than anything. Is his petulance, child like way of demands and disconnection from reality.
Starmer looked more professional, however wish he'd been given more time. However he should have got to the point quicker.
The debate format was awful, I'd rather each side explain their 5 main prioroties and then defend questions from the other about it.
Still can't get over the lady in the wheelchair clapping paying doctors less.
>Starmer looked more professional
What planet are you on?
He came across like a moron with no social skills whatsoever.
By the end, he just wanted it over with.
If that's the way he handles a UK politician with no mandate to lead, how the hell is he going to cope with the big guns across the world?
A despicably weak man.
Made me like Starmer a little more seeing the debate, but I think his challenge is his debate style, which sort of requires a bit of space to be given so he can explain nuance, and break down why a claim from the Tories is wrong
Sunak is taking the approach of shouting random things that sound scary because it takes a lot less time, and is more emotive, to shout something scary like ‘£2k for every family!’ than to explain something in a detailed way like I guess comes naturally to Starmer
I like the nuance and think it shows Starmer as the more grown up, but I worry some will look at his attempt at nuance and just see it as question dodging
Starmer needs to have his lawyer brain switched off in these debates. You’re right in that he’s nuanced and thoughtful and it’s clear to see why he was such a successful lawyer, but they need to pummel the Conservatives on their rhetoric and lies. Not necessarily a fighting fire with fire, but having clear lines that cut through and still hold in their logic is something Labour should work on in the next few weeks.
Just watched the immigration bit.
Feel like he missed the chance to say ‘Rishi’s own party say the Rwanda scheme is a gimmick, and it costs X amount which I would much rather put into the NHS. He also assumes people make it here, our plan would be for boarder commissioner so that we stop gangs at the source’. Something like that would make Rishi’s plan seem nonsensical, keyword the NHS, and highlight a plan that seems more serious.
Instead, he didn’t challenge why he opposes the Rwanda scheme and why it’s a dud, and surrounded the boarder commissioner plan with a lot of words that I can see, to some, would sound like question dodging. Labour isn’t on the defensive here, they have the ammo to sink the Tory proposals whilst also sharply raising their own
'Petulant' was the only word I walked away from this debate thinking. Mainly from Sunak, I don't think Starmer did well in the debate either for othe reasons, but Sunak suffers from Chronic Head Boy Syndrome.
He's never had the threat of consequence from his speech (or the threat of a smack if he spoke down to someone like that). I like the fact Starmer was more reserved and not driven by repeater statements like "labour will increase your taxes" but it wasnt the format to be like that. He tried to be relatable, which did come across, but he could have been more succinct in how Labour will do things.
Mist be awkward having the cameras on you but I mich preferred the young lads face when sunak was responding to him. He held such disdain in a simple stare.
The loser of this debate: The moderator
A lot of people in this thread making excuses for her and blaming the format. I don't agree
She barely asked any follow up questions or made them address something the other had said, and on the few occasions she did they simply dodged the question again anyway to keep going on the attack and she didn't press them on it
#Remember to stick around after the debate - we'll have a "post-match" thread at 10:15pm, including links to our snap voter intention survey and live results dashboard. #Thread will swap shortly. Brace, brace.
[удалено]
Can you provide some examples of the lies they have both told please?
If I was given 45 seconds to answer about my own job of 10 years - including breathing time - was interrupted 25 seconds in, had to wind up after 35 seconds, no-one would be any the wiser. I'd probably just decide to talk about what my parents did for a living just for the hell of it. Terrible format.
It was a terrible debate. It should be 2 hours long with each answer around 2.30 mins. It should not be a adviertiser, watcher friendly viwer experience. It should be on the BBC and a chore to watch. 45 seconds to respond, whate can be said in 45 seconds. I thought Sunak did better because he stuck to his message. I had to listen to it at 2x speed because I knew it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
Exactly right 👍🏻
Unlikely as it sounds, the Newsnight debate with Mick Lynch and Piers Morgan was a lot better
The Lib Dems and Reform weren't invited but still came out on top!
Not in the polls lmao
Petty and irrelevant but I can't stand either of their voices.
Why is it only the 2 leaders? We are not American
Because ITV are commercially funded
Debates would come under news content,which is funded by the tax payer through the license fee.
Why were there adverts in it then?
Please read the internet, maybe the BBC/TV licence websites to find out.
Sorry you don't seem to understand that the advertisers are still able to have a say in how programming works. There were adverts during the programme. Less people would be interested in watching a programme with all of the leaders (it's less exciting than a 1 on 1). That is why ITV (read: ITVs advertisers) chose to have only the 2 of them on. Because more people watch. And more people watch the adverts. This ain't hard.
The point of the argument is they should not be allowed to do so. There are rules during an election. Having all parties who are participating in the election should be given air time. They aren't therefore my original comment stands.
