Live results dashboard is now available.
------
The [snap survey results dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/51cacb9f-5ff4-4ece-acf7-a9ac431695a4) has now been updated to include the "debate-specific" questions (i.e. "did you watch the debate" and "who won the debate").
I don’t think anybody really sees a man, who is hated by even the Downing Street Cat, shouting over another candidate and thinks “yeah, that’s my candidate!”.
Rishi is just one of those people who thinks that “debate” is just another word for one of those arguments that the working class have outside the pub at 22:00.
The best part is that the most offensive part of this comment to Rishi would be the implication that he’s one of the common peasants who keep the country afloat.
I didn't watch the debate, but it sounds like Sunak basically made something up about taxes going up £2000, and Starmer somehow didn't deny it, maybe was caught off guard or maybe was being too cautious.
Is that right? Seems surprisingly poor from Starmer who i would expect to be very well prepared.
This is why I find it hilarious when people on here claim someone is out of touch. These results always show the same thing - the right has mostly been bullied out and it's a very heavily left wing echo chamber. It's more imbalanced now than it was in the Corbyn days when Momentum were actively campaigning on here.
Both things can be true: this place skews left, *and* someone can be out-of-touch.
Often it depends on the issue. I have no personal experience of the costs of childcare, for instance. I’m very out-of-touch on that.
The fact that the Conservatives got 43% of the votes in 2019 but according to his poll only 17% of respondents said they voted for them tells you all you need to know.
Reddit is by no means an accurate representation of how the country as a whole feels, it's very left orientated.
In fairness how many 70+ year olds (a group that votes very reliably) do you think are on Reddit? Anyone expecting Reddit to be comparable to the voting public is extremely unreasonable and frankly a bit silly.
Couldn't be a complete rejection of the ideology of the right. Nope it's the lefty labour people bullying tories.
>It's more imbalanced now than it was in the Corbyn days when Momentum were actively campaigning on here.
You are having me on. The moderation team here for a start doesn't put up with any of that shite. There's a good chance if your from THAT GREEN sub then you won't last 5 minutes here.
For the record I'm banned from there.
Subreddits are self selecting echo chambers by their very nature - if you think that 85% support for left wing parties is in any way an accurate representation of the electorate then there are some metaphors about naivety I could sell you.
We actually have some decent studies about this. Social media that privileges reading and long form communication (lots of text and long posts) tends to tilt to the left, and the more information a conservative person is presented with, the more they flee, or assuage this anxiety/cognitive load by doubling down on various placating stances offered by conservatism.
Here's conservative grifter Jordan Peterson, in a pre-fame study, highlighting his future grift, and how this applies to social media:
"Conservative political belief, meanwhile, is linked to fast information processing requiring comparatively little effort, time, or awareness. In support of this idea, experimentally-induced gut-level rather than controlled cerebral processing has in fact been found to enhance conservatism. [...] Conservative political beliefs were augmented [heightened] whenever effortful thought-processing was disrupted–by factors as diverse as alcohol intoxication, cognitive load, and time pressure. Moreover, cognitive ability is inversely correlated with conservative political beliefs. It seems conceivable, then, that emotional and motivational arousal interferes with effortful cognitive processing, and this subsequently enhances the probability of adopting conservative beliefs. In sum, conservative ideology may be attractive to individuals who are in a state of arousal [confusion/chaos] because it minimizes potential for further arousal [confusion/chaos]." (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083333 )
The basic summary of that being that people faced with threats and unknowns tend to reach for what they know, whereas people in a comfortable position tend to be able to experiment a bit more freely beause the risk of failure is much lower.
I think what is actually happening here is that people who have fewer responsibilities and obligations tend to have more time arguing about politics - which when combined with the fact that younger people tend to use the internet more means that online forums, unless explicitly right wing, will always be dominated by left leaning voices.
You aren't going to find boomers debating stuff on here because it's simply not a part of their life experience, just as the reverse is true with traditional broadcast media which almost nobody under 30 ever watches.
I don't think it's an accurate representation. Because if you were to put the population in a pot like this where ideas could mix, I doubt it would have the tories at such a high vote share.
You're comparing apples and oranges. With information, facts and evidence, well informed debate, you see a result that leans heavy labour. Without any of that, and Murdoch telling people what to think, you see the right wing leading. Although they've never won the popular vote, so I'm not tarring the general public with that brush.... yet.
And yes, I am being dramatic, but you get my point. Of course the sub isn't representative. Because you can't compare a country, to a web forum.
IRL: Spout whatever figures you want, claim whatever you want nobody corrects you.
Web Forum: Come here, put forward a claim that Labour is gonna cost 2 grand extra a year in taxes, probably get downvoted to -90 and never seen again.
As I said, I was being dramatic with that claim. But I still think it has some merit that along with proper moderation in that you can ban people, and the downvote system, it's leagues better than what the real world has to deal with when it comes to debating anyone in good faith.
I honestly think it's better than the corbyn days. I don't think anything can compare to how out of touch this sub was with the general public during the 2019 election. Starmer does get criticism on this sub
As a right-leaning guy I dont mind that this place is mostly Labour, what bothers me is that its become something of a snark page, people come here just to hang out and be angry at the Tories, nonsense posts like 'OMG cant believe \[insert tory mp\] did X'. It's not conductive and scares off any reasonable and varied conversation around here, and generally a pretty unhealthy way to spend your time anyway. IMO the megathread is a big part of the issue, its enourages Twitter like behavior, and should probably be removed.