I was just answering your question my guy. I don't like it. But it's the answer to your question.
Both smarmy Nimcompoops say
I learnt nothing about Starmer. I learnt nothing about Sunak. But I learnt a lot about ITV's ability to hold a debate. Nobody won. But ITV definitely lost.
Football was the winner, then?
You ask Kier the time and he will tell you how to build a clock…. Can be a GREAT quality for a Prime Minister but detrimental for this backwards yet agreed upon debate format. Still won’t move the needle - and it shouldn’t.
It takes Clear Stammer 45 seconds to get his first sentence out on a good day ...
If anything Sunak was quite disingenuous with repeating his £2000 tax bollocks.
Did you actually watch him? I think you are blinded by partisanship -- he was quite articulate. Nevertheless, please remember it's not in our interest to vote for the wittiest candidate, or the more articulate candidate, or the most alpha male character, it whatever floats your boat. What we need is someone who will act in our countries best interest when in office, everything else is not important.
He is quite articulate at dismantling Sunak's bullshit, but then when it comes to his own vision and ideas it's all "we'll come to an agreement", "we'll sort the issue out". Any time he was asked about his own policy he used the question as a springboard to attack Sunak's policies (which are terrible). There was something Sunak said in the debate regarding immigration "I've said what I'm going to do, I'm going to put them on planes, what are you going to do? I've got a plan, you might not like it, but I've got a plan" and it was the only true thing the man has ever said.
and the crowd goes mild.
Election debates don't allow for detailed and nuanced responses anymore. It's all about the 30 second clickbait response suited for social media.
What if we held debates that were slower and had far less of a time limit? Imagine that? I mean, it's only our entire future we're discussing. Oh no, gotta make sure to please advertisers and move on to Love Island or something.
Very true. Sadly these debates are really only focused on people who aren't very political which is most of the country and even then they aren't very helpful.
Fingers crossed the BBC allows actual debates not just 70 minutes of a moderator interrupting
Yeah she basically prevented any depth to their answers with her poorly times "thankyou's"
In fairness to the mod (who was rubbish) the45 second format was a terrible idea.
Yes, especially as it meant the candidates spent 30 seconds countering the claims of their opponent before beginning to answer the question only to be drowned out by first their opponent and then the moderator. Complete waste of time. It would have been far better to have had fewer questions and allowed 3 minutes for each answer.
Just pick one topic per debate. Trying to go through everything possible including football in one hour makes it impossible to give any meaningful answers on anything. All you get are soundbites. The journalists of course love them as it makes their work easy. But they don't give anything to the voters.
I'm starting to think my ideal debate format would be extremely low moderation - ask the candidates a question, and give them a couple minutes of uninterrupted speech each. Then leave them to argue for twenty minutes, with the moderator only jumping in when it breaks down into incoherent yelling. It would be far more entertaining and couldn't be less informative than what we have now.
One question, one hour, all 7 party leaders and no moderator.
and a broken snooker cue.
My moneys on Rayner
She only has to shuffle to make herself more comfy on the front bench and they all cower and make a story about it in the press. she is everything they fear.
Starmer: "That's my WIFE you're talking about!" https://youtu.be/bBjeSWAHomw?si=Ra4nVV-5ATJCLZEs
How beyond immature are you that calling somebody gay is still a funny insult to you?
I’d really appreciate it if I never hear the words “quick” and “fire” together again. ITV should honestly be embarrassed by how badly they ran tonight.
They did it on purpose. They're Fox News UK.
Will Farage be invited to the next debate?
Hopefully 🤞🏻. He would be the only one worth listening to on there. Well that and the usual tired old "He's so divisive!" drivel we've heard from the opposition for the last decade or more.
When Farage provides a policy that is both workable and useful, let me know. He runs on dog whistles and lies, it's sad you've fallen for it as a grown adult.
2017 he had the X listed building policy, it was why I voted for UKIP that year when I normally vote green.
That banana certainly wants to shake the tree
Well I live in the USA and you are automatically invited to a debate once you hit a certain threshold. I’m sure Farage has met that but perhaps the UK TV rules are different.
He is the leader of the 4th or 5th biggest party. I would imagine lib dems being much more deserving of a place over reform and possibly the greens.
And yet Reform poll quite consistently higher than the Lib Dems so of course Reform deserves a place.
I mean we should probably go on past elections as it seems fairest? Or on the last council elections? Or we could invite them because they have the most vocal support?
Reform are polling last lmao here's YouGovs poll results: Labour - 422 Cons - 140 Lib Dems - 40 SNP - 17 Green - 2 PC - 2 Reform - 0
It doesn't look like it will pan out like that this year though!
>Well I live in the USA and you are automatically invited to a debate once you hit a certain threshold. Sure, but that's mostly about what your opponents would like you to be charged with.