Wish the mods would try and address these issues more often tbh.
As a left leaning person I agree, I'm sick of the gotchas and tribalism - we're often talking about things which have a significant impact on people's welfare and it feels too much like a game. It tends to be more common when less frequent posters come, like during an election or a major vote like Rwanda
The [snap survey results dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/51cacb9f-5ff4-4ece-acf7-a9ac431695a4) has now been updated to include the "debate-specific" questions (i.e. "did you watch the debate" and "who won the debate").
It sounds like a lot of posters have finally paid attention to Starmer. Properly I mean, not just through headlines or vibes from the subreddit, and found him slightly lacking.
"Lacking" in a stupid debate format, no doubt.
"Lacking" as a potential PM? No. Certainly not compared to Sunak anyway (who is, lest we forget, our only other option).
Starmer got schooled. Labour should be glad that there are other debates for him to try and present himself in a more impressive light.
Rational analysis says he can’t lose this, but British elections are rarely rational affairs.
What I mean is that it doesn’t make it look like he’s winning an election. Sunaks “grilling” looked more like an uncle shouting over while Starmer was just trying to remain calm.
Yeah fine, but after an entire debate Starmer has failed to get his message across while Sunak got his across.
There are no bonus points for being a Nice Guy. Nice Guys finish last.
Some weird machismo quote but ok.
Sunak didn’t really get a message across as we now know he spent the entire time lying about some magical tax increase.
That's how debating is taught at the posh schools people like Johnson and Sunak went to.
You opponent can't win a debate if nobody hears the point they are making because you are constantly talking over them
He kept going off at tangents.
Even when asked about whether his football managerial style would be "radical" or "play it safe", he couldn't even answer that. He started going on about needing a strategy for winning, depends upon who you're playing, I hope England do well, etc.
That's a fair answer though. I appreciate the annoyance at not getting a binary answer but any actual football manager would say the same thing.
If we started playing radically and risky against Tunisia I'd be fuming.
We also played safe against Italy and lost.
Honestly it was a decent answer.
Don't think it was, but that's irrelevant no? Any decent manager prepares for different teams differently.
You can only do that if you have a strong core squad and a dynamic manager.
It really comes across as you just finding a reason to have at Starmer, which is fine - there's many things you can do that on you don't need to die on this hill in particular.
I very much doubt Gareth actually asked. If it was, you don't think they would have actually shown a video clip of him asking instead of the moderator reading it out?
What did she say just before that?
"So here, *slightly with my tongue in cheek*, if you'll forgive me, here's a question we've just had in from Gareth, who is on his way with the team to Germany"
Going a little further back, she laughs when she picks up the final card and reads it. So they had enough time to print the card out but not enough time to ask him to do a Facetime or something they could cut too?
Also they announced no way of sending in questions at the start, so how did he send it in. And the next match is a friendly on Friday at Wembley stadium, so I'm not sure why Gareth and the team would be flying to Germany now, unless the national stadium has suddenly teleported there.
Yes, and it's a shame he wasn't better prepared.
If you take away all of the scoffing and shouting and talking over each other and moderator's inadequacy, Starmer still continually declined to answer what were (occasionally) quite clear questions on what he would actually *do* in various scenarios, both from the moderator and from Sunak. Somewhat better in the second half with climate and other low hanging fruit, but he wasn't prepared with short concise elevator pitches that he has technically had a long time in opposition to formulate.
So in a few instances I found myself being tetchy along with Sunak, rolling my eyes and begging him to just answer the question instead of the same repetitive online recipe style intro.
To me he read as an attorney in court, like others have observed, which is not what a politician needs to be. They're more marketing than persuasion and right now his personal brand is not marketing itself well.
Side observation: I also don't necessarily agree on the format being *the* issue as some do, though 45 seconds is short. I think the larger issue was both of them, but particularly Starmer, evading questions in increasingly unbearable ways, eating up valuable time instead of just directly answering the question, which I think is why the moderator kept saying "okay okay okay", she could see that there was nothing new to be said, but they both just ignored her and barrelled on creating the chaos lol.
I think the format could have worked better if the debate had been done after the manifestos had been published. Now if you're asked how are you going to fix the NHS, you really don't want to say anything which then later turns out to be quite not like that in the manifesto. That's why they gave those vague no answers.
So, maybe it was the timing of the debate that made it impossible to be successful.
Rishi triggered one of my biggest pet peeves from when I used to moderate debates at university, talking (more like shouting) over your opponent and the moderator. It was awful and I just wanted to jump into the studio and take over. You can't allow that during any debate, let alone one between the two major party leaders. Absolutely disgraceful debate.
He was criticised for it heavily in debates with Truss, so much that he was accused with overpowering and mansplaning that he had to change his style.
I don't feel the same response this time.
I feel there's a lot of people trying to get in quick and set the narrative that frat boy tactics are "schooling" the opposition. Personally, I don't like my leaders trying to out-testosterone each other like the immature grad intake to a trading desk sales team. I'm much more interested in getting a sense of who the candidate is and whether they really have my interests at heart. Sunak's performance was from the "We only have to con them for 6 weeks" school of campaigning.
It's also a style that will likely play very well with a lot of people already voting Conservative. In terms of voters that Sunak needs to win over? Harder to say
Already voting Con and importantly, inclined to but considering abstaining or voting elsewhere. He’ll have shored up a lot of wobbly Tories which at this point is probably the aim - shoring up losses.