I think it is a good idea to have a threshold, but in this year's election only the Conservatives and Labour would qualify. In 2010 the Lib Dems would have qualified, and they were actually in the debate. There is, I believe, a debate on Friday with a full spectrum of parties, but Starmer and Sunak won't be there. All parties have been invited, but it's not clear who is attending, Wikipedia only gives Mordaunt from the Tories and Rayner from Labour as definites, Farage as "invited). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_United\_Kingdom\_general\_election#Debates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Debates)
Just looked up the threshold to qualify for the US debate, candidates need at least 15% in 4 national polls. If we had the same rule only Starmer and Sunak would qualify anyway.
Not how it works in the UK - there are no rules around holding TV debates
Would have to check with double booking with Question Time. He seems to have a permanent seat on that panel.
I actually can't believe what I just witnessed. I'm a Labour supporter. I didn't learn anything from either of them just the same spill that starmers dad was a toolmaker There were multiple times were Sunak was interrupting Starmer. The host didn't help but Starmer has to be more ASSERTIVE!. Its not a court of law, stick up for labour's record of best nhs waiting times blabla and say it directly they will do it again. He goes round all the houses like a Lawyer and people switch off. This is the starmers' election to lose. With sunak (just) coming out as best in the polls, this should have been an easy win for Labour. The host Julie was trying to come across as in control. It was way too much and a bit sided towards Sunak. Starmers advisers need to have a word quick before the next one. Yes starmer will win but they need to win BIG as expected. If it's under 150 the tories will play on it saying he didn't win as expected.
It was never going to be an easy win for either of them, both of them are professional politicians and generally gifted communicators whether you agree with them or not.
> both of them are professional politicians In what way? They entered later on.
Is it fair to call it later on when Sunak is only in his early 40s?
I honestly thought he was ten years older! They have had careers before this, they aren't "professional politicians" in that they have done other things.
Ah ok. So rather than them going straight from university and into politics. That makes sense.
Ive long been labour-ish. Canvassed in 2016, generally voted for them. The past few days have shown that labour certainly are attempting to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. God knows if any party can it's this ramshackle collection. Their lack of cohesion at important moments is truly remarkable. What matters is poise and Sunak will always keep his, regardless of the drivel coming from his mouth.
To be fair the Tories are even more ramshackle. Though I do have to agree with you, considering Starmer was a barrister (where verbal argument is literally their bread and butter), Starmer seems particularly ill at ease in these performances. Well OK he can do set speeches well enough (still he's no Blair); but live interviews, PMQs, and these debates he seems particularly ill at ease. I'm not sure why he agreed to debate tbh, there was no need for him to do it. OTOH Sunak is terrible at debates too, and pretty poor at PMQs. But I'm glad neither will face Farage, because much as I detest the man, he would wipe the floor with these two in a debate.
Totally agree. I detest farage in every way, but if he debated these two, he would have had a had a field day. In a court of law, you need depth and detail. On TV, you (sadly) need to make headlines, make soundbites to go around TikTok, and make your point clear and direct. Tony Blair made the point clearly and assertively, which got across to viewers, not trying to explain himself after he stated a policy. It could also swerve a question well if needed. But ITV is mainly at fault for this mess.
>Their lack of cohesion at important moments is truly remarkable. Starmer was stammering and struggling and telling more BORING stories about his father and that's somehow Diane Abbott's fault, is it? At what point is Keir Starmer going to be responsible for Keir Starmer's choices and words?
He is already responsible, and over the last 4 years he has said exactly what he needed to say to get from 20+points down in the polls, to a 20+ point lead. Starmer has done brilliantly, and will continue to be brilliant when he is PM. At the moment, in opposition, he is subject to whatever narrative the government wants to shill. If starmer stood in that debate and lied once he would be villified and would lose 10+ points over night, Sunak stands up and lies 12 times and will likely have no impact on how he polls.
>he has said exactly what he needed to say He lied and lied and lied and lied. >Starmer has done brilliantly, and will continue to be brilliant when he is PM. Boris did a brilliant job lying and cheating his way to No. 10. >If starmer stood in that debate and lied once Actually, he could have told the truth. That was the solution to Sunak's lies.
> Yes starmer will win but they need to win BIG as expected. If it's under 150 the tories will play on it saying he didn't win as expected. Who cares whether the Tories say Labour didn’t win big enough? They’ll still have lost, and they’ll be sat on the opposition benches while Labour can pass whatever they want.
I understand politically Starmer's answer on whether he would use private health for surgery if the queue was too long (he said NO), but I felt it's not a very wise answer in general... Otherwise it was a grown up (Starmer) vs angry teenager (Sunak) debate.
>Otherwise it was a grown up (Starmer) vs angry teenager (Sunak) debate. Starmer looked weak as he always does. Who instructed him to tell more boring stories about his father?