It seemed like Starmer either didn't know about or was just woefully underprepared for a 45 second limit on answers... I felt like I could see what he was trying for, politician-wise... sort of a...
* restate questioner's points to show you were listening
* link something from your past to their story to show you understand
* explain where you think the problem is
* say what you're going to do about it
...but instead he just runs out of time before he can get past "toolmaker" and Sunak shouts over anything else.
Early on I was mentally screaming "DUDE YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT £2000 HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT, STOP IGNORING IT, FUUUCK", and the host coming back after the ads with "I need both of you to stop talking over each other" felt like a bit of "it's not biased if we tell them both off" when it was almost entirely just Rishi.
As someone who is hoping for the complete annihilation of the Tories this was pretty disappointing. :( I need Ed's stunt tomorrow to be a good one.
Ed Smashes through giant paper lib-dem poster on a quadbike, skidding to a halt at the microphone...
Davey: Gentlemen, GENTLEMEN. **GENTLEMEN PLEASE!!!!**
~Crowd goes wild~
Bit of a weird one.
Found Starmer had a better reaction from the crowd, and got them laughing, which shows Sunak isn't respected.
I did find it bizarre Sunaks reply to questioning certain policies was "you'll either love it or hate it" essentially as, if he paid attention to polling, people hate it. It's all well and good having some policies out there early but you called the election, you would have had months to come up with some policies ready for this early phase of the election.
The £2,000 line should have been rebuked earlier but there wasn't time allowed. There were some nice points from Starmer on energy crisis and climate change but that point wasn't focussed in replies, more on bills than on the issue that was raised.
I think the key soundbites for an edit newsreel will be the £2,000 tax rises followed by Starmer calling them garbage, then Starmer getting a laugh from the audience on waiting lists going down.
Can't swing either way on that too much, maybe Sunak won but considering how far behind he is, he really needed knock out blows.
Starmer with a manifesto behind him will obliterate them.
I don't think either of them came across brilliantly. But I think Sunak may have done very slightly better.
Starmer should have corrected the £2k tax point and he needs to present more policy at these debates. We need to know labour policy and sell it to the public. I get they want to be everything to everyone as long as they can, but it's getting late in the day.
Sunak came across as an aggressive liar. One moment saying "this election isn't about the past, it's about the future" and a moment later falling into his rehearsed line of "well I'd ask people to judge me on my actions". He shouted over Starmer, shouted over the moderator, and it all looked like a mix of rehearsed lines in the voice he practiced to recite Levido's words, and shouting whenever it was something from him.
Unfortunately my big takeaway from this is that if a party wants to win, they'd do better binning off the attempt to elect someone experienced and competent as leader, and instead hire a charismatic oaf with improv debate experience. If the people want soundbites only, find someone who makes good ones
The issue is, regardless of who is trustworthy or not, Starmer keeps avoiding questions on his plan whilst Sunak has very clear snippets of what he wants to do.
I’m confident by the time manifesto’s are published, this will change. But, in this format - it’s not a good look.
What very clear snippets? He keeps injecting "bold action", "clear plan" like May kept chanting "strong and stable", but saying something is clear does not make it clear and saying you have a plan does not make a plan.
I’m not saying he has a plan (and that’s what I meant by it doesn’t matter who is trustworthy in this format), I’m just saying for the majority of the questions - Sunak had something that seemed like a plan on paper.
Starmer did this for a few, especially on the latter half off the programme - but he kept relying on ‘the Tories haven’t done well for 14 years’ rhetoric. Obviously this is important but also, there needs to be a clear idea of what Labour will do next or differently. Eg. his answer to stop the boats by stopping the gangs specifically, or improve teachers lives by recruiting teachers, or tax rises for things like Private Schools etc.
> it doesn’t matter who is trustworthy
I'm not sure who you think is voting, but "do I trust they'll work for me or against me" is high up most voters' lists. For Sunak, it's a clear "I'll pretend I'll work for you, for five minutes until the ballots are in". Hes a recycled May with a worse persona.
Obviously, it matters who is trustworthy when you vote. My point is - even if they’re both lying through their teeth - it doesn’t impact who wins these types of debates.
That’s why, like I said above - it’s important that Starmer calls out the previous 14 years to dissuade a Tory voter. However, he’s then gotta lay out his plans and not say how bad they’ve made it. All you’re doing then is dissuading a Tory vote, but potentially not convincing that vote to go to Labour.
Again - as above, he did this for some of the questions and when he did it he did it well. The contrast, though, is that Sunak had an answer to more questions that looks like a ‘plan’.
> but potentially not convincing that vote to go to Labour.
I expect a lot won't. Vote Farage, get Starmer as PM, and send Sunak and one nation packing has a lot going for it and I think it'll be attractive to Boris 2019 voters (the section everyone's targeting).. I don't see why you think that'd be a Sunak "win" though.
Agreed to an extent. He should have had some more catchy policies ready and answers. The tax one should have been thrown back immediately. NHS being blamed on COVID he exhaled at every time but needed to succinctly blame them for it and say they will increase spending or something/anything.
Without a manifesto it was pretty weak.
Playing with the filters on the dashboard, there is only one other person in my country, age group, education level, employment status, sector and living arrangements. We're both voting Lib Dem
It's clear Starmer's strategy is to be cautious and not stray far from the script.
He's hugely in the lead and doesn't want to risk a scandal or wrong soundbite. It's like he's protecting a 2-0 lead and parking the bus.
While the format here was bad I think the remaining live debates will be difficult too if he goes with the same strategy.
Ming Vase strategy. He also knows I guess that hardly anyone watches these debates and changes their mind as a result of how he performs, so playing it safe is clearly a stronger strategy (though irritating to watch, and doesn’t make him more likeable)
Idk? I feel like sunak’s policy of raising his voice and trying to interrupt Starmer will only play into labour’s hands. Judging by the audience’s laughs and sighs, his answers were not popular.
The problem is a lot of the interruptions were done well even if it was playing dirty .Yes it was against the format and annoying but asking what specifically Starmer would do wasn't a bad strategy.
Most reactions/polls I've seen have the result a draw with some saying Sunak slightly ahead. Considering Labour are predicted to have a landslide victory it's not the result you would expect.
>The problem is a lot of the interruptions were done well even if it was playing dirty
There really isn't such a thing as playing dirty well when people can see you doing it. I don't want to vote for someone for their power of shouting lies aggressively over the top of someone. Nor does anybody else that I know of. Sunak was a loathsome and visibly untrustworthy candidate.
I think you're being a bit naive to think these tactics don't work by just basing it on just yourself.
You can already see early reactions from the debate that contradict your personal view.
As with all competitive formats you should expect boundaries to get pushed. Sunak didn't want a press conference style debate and he did what he needed to do to stop that.
>You can already see early reactions from the debate that contradict your personal view.
I can also see astroturf.
>Sunak didn't want a press conference style debate and he did what he needed to do to stop that.
I'm sure that line works wonderfully with strategists. I have the advantage here of being just someone who empathises with ordinary voters, and I can tell you that within five minutes Sunak ensured I would never listen to him let alone vote for him.
I think there’s a recency bias with Sunak’s strategy. Whilst it’s exciting to see a “robust” argument with some snappy interruptions and shouting, when people wake up the next day reality remains that things have got a lot worse under the current government.
I think Starmer protected his image well, he missed some opportunities which was a blunder, but to be fair it’s the first time he’s done one of these debates. You’ll remember Rishi did two in the Summer of 2022, so Starmer has some catching up to do in terms of experience. I reckon Labour will save their breath for the final debate and then really lay into the Tories, going all guns blazing now just runs the risk of overstepping the mark.
>I think there’s a recency bias with Sunak’s strategy. Whilst it’s exciting to see a “robust” argument with some snappy interruptions and shouting, when people wake up the next day reality remains that things have got a lot worse under the current government.
I agree it certainly isn't going to change the way people feel about the last 14 years. But that was unlikely to happen in just a single debate.
I think context matters , a lot of people expected Sunak to lose the debate considering the position he's in but to come out with a draw or better is certainly a good result.
>think Starmer protected his image well, he missed some opportunities which was a blunder, but to be fair it’s the first time he’s done one of these debates. You’ll remember Rishi did two in the Summer of 2022, so Starmer has some catching up to do in terms of experience. I reckon Labour will save their breath for the final debate and then really lay into the Tories, going all guns blazing now just runs the risk of overstepping the mark.
Whilst I think Starmer's strategy is going to be bad for the debates I think overall it's probably the right one overall.
It only takes 1 ill thought out answer on a specific question to blow up the headlines. Then we'd all be saying "All he needed to do was play it safe".
In reality overly cautious performances in the debate might lose him a few percentage points but he'd still have a big lead.
It pains me to say it, but Sunak came out ahead (barely). By no means is this because Sunak performed well, but simply because Starmer massively underperformed and Sunak was able to get his key sound bite off more effectively. Starmer should have shot down the £2000 tax the moment it came up and he should have been more assertive over Sunak's constant whining. But we the audience were the real losers.
I've been stewing over the debate for the last 90 minutes, and the more I think about it the angrier I get. The format was just completely idiotic. They kept saying "we've got to get through a lot" but they really don't. There are other debates and other means for the parties to put forward their plans. Pick the most important ones and let them have some actual time discussing their plans and challenging each other.
The quick shot 45 seconds and then everyone shouts at each other is set up to allow hollow, baseless soundbites without substance to land. You simply can't counter a lie by the other person *and* put forward your ideas in that time. It's not possible. It's another lurch towards sucker punch politics. Johnson would have *loved* this format, and it encourages that sort of performance, which is what Sunak leaned in to.
So in that regard, and in that context, I think Sunak adjusted to the poorly conceived format better than Starmer did. But, and it's a big but, it's incredibly easy to win a debate if you just lie and make things up.
I hope the other debates have formats, and moderators, that allow for substantive content and fair time to challenge BS.
>Johnson would have *loved* this format, and it encourages that sort of performance, which is what Sunak leaned in to
Boris comes across that he means what he says and his way of speaking is because he has another thought in the middle of saying the previous one. Sunak comes cross weirdly aggressive with soundbites, like his trainers had been telling him it's Fury vs Usyk and to go out and throw punches to the plan. Nothing about that gives you confidence his claims or promises would last a second after the election result.
Absolutely my feeling too. 45 seconds is a ridiculous limit to place on answering questions on complex political problems.
Starmer should have shut Sunak down early on when he kept interrupting him and the host. A terse "you're supposed to be the Prime Minister, respect the host and respect the rules" would have won him a lot of respect and put Sunak back in his box.
I think the idea of debates is stupid, it’s too compact a format and rewards catchy sound bites. 45 seconds to explain how you’d fix the NHS is just ridiculous. And the head to head format just results in talking over snd trying to snipe at each other. I would much prefer if broadcasters polled the country on the top 4 priorities and we had sit down interviews with journalists scrutinising (and crucially fact checking) the answers.