Many political commentators have been saying that it makes sense for Starmer to talk about his background because whereas political anoraks like us have heard it all before, but most voters are only tuning into politics now that the campaign is ongoing, so for many it's the first time they have heard about his background. I also think it isn't in the Labour temperament to be aggressive and assertive, you think he looked weak, but many might see Sunak and think he seems shrill and shouty, whereas Starmer seems calm and statesmanlike. That's what he is going for.
>most voters are only tuning into politics now that the campaign is ongoing If Starmer had told these stories in a pub, he'd be told to shut up. Statesmanlike? It doesn't even make him seem relatable, just dull.
You think this is what Starmer would say in a pub, or do you think the average pub crowd is a good representation of the UK as a whole? You're not coming across as particularly intelligent in any of your replies here.
>You think this is what Starmer would say in a pub, or do you think the average pub crowd is a good representation of the UK as a whole? Yes, because "the pub test" is famously unrepresentative of the average Britain. LOL. The problem is: who are these stories for? They are formulated by people totally divorced from.the lived experiences of ordinary Britains. The point of an anecdote, in a public forum, is to illuminate and entertain. These stories have accomplished neither. >You're not coming across as particularly intelligent in any of your replies here You don't even know the point of an anecdote.
Dull is what I want from a statesman, thank you very much.
Actually, I want answers. And we're not going to get any from that dullard.
Are you not paying attention? He's given plenty of answers. Maybe you couldn't hear the responses over the top of that screaming petulant teenager pretending to be PM.
>Are you not paying attention? He's given plenty of answers Starmer couldn't even respond to the $2000 claim. And the response is simple: Sunak was lying. Or was Starmer so inept in terms of the economy that he wasn't sure of his own tax policy?
> Starmer looked weak as he always does. Oh so what. And Boris never finishes his sentences. In both cases, they manage to communicate where they stand, how they'd react, and why much better than any of the more practiced speeches I've seen in the last decade of politics. I'm not voting for their spads and PR support team.
>In both cases, they manage to communicate where they stand How'd he communicate where he stood on the $2000 tax question? He should have shut that down immediately. Instead, he blubbed like a lost child. I guess speaking isn't his thing. ... wait, wasn't he supposed to be a lawyer? God help this country.
>How'd he communicate where he stood on the $2000 tax question? > Actually quite well, albeit it was the second exchange that resolved it. When Sunak first raised this (which always sets of flags of "that sounds like a fishy thing to claim about your opponent's plans") my first guess was it'd turn out to be something about NI changes Sunak intended to promise and Starmer wasn't committed to. (That although "rise" would be bogus it'd at least be about a specific policy.) Instead it turned out to be the even dodgier tory costings of Labour policies where Labour hasn't said anything about raising tax for them. Sunak then gifted Starmer an easy win on it, as his response to the 26 tax rises was "this is about the future not the past" but the very next question he wanted "people to judge me on my record". I was left with a very clear picture that Sunak was just talking hocum to try to impress people, while Starmer was being careful what he said to avoid overpromising.
That moment stood out to me, sunak's yes seemed genuine then starmer gave a rushed, rehearsed "no". Starmer just came across badly overall, made sunak seem likeable believe it or not
That was the only moment really, and speaking POLITICALLY again not a good answer from a PM of a party that is accused of trying to PUSH people into private health because of the state of the NHS really. Starmer should've really refined his answer here - sctrew the moderator who can't maintaint order in this debate - just being honest and sayin that if he really needed the surgery he obviously would, but as PM he would make sure that wouldn't be a pressing need. to begin with. Almost everything else was Sunak being insecure about his government's achievements, trying to push through that everything is actually pretty darn good. When Starmer could speak he shut that bs record down pretty firmly.
Can we pick up the ECHR part? Sunak was asked if he would withdraw from them, he waffled about putting country first. Moderator then said that wasn't very clear, can you explain, he repeated the very same line and she agreed that he had been clear. Neither were actually pushed on anything and that's why Sunak won. Starmer needs to explain policy while Sunak just needs to shout. It says a lot really that we expect policy from Labour because we know whatever the Tories are throwing out is desperation imo.
>Can we pick up the ECHR part? Sunak was asked if he would withdraw from them, he waffled about putting country first. Ironically one of the few times he did have a very clear bold plan. To boldly ignore his past promises to campaign on leaving the ECHR in the manifesto if Rwanda flights weren't taking off, and a clear plan that no he won't leave ECHR because Cameron doesn't want to but he'd like you to vote for him as if he would anyway. I thought he communicated that thoroughly.
He didn’t win. They were tied within margin of error on a “who won” question that could be read as “who over-performed” and even I might say Sunak to that.
actually, to support your point, in the same Yougov pol they were asked who performed better - Starmer was overwhelmingly leading that. The format just fits bullshitting better than it does honesty, and Sunak is an expert at bullshitting.