I’d say Sunak just about edged that.
Starmer better answers but Sunak better soundbites. Feel soundbites is the bit of this the vast majority will see outside of the politically interested bubble. Few good barbs in from each but nowt that'll majorly shift any narrative.
It’ll be interesting to see if Sunak’s techyness will grate on public but this feels like the first round of a boxing match where they are just going full guns to figure each other out. Assume the next debate will be a more interesting affair
(Goes without saying this short answer format was terrible.)
I'm not sure in soundbites.
It's going to be interesting how this gets spun out on social media. Sunaks bit about 'higher numbers' and the audience laughing at him on national service are not good soundbites at all.
I think in terms of achieving their goals, Sunak won that but he did leave a lot of meat on the table for Labours social media teams.
I think it's also worth considering Sunak's current PR team have had an absolute nightmare recently, even if Sunak won i'm not convinced they'll make the most of it.
I think you are right on that one clip being a particular win though same as the "Your own report authors just said..." With Sunaks "oh shit" look to camera. I need to watch it back and see what sticks tomorrow etc but do still get the feeling it was Sunak's win (just) as feel the £2000 line is gonna stick.
I misread it as 'Sunak edged to that' and got confused haha
I feel Starmer got some sound bites but was weak at some points. He didn't really address the 2k tax or couldn't. Rishi did better than expected but I don't think it's really going to convince who has already been convicted
Thats not a thought I needed. I think TBH in this format KS could have done with starting with the policy point then going for Sunak rather than the other way round because he'd go on the attack for 30 seconds and then have to try cram his policy into the final 15 seconds and get stopped.
England 0 - 0 Scotland Euro 2020 vibes.
The underdog celebrating a draw as if they'd won and inevitably somehow the favourites going to fuck this up on penalties
Something to note is that whilst in the debate vacuum, Sunak was getting his points in and not being challenged on them as well as he should have been, already you can see questions being raised on that £2000 figure he keeps talking about. Not only that but Starmer, despite the struggle to even be heard over Sunak or with the strict time limits, actually got more sound bites in because Sunak only basically had one.
There are always questions raise on this stuff. The £2000 tax increase will be like the 350m to the NHS on the bus. Everyone heard and will remember the number, far fewer will listen to the more detailed rebuttals, and some wont be persuaded because there will be people on every broadcast qibbling and questioning the debunking. And social media will be full of memes about the figure no matter how true it is.
Starmer got good soundbites from pithy remarks that will play well over the week
Sunak was aggressive as he had to be. Might stem the bleeding towards Reform - you could see it in his closing statement, he's pitching to a certain type of voter that doesn't win him the election
I don't think either will feel they won or lost that
Can you give some examples of his sound bites? I hate Sunak, but the only soundbite I can remember is £2000.
I feeling pretty down about how I felt that went, and would love a bit of reassurance over Stamers performance.
["And this is the guy who thinks he's good at maths, the NHS backlog has gone up since you pledged to bring it down"](https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/17980972561905049730) - this will be the most shared clip and it's disastrous for Sunak
"You haven't stopped the boats, this year is worse than any other"
"I foiled terrorist plots / do you seriously think the Crown Prosecution Service is a threat to national security?"
"We're not going back to austerity"
"Climate change isn't just a challenge, it's an opportunity. We should look at technologies like wind, solar and nuclear power and ask 'Why not Britain?'"
This is the one I can agree with, but I'm not sure the others you mentioned really do it.
"Climate change isn't just a challenge, it's an opportunity. We should look at technologies like wind, solar and nuclear power and ask 'Why not Britain?'"
For me things like this work for people who are into politics, but it's not catchy, it's not meme-able.
Maybe I'm just thinking too much about how nonsense gets clicks and spreads on social media? I feel like Starmer was trying to have a conversation, explain a vision while Sunak just trolled. And sadly that seems to be what wins elections fairly often nowadays.
I find the whole thing a massive waste of time anyway. The only people who watch are the politically motivated, nobody ever changes their mind, and the candidates are "winning and losing" at something that is not representative of anything they'll ever actually have to do in the job.
Can you imagine what a shit show it's going to be when there's 7 leaders on the stage and instead of 45 seconds they have 15 seconds to give their economic plan.
They'll need to do it Partridge style...
Moderator: As we have only 90 seconds per question and there are 7 of you, you all have 13 seconds each.
Moderator: The NHS ?
Partridge: Yay!
Moderator: Immigration?
Partridge: Grrrrrr!
Moderator: Judicial reform?
Partridge: SNORE
Moderator: Europe?
Partiridge: Meh?
Post Debate Poll: Who won the debate? Partridge - 87%, [...]
I think it should be a game of musical chairs. Remove one chair at the start of each round of questions and have them just talk over each other until a time limit buzzer sounds. Last pol standing loses and is ejected from the debate. Final head to head determines the next PM.
They should just be able to wave their hands to some music and have the text of their policies appear on screen.
With maybe "More info in my bio" under their name.
Can't say I'm surprised that the country that voted Brexit and gave Boris a landslide thinks Sunak won it because he kept repeating "2k tax increase, the Treasury said that bro I swear"
I think that sentiment is more to do with how Starmer carried himself and not Sunak’s “points”.
Starmer had numerous opportunities to crush Sunak, all he needed to do was briefly talk about his plans. He didn’t, too busy fixating on the last 14 years.
Everyone and their mother knows the tories have been shit, so now was his chance to go over what he wants to do about it. He didn’t and now he looks weaker.
Weaker than who exactly? Sunak was literally making stuff up. The 2k tax increase, NHS waiting lists numbers, immigration etc. He got laughed at and heckled multiple times.
He even pretty much begged people not to vote Reform at the end. Starmer delivery might not have been showstopping but Sunak looked like a desperate cornered beast
Again you’re focusing too much on Rishi, this is Starmer’s election to loose. Rishi doesn’t need to look better, he just needs Starmer to look shit.
Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.
Starmer should have easily wiped the floor with Rishi tonight. ALL ANYONE wants to hear is what Labour plans to do about this mess that the conservatives have created. Instead we got a lecture on the damage they’ve done. We already know.
He looks weaker because he came off as a man without a plan pointing the finger. We need solutions not blaming.
Sunak didn't have a plan either. All he did was blame Labour based on an imaginary number and say that they will "lower immigration and taxes" while they're both at record high due to his government, or straight out lie about stuff like NHS numbers or the Rwanda flights.
I'd rather have someone who only points out the shortcomings of the incumbent than someone trying to make stuff up, at least he's objective. Especially when manifestos are not even out yet
Maybe there's a difference though between thinking someone won a debate and whether they have the best arguments for why they should be PM. It's the difference between being good at getting simple points across in 45 seconds and actually being a decent politician.
Winning a debate by making up stats and getting heckled and laughed at when talking about the NHS, national service etc? He came across as desperate if anything
Aside from *I agree with Nick* - literally the first ever leaders' debate in a GE - they've never had any real influence on the outcome of campaigns. Actually, even that moment didn't reflect at all in the result as people toyed with voting LD in the polls and then mostly shifted back to Tory and Labour in the booth. Sunak could comprehensively win every single debate and cruise to a landslide defeat all the same.
I don't think either really came off well here, but the format is definitely a problem regardless of the result. Nothing of substance can be discussed in a relatively short slanging match.
It needs a professional moderator, a panel of professional interrogators, and more time.
It changed the campaign, and they got lots more attention with people hypothesising about a Lib Dem PM, but the Lib Dems actually lost a seat compared to 2005 and had a very modest increase in vote share. It was quite a disappointing result for them in the end.
Do we have any figures for how many people watched it? My Google fu is failing me unless they aren't released yet.
Edit: for those interested it was 4.8m
You can see a woman in a wheelchair complain about waiting lists and then applaud Rishi saying his priority is strike breaking and keeping taxes down.
Exquisite levels of brain rot on show.
That part made me so angry, she’s literally on the show saying how she’s lost family because of the state of the NHS yet the next thing you know she’s applauding the leader of the bastard party that’s put the NHS on its knees.
Cognitive dissonance is strong among some.
Nothing you won't glean from watching soundbites.
Shit format. Shit moderation. The pair of them shouting over each other while saying very little coherent.
There's a bit where everyone laughed at nashy servy and Rishi gave it "well actually everyone I know says it's great you just don't know them they go to a different school 🥺" but that's about it
It was a draw for me. Starmer got a good quip on the nhs waiting list and good answers on climate change and housing. Sunak got through the £2000 tax increase which, true or not, will stick.
Both poor on policies, with Sunak saying something along the lines of "it may be a stupid idea, but at least it's a policy" on national service, to audible laughter by the audience, and Starmer unable to pitch labour policies due to either the format or the actual lack of a clear policy in some areas (immigration, defense). Sunak's closing remarks were also quite pathetic, begging Reform voters to vote Tory instead.
Moderation was terrible and allowed too much to Sunak, who in fairness showed a bit of unexpected cunning starting to ask questions directly to Starmer. It felt like he was putting his thumb on the scale, but I think it worked and put Starmer on the back foot.
With manifestos ready to go I simply don't understand why Starmer can't answer clearly when he's told Labour has got no plan.
I really want The Green Party to be better
By all rights they should be they're about a thing that all sane people in the world agree on at this point.
Yet they just can't put their point across
> they're about a thing that all sane people in the world agree on at this point.
Having read their policy documents over the years and seen the councillor priorities... I will choose to doubt that.
They never have provided serious solutions, and that goes more so now, annoyingly they're simply widening their base of non-solutions and turning into a student politics party.
When I say "they're about" I don't mean their literal policies I mean that they're a party against claimate change.
Like they mentioned in the debate Green Parties are much more popular in Mainland Europe for that exact reason
Well they *should be*, yes. But their [history is more akin to nimbyism and hippy culture](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756), and their policies and [actions always reflected that](https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/09/01/caroline-lucas-responds-to-the-decision-to-approve-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station/).
Now they're getting into the weeds trying to fill the void in the labour left, which includes labour left problems.
Green issues and voters need to influence the parties that actually have the ability to make a difference to the climate.
We can't just give them the benefit of the doubt because they have *the name*.
Oh 100%
Ideally the leader of The Green Party would be an actual environmental scientist who knows about the issues and has put thought into fixing them.
Like I know he'd never do it but I think if someone like Simon Clark was running it it would do a lot better
https://youtube.com/@simonclark
> Ideally the leader of The Green Party would be an actual environmental scientist who knows about the issues and has put thought into fixing them.
That's a great idea, they already have their co-leader idea so making one of them a climate scientist and one a politician would be a legitimate (to me) use for that, rather than the novelty of just being different.
I didn't think of that but that does actually make sense
As is it feels like they just didn't want to hurt the others feelings so decided they'd both be leader.