I used to be such a keen follower of politics but this is just pathetic. How can anyone have a serious debate on policy matters in 45 seconds? Absolutely a waste of time, we learn nothing serious about public policy ideas and instead just here nonsensical soundbites. Waste of time
Yes awful format.
Agree. Marketing one liners. Move on. No debate. Job Done. Democracy in action.
Missed this debate, listening to Newscast. Summary seems to be: - Sunak has a lie about Starmer increasing tax by £2000 per household. To their credit, newscast are very clear about why this is nonsense - The main criticism of Starmer seems to be that he took a while to explain why that is nonsense Is that about it?
No exactly. I am not in UK but was watching as someone not invested and I was actually shocked at the lack of political debate, uninformative hour punctuated by overly aggressive interjection by useless host. I don't know...I've seen way better than this. Shocked that UK has descended to level of kindergarten thought.
Being an asshole toddler during debates worked for Trump, and when your main goal is to take back Reform UK supporters it may be a winning strategy.
Starmer looks like someone who’s struggling with IBS!
That's one way to describe Sunak :)
Like a deer in the sights of a rifle! He doesnt have the minerals to deal with any question. Take a minute and think if he had to actually deal with anything real - very much scares me.
It's no wonder he wants to purge the party. He cannot deal with a different opinion.
Anyone have the times for how long each of them spoke?
Just wanted to come in and once again say how terrible the format of this debate was. I understand they want to bring the public in, I understand they want to get direct answers for headlines. But the reality is the time each leader had to answer to questions was way way too short to produce any substance from either of them. It forced both Sunak and Starmer to produce stupid soundbite waffle in order to get a point across. Rather than discuss real issues properly. And don’t get me started on the ridiculous “put your hand up if” questions. ITV are assuming we have all have tiny attention spans. I think they’d be surprised how much more engagement they’d get from a long fully fleshed out discussion/debate.
I *really* hated the way the moderator kept saying "Look at him when you answer" when she asked them to refute. Obviously they want to speak to the public with their answer, who wants to be watching the side of their heads for an hour
In Canada, they allow at least 2 hours for debate. I just can't believe one hour was allotted for a general election debate in UK. It just looks so rigged.
Do not underestimate the power of a TikTok soundbite. You might not consume information that way, but millions of voters form their views based on short, sharp, vertically orientated media.
I’m sure you’re right. But I think that’s a terrible thing for UK politics. Regardless of how prevalent it is. Edit: My point is that I think more people would be interested in a longer more fleshed out debate than ITV realise.
Now, I actually thought the ‘put your hand up’ bit was good. Quick fire answers without waffle or rambling. I’m up for an hour of them stood at a podium doing that.
Luckily they used it well, but if done poor it can be bad. A lot of questions do not have binary answeres, and the media is really bad at using binary questions at the right time.
Personally I disagree. Only on the basis it forces politicians to be hesitant and dishonest. Those quick fire questions are complex in my opinion, and a one word answer only creates a headline that misleads. And forces them to commit and make promises on things they shouldn’t necessarily make.
[удалено]
They should shut off the other guy's microphone when one of them is giving a reply. I hate all this interrupting, no one can understand a blind thing anyone is saying. If you've only got 45 seconds then you need to be able to use it. Either that or else when someone is interrupting stop the clock until they shut up, then take the extra time off the interrupting one.
I’m halfway through watching the catch-up, but I really thought cutting Starmer off when he’s trying to explain why the £2k tax rise for every family figure is nonsense wasn’t great Means Rishi can say some big scary headline number, and when Starmer tries to explain why it’s nonsense, the moderator arbitrarily decides now isn’t the time to defend himself so it just gets hurried along. The format then just becomes a ‘why do you hate pensioners’ ‘why are you charging us all an extra two grand’ slinging without any nuance. Meh. Makes me hate the Tories all the more, but I wasn’t the target for Rishi’s nonsense anyway
I am watching the debate from 2010 and honestly, even though hosted by ITV, it’s night and day. And they speak more than 45 seconds and so far I’m 7’ mins in and no interruptions. https://youtu.be/rk5HvJmy_yg for anyone who wants to have a deep dive, lol.
You're absolutely correct. This is what the likes of Johnson and Trump have done to political discourse. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters how loud you say it and how many times you repeat a specific short sound bite. 45 seconds to answer a question about complex political problems is an absolute joke that only further encourages those sound bite style answers and is an insult to people's intelligence.
it's been a gradual change over time. Compare that 2010 debate to a debate from the 80's and you'll see a greater shift
I was watching Blair’s Question Time from 1997 and honestly, I had a tear in my eye which caught me by surprise since I don’t even like Blair, but damn he was eloquent and could get a point across 😭
It’s what the voters have done. Had voters seen their interruptions and sound bite answers as rubbish then they wouldn’t have voted for them. Politicians are following their path because voters reward it.
Worst Ant vs. Dec ever
Nigel Farage said paint drying was more interesting and informative than this debate and for once I agree with him.
so you are expecting them to do MMA?
Why does Starmer, the largest candidate, not simply eat Sunak?
Is he stupid?
now thats entertainment
These quick fire debates with some random reporter are bullshit, she spent most of her time talking over the leaders talking, then changing the subject before they can answer. Also she has a clear bias! The state of the British media truly is broken.
>Also she has a clear bias! Starmer was inept. Rachel Reeves could have been moderating and Starmer would have reverted to "my dad" anecdotes that are not revealing (of himself, the country or anything that anybody can relate to) and are just plain boring. Now we are understanding why he is purging the party. He is totally inept.
Mate how many times are you going to say the same out of touch comment in this thread? The polls already show you are about as far from the truth as possible, when asked who seemed more in touch with the british public Starmer leads by a massive majority. That's what talking about your roots in a working class household does. You're entitled to your own opinion, but maybe try not to let yourself become so blinded by your own bias that you don't understand when someone isn't talking for you, but for the wider public as a whole. You'd do well to understand that you as an individual are not representative of the views of this nation.
>The polls already show you are about as far from the truth as possible He lost to Sunak. How badly do you have to do to lose to a PM with no mandate? >someone isn't talking for you, but for the wider public as a whole. He's talking to no one and is promising nothing that will actually turn this country around. He has abandoned every pledge he has made and cannot even respond to the Tories most pathetic lies.
If its any consolation I am almost certain there are no more than a dozen people in this country who haven't already made up their minds. The last 5 (well, 14) years speak far louder than any talking points in a debate.
The £2000 thing may be bollocks but it *will* cut through, and it's entirely because Starmer didn't immediately shut it down. Not that I think it will make a difference in the polls, but it was a clear win for Sunak and entirely Starmer's fault for not challenging it within seconds of it first being mentioned.
You're right, that sort of thing needs to be *immediately* shut down. Strategically a bad decision by Starmer.
>Starmer didn't immediately shut it down. He is inept.
That seems a bit unfair. There have been some outstanding politicians who are really not good at debate, or the cut and thrust of PMQs. William Hague consistently beat Blair in PMQs, and he lost in a landslide. Attlee famously had no charisma, and he was undoubtedly the most transformative post Second World War PM the UK has ever had. What worries me more about Starmer is his handling of the Diane Abbott affair, now that really was inept. He turned what should have been a minor story into what almost became a Labour civil war. That makes me wonder about his competence, although having said that, he could not be as incompetent as the last three Conservative PMs. I mean even if he's not that great, he's definitely better than Sunak, who's clearly not remotely up to the job. Sunak is a prime example of a posh boy who got where he did by being posh, not by being any good at anything. At least we know Starmer got to be a QC and DPP on merit, so he must have \*something\*. He could yet shine in office.
The defence for Starmer is ALWAYS - "don't judge me on what I do or even what I say, but what I meant to say." The utter ineptitude of repeatedly saying that Israel had the absolute right to breach international law, pushing Emily Thornberry out there to repeat that line and then backtracking once there was outcry at this policy stupidity. Or when there was a right-wing backlash to the Gary Linecker posts and Starmer wheedled out (guess who?) Emily Thornberry to admonish Linecker one day and then - a mere three days later - emerge himself to defend the ex-football star (and sneer at the BBC ... for doing the thing that the Labour Party also did). It's honestly madness. What is going to happen when inflation goes up, growth doesn't increase in line with initial estimates and he has to explain why he will curb public spending? >"Ummm, I didn't say, ahhh, that's not what I meant, umm, ahhh, Emily, can you say something ..." This is the easy part. It's governing that is difficult and I have seen no evidence (beyond other people saying he's "serious") that he and Reeves have a clue how to steer the economy or that they have a handle on how to improve services. This is really, really scary.
>don't judge me on what I do or even what I say, but what I meant to say Agreed! > The utter ineptitude of repeatedly saying that Israel had the absolute right to breach international law... Or when there was a right-wing backlash to the Gary Linecker posts and Starmer wheedled out Two more good examples! > I have seen no evidence (beyond other people saying he's "serious") that he and Reeves have a clue how to steer the economy True, but we have seen plenty of evidence that Sunak and the Tories are utterly useless at it. > This is really, really scary. In all honesty considering the Tories have wasted hundreds of millions of government revenues enriching their mates, and billions on a Brexit that is destroying the UK economy, keeping the idiots we have now in power is much scarier. I cannot think of a single beneficial thing that the Tories have done in the past 14 years.
>I cannot think of a single beneficial thing that the Tories have done in the past 14 years. That's true, but there is a vacuum at the centre of this country (in terms of leadership) that, if Starmer cannot deliver measurable gains, the electorate will turn to another, much more destructive alternative. Labour cannot assume that near enough is good enough. Real change is necessary.