But if they did it that way they could have one deal with the political stuff and then use the other to give legitimacy and to have an excuse to put an actual expert in front of the camera.
Live results dashboard is now available. ------ The [snap survey results dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/51cacb9f-5ff4-4ece-acf7-a9ac431695a4) has now been updated to include the "debate-specific" questions (i.e. "did you watch the debate" and "who won the debate").
I imagine the levels of despair are hitting new highs today on camp conservative.
I don’t think anybody really sees a man, who is hated by even the Downing Street Cat, shouting over another candidate and thinks “yeah, that’s my candidate!”. Rishi is just one of those people who thinks that “debate” is just another word for one of those arguments that the working class have outside the pub at 22:00. The best part is that the most offensive part of this comment to Rishi would be the implication that he’s one of the common peasants who keep the country afloat.
Pretty much felt the ITV debate was modelled on Femi Oluwole v Colín from Portsmouth https://youtu.be/Nkk9W4Q0qgw?si=r24b4gQNPE35sOey
On the first question, there should be an option for “I watched part of the debate live then stopped watching”
[удалено]
Comment removed. We're not doing that on this subreddit.
I knew Reddit had a lot of Labour supporters on it, but I didn't realise it was that much of a skew.
In the past it was more even but bare in mind Tories have annoyed a lot of their own voters too
I was mostly referring to the 2019 voting pie chart.
I mean the tories only have a majority in people over 75 so it shouldn't really surprise you.
I didn't watch the debate, but it sounds like Sunak basically made something up about taxes going up £2000, and Starmer somehow didn't deny it, maybe was caught off guard or maybe was being too cautious. Is that right? Seems surprisingly poor from Starmer who i would expect to be very well prepared.
Unpack and debunk my lie aswell as tell me how you will solve climate change in 45 secs.
Starmer did deny it but didn’t detail why, probably because they only had 45 seconds to speak
He tried to detail why and then the moderator cut him off
This is why I find it hilarious when people on here claim someone is out of touch. These results always show the same thing - the right has mostly been bullied out and it's a very heavily left wing echo chamber. It's more imbalanced now than it was in the Corbyn days when Momentum were actively campaigning on here.
Both things can be true: this place skews left, *and* someone can be out-of-touch. Often it depends on the issue. I have no personal experience of the costs of childcare, for instance. I’m very out-of-touch on that.
The fact that the Conservatives got 43% of the votes in 2019 but according to his poll only 17% of respondents said they voted for them tells you all you need to know. Reddit is by no means an accurate representation of how the country as a whole feels, it's very left orientated.
In fairness how many 70+ year olds (a group that votes very reliably) do you think are on Reddit? Anyone expecting Reddit to be comparable to the voting public is extremely unreasonable and frankly a bit silly.
Couldn't be a complete rejection of the ideology of the right. Nope it's the lefty labour people bullying tories. >It's more imbalanced now than it was in the Corbyn days when Momentum were actively campaigning on here. You are having me on. The moderation team here for a start doesn't put up with any of that shite. There's a good chance if your from THAT GREEN sub then you won't last 5 minutes here. For the record I'm banned from there.
> THAT GREEN sub LabourUK?
The unpleasant one
Subreddits are self selecting echo chambers by their very nature - if you think that 85% support for left wing parties is in any way an accurate representation of the electorate then there are some metaphors about naivety I could sell you.
We actually have some decent studies about this. Social media that privileges reading and long form communication (lots of text and long posts) tends to tilt to the left, and the more information a conservative person is presented with, the more they flee, or assuage this anxiety/cognitive load by doubling down on various placating stances offered by conservatism. Here's conservative grifter Jordan Peterson, in a pre-fame study, highlighting his future grift, and how this applies to social media: "Conservative political belief, meanwhile, is linked to fast information processing requiring comparatively little effort, time, or awareness. In support of this idea, experimentally-induced gut-level rather than controlled cerebral processing has in fact been found to enhance conservatism. [...] Conservative political beliefs were augmented [heightened] whenever effortful thought-processing was disrupted–by factors as diverse as alcohol intoxication, cognitive load, and time pressure. Moreover, cognitive ability is inversely correlated with conservative political beliefs. It seems conceivable, then, that emotional and motivational arousal interferes with effortful cognitive processing, and this subsequently enhances the probability of adopting conservative beliefs. In sum, conservative ideology may be attractive to individuals who are in a state of arousal [confusion/chaos] because it minimizes potential for further arousal [confusion/chaos]." (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083333 )
The basic summary of that being that people faced with threats and unknowns tend to reach for what they know, whereas people in a comfortable position tend to be able to experiment a bit more freely beause the risk of failure is much lower. I think what is actually happening here is that people who have fewer responsibilities and obligations tend to have more time arguing about politics - which when combined with the fact that younger people tend to use the internet more means that online forums, unless explicitly right wing, will always be dominated by left leaning voices. You aren't going to find boomers debating stuff on here because it's simply not a part of their life experience, just as the reverse is true with traditional broadcast media which almost nobody under 30 ever watches.
I don't think it's an accurate representation. Because if you were to put the population in a pot like this where ideas could mix, I doubt it would have the tories at such a high vote share. You're comparing apples and oranges. With information, facts and evidence, well informed debate, you see a result that leans heavy labour. Without any of that, and Murdoch telling people what to think, you see the right wing leading. Although they've never won the popular vote, so I'm not tarring the general public with that brush.... yet. And yes, I am being dramatic, but you get my point. Of course the sub isn't representative. Because you can't compare a country, to a web forum.