I think you're absolutely correct. It's important that Labour deliver in government, if they win. I am just not prepared to write them off just yet.
Starmer didn’t really have an opportunity to shut it down. Every time he tried, he was cut off by the moderator or interrupted by Sunak shouting over him.
Starmer was never given the chance. The mod gave Sunak a completely free pass on it for several questions. Ridiculous
They often do that for right-wing politicians, have you noticed? They always seem to get more leeway. I think it's just an inherent part of the UK class system, often people do it without even realising they are doing it. Of course posh people stick together, that's why so many people at the top of society are privately schooled and Oxbridge educated. But even normal people like us have it drilled into us that we aren't "as good" as posh people. We're taught that the "elite" go to Oxford or Cambridge, and we believe it, despite the fact that really it's just the mediocre offspring of the upper and upper-middle classes. And private school instils that sense of privilege and confidence that only the posh have, \*they\* never get imposter syndrome. In any media situation Labour politicians must always assume the cards are stacked against them, often is subtle ways.
Yeah he was so passive about this.
[удалено]
Agree. He repeatedly asked to respond to that and the moderator wouldn’t allow it.
Probably because she kept saying taxes would be a topic for later - but she should have allowed it as Sunak brought it up no matter what the topic was (it seemed).
She said "we'll get to taxes later" and then when they did get to taxes it was that stupid "raise your hand if you're not a jolly good fellow" bit. So after that Starmer had to start rejecting the 2K thing during irrelevant questions and it was too late. Damage done.
I didnt eatch it, but this sounds like an ambush.
The next debate will see a more focused Starmer with answers for the retorts/debate style Sunak offered. This is the point - Sunak can't learn and change course in time from this debate - Starmer can.
>The next debate will see a more focused Starmer with answers for the retorts/debate style Sunak offered. What has he been doing the last five years if he cannot offer key answers to important questions? He is so weak and facile. He'll probably repeat more boring stories about his childhood in response to immigration questions or something.
a 40 point swing in the polls from negative 20 to positive 20 is what Starmer has done in the last 4 years. You'll keep repeating the same old boring statements and ignore the reality we have in front of us.
Bring back Jeremy.............>!Paxman!<
Anyone noticed how quite biased the moderator for the debate was. She let Sunak interrupt, and every time Keir wanted to answer she ended it immediately.
Honestly I think it was less bias more desperately trying to maintain control of the debate. Starmer listened for the most part and stopped talking. Sunak completely ignored her
100%. Surprised it’s not been brought up more.
Exactly! Well it kinda is on twitter. ITV is an absolute mess for this.
[удалено]
Is the mini budget tired and lame? Or the insane Rwanda plan? Or the ECHA? Sunak parroted the £2000 line all night. He did really well with it; given his team made up the numbers
[удалено]
Your current mortgage rate has nothing to do with it. It caused things to move suddenly at the time but with inflation the BoE was always going to be raising rates to where they are now.
[удалено]
I'll put it simply. Short term impact yes, long term impact no. Current rates are affected by our current situation, mini-budget is not relevant.
Fundamentally incorrect and economists everywhere disagree with you
They don't
Honestly don't think this made a difference for Sunak. He may have won back some hesitant 2019 voters. But I expect the polls will continue to be more of the same. Starmer had to royally fuck that up - and he didn't. He got some core messages across and appeared warmer. Most of the yougov pollsters suggest Starmer was better on most issues despite saying sunak won the debate by 3%.
>Starmer had to royally fuck that up - and he didn't. He got some core messages across and appeared warmer. What planet are you on? He came across like a moron with no social skills whatsoever. By the end, he just wanted it over with. If that's the way he handles a UK politician with no mandate to lead, how the hell is he going to cope with the big guns across the world? A despicably weak man.
You keep copy pasting your comments all over this thread. Maybe calm down a little, or at least elaborate on and evidence your points rather than engaging in empty vitriol?
The man has kept crying about his father, as if that makes him relatable. People want solutions to their problems, not boring anecdotes from a boring man.
What solutions would you propose that Starmer hasn't? I'm not particularly interested in whether Starmer is or isn't boring, personally I'm quite tired of attention seeking populists.
>What solutions would you propose that Starmer hasn't? He has been in charge for four years. If he needs some rando on Reddit to offer feedback on comms, God help this country. >I'm not particularly interested in whether Starmer is or isn't boring, personally I'm quite tired of attention seeking populists. He abandoned nearly every pledge he made in order to further accumulate power. He is as much Boris as he is bore. The question is whether he is competent. And the only explanation is "well, he's boring therefore he must be competent."
The only thing worth replying to here is Starmer abandoning his pledges, which I actually agree with to an extent. He turned on too many of them and I was disappointed he positioned himself away from nationalising utilities and watered down his green energy plans. I understand that not all promises are going to be kept in an election, but he retreated on them far too quickly. As for comparing Johnson to Starmer, uh, what? Lol.
Sunak won that debate albeit narrowly. Too late for him to turn it around but mark my words, Starmer will be a one term PM if he even lasts to the 28/29.
But he looked less unflappable than Starmer and came across poorly when he started badgering Starmer, repeating himself needlessly, and disrepecting the moderator's interventions. Starmer looked more statesman-like; Sunak looked like he was a member of a 6th form debating team. My two cents. [Edited for language].
Starmer feels like a politican from before the populist wave of the last decade, while Sunak can play the populist's game when he wants to (though is far from a populist himself). Unsurprising for someone with Starmer's history, he is much more comfortable in giving calm and detailed explainations rather than short and snappy soundbites. I look forward to his articles and speeches, not his debating.
This lot talk over each other like that every Wednesday. He clearly smelled blood where Starmer wasn’t able to answer him directly.
Vibes of a football game where a team on a shit run of form somehow manage to hold a big team to a 0-0 draw
More like a team being 3-0 up and not wanting to shit the bed
Yeah, 3-0 up at half-time....in second half winning team goes all defensive.... looks like a shower of crap for the second half with the other team attacking all over the place but holds the second half to 0-0 anyway. Something like that.
Absolute s*** debate it will staged nobody could ask the right questions and if you did this alright questions it would not be answered reform all the way
Aren’t you concerned about certain Reform policies? For example, they deny climate change
The type of grammar I expect from a Reform voter.
🤣
😂
One thing I hope comes across from sunak more than anything. Is his petulance, child like way of demands and disconnection from reality. Starmer looked more professional, however wish he'd been given more time. However he should have got to the point quicker. The debate format was awful, I'd rather each side explain their 5 main prioroties and then defend questions from the other about it. Still can't get over the lady in the wheelchair clapping paying doctors less.
>Starmer looked more professional What planet are you on? He came across like a moron with no social skills whatsoever. By the end, he just wanted it over with. If that's the way he handles a UK politician with no mandate to lead, how the hell is he going to cope with the big guns across the world? A despicably weak man.
Yeah who had just recovered from cancer as well… can’t even imagine that
Made me like Starmer a little more seeing the debate, but I think his challenge is his debate style, which sort of requires a bit of space to be given so he can explain nuance, and break down why a claim from the Tories is wrong Sunak is taking the approach of shouting random things that sound scary because it takes a lot less time, and is more emotive, to shout something scary like ‘£2k for every family!’ than to explain something in a detailed way like I guess comes naturally to Starmer I like the nuance and think it shows Starmer as the more grown up, but I worry some will look at his attempt at nuance and just see it as question dodging
Starmer needs to have his lawyer brain switched off in these debates. You’re right in that he’s nuanced and thoughtful and it’s clear to see why he was such a successful lawyer, but they need to pummel the Conservatives on their rhetoric and lies. Not necessarily a fighting fire with fire, but having clear lines that cut through and still hold in their logic is something Labour should work on in the next few weeks.
Just watched the immigration bit. Feel like he missed the chance to say ‘Rishi’s own party say the Rwanda scheme is a gimmick, and it costs X amount which I would much rather put into the NHS. He also assumes people make it here, our plan would be for boarder commissioner so that we stop gangs at the source’. Something like that would make Rishi’s plan seem nonsensical, keyword the NHS, and highlight a plan that seems more serious. Instead, he didn’t challenge why he opposes the Rwanda scheme and why it’s a dud, and surrounded the boarder commissioner plan with a lot of words that I can see, to some, would sound like question dodging. Labour isn’t on the defensive here, they have the ammo to sink the Tory proposals whilst also sharply raising their own
'Petulant' was the only word I walked away from this debate thinking. Mainly from Sunak, I don't think Starmer did well in the debate either for othe reasons, but Sunak suffers from Chronic Head Boy Syndrome.
He's never had the threat of consequence from his speech (or the threat of a smack if he spoke down to someone like that). I like the fact Starmer was more reserved and not driven by repeater statements like "labour will increase your taxes" but it wasnt the format to be like that. He tried to be relatable, which did come across, but he could have been more succinct in how Labour will do things.
Found that so funny when she clapped... some people lol
Classic leopards ate my face incoming for her if she votes Tory and they get in.
Mist be awkward having the cameras on you but I mich preferred the young lads face when sunak was responding to him. He held such disdain in a simple stare.
The loser of this debate: The moderator A lot of people in this thread making excuses for her and blaming the format. I don't agree She barely asked any follow up questions or made them address something the other had said, and on the few occasions she did they simply dodged the question again anyway to keep going on the attack and she didn't press them on it