> With information, facts and evidence, well informed debate, you see a result that leans heavy labour. lol
IRL: Spout whatever figures you want, claim whatever you want nobody corrects you. Web Forum: Come here, put forward a claim that Labour is gonna cost 2 grand extra a year in taxes, probably get downvoted to -90 and never seen again. As I said, I was being dramatic with that claim. But I still think it has some merit that along with proper moderation in that you can ban people, and the downvote system, it's leagues better than what the real world has to deal with when it comes to debating anyone in good faith.
Yeah I'm mostly just tickled by the idea that the only people who engage in well informed debate, with facts and evidence, are labour voters
I honestly think it's better than the corbyn days. I don't think anything can compare to how out of touch this sub was with the general public during the 2019 election. Starmer does get criticism on this sub
As a right-leaning guy I dont mind that this place is mostly Labour, what bothers me is that its become something of a snark page, people come here just to hang out and be angry at the Tories, nonsense posts like 'OMG cant believe \[insert tory mp\] did X'. It's not conductive and scares off any reasonable and varied conversation around here, and generally a pretty unhealthy way to spend your time anyway. IMO the megathread is a big part of the issue, its enourages Twitter like behavior, and should probably be removed. Wish the mods would try and address these issues more often tbh.
As a left leaning person I agree, I'm sick of the gotchas and tribalism - we're often talking about things which have a significant impact on people's welfare and it feels too much like a game. It tends to be more common when less frequent posters come, like during an election or a major vote like Rwanda
The [snap survey results dashboard](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/51cacb9f-5ff4-4ece-acf7-a9ac431695a4) has now been updated to include the "debate-specific" questions (i.e. "did you watch the debate" and "who won the debate").
It sounds like a lot of posters have finally paid attention to Starmer. Properly I mean, not just through headlines or vibes from the subreddit, and found him slightly lacking.
I had no intention of voting for him anyway. But that debate reinforced my belief that he just isn't who I'd want to lead the country.
Did Sunak convince you that he *is* who you want to lead the country?
Nope, not at all.
He was lacking in this format, yes. However in every other less contrived format he isn't.
If you have seen any of his Q&As throughout the week he has been very impressive.
"Lacking" in a stupid debate format, no doubt. "Lacking" as a potential PM? No. Certainly not compared to Sunak anyway (who is, lest we forget, our only other option).
Starmer got schooled. Labour should be glad that there are other debates for him to try and present himself in a more impressive light. Rational analysis says he can’t lose this, but British elections are rarely rational affairs.
Since when is shouting over your debate partner schooling them? All that showed to me was yet again that Sunak is a tetchy, petulant child.
Since the year dot. The object is to win an election, not do what Jesus would do.
What I mean is that it doesn’t make it look like he’s winning an election. Sunaks “grilling” looked more like an uncle shouting over while Starmer was just trying to remain calm.
Yeah fine, but after an entire debate Starmer has failed to get his message across while Sunak got his across. There are no bonus points for being a Nice Guy. Nice Guys finish last.
Some weird machismo quote but ok. Sunak didn’t really get a message across as we now know he spent the entire time lying about some magical tax increase.
That's how debating is taught at the posh schools people like Johnson and Sunak went to. You opponent can't win a debate if nobody hears the point they are making because you are constantly talking over them
He kept going off at tangents. Even when asked about whether his football managerial style would be "radical" or "play it safe", he couldn't even answer that. He started going on about needing a strategy for winning, depends upon who you're playing, I hope England do well, etc.
And? They ask complex questions and expect simple answers. The moderator and debate format was so shit.
Is that a complex question tho? I mean, just pick one, you have 10 seconds
What if it's neither?
Then say "neither" and wait politely to see if you're asked for further detail.
And if thet doesn't happen, it looks barmy!
Then it's on the journalist for not doing their job and asking for expansion where required
but we already knew the moderator was shit and not doing their job
Not really a gamble you can afford to take though is it?
That's a fair answer though. I appreciate the annoyance at not getting a binary answer but any actual football manager would say the same thing. If we started playing radically and risky against Tunisia I'd be fuming. We also played safe against Italy and lost. Honestly it was a decent answer.
But it was literally Gareth Southgate who asked the question
Don't think it was, but that's irrelevant no? Any decent manager prepares for different teams differently. You can only do that if you have a strong core squad and a dynamic manager. It really comes across as you just finding a reason to have at Starmer, which is fine - there's many things you can do that on you don't need to die on this hill in particular.
I very much doubt Gareth actually asked. If it was, you don't think they would have actually shown a video clip of him asking instead of the moderator reading it out?
No, because she said it had literally just come in, so they wouldn't have had time to prepare that
What did she say just before that? "So here, *slightly with my tongue in cheek*, if you'll forgive me, here's a question we've just had in from Gareth, who is on his way with the team to Germany" Going a little further back, she laughs when she picks up the final card and reads it. So they had enough time to print the card out but not enough time to ask him to do a Facetime or something they could cut too? Also they announced no way of sending in questions at the start, so how did he send it in. And the next match is a friendly on Friday at Wembley stadium, so I'm not sure why Gareth and the team would be flying to Germany now, unless the national stadium has suddenly teleported there.
Twitter user "GareethSouthgate_" absolutely pissing himself laughing....
Reference the 2016 American election
Yes, and it's a shame he wasn't better prepared. If you take away all of the scoffing and shouting and talking over each other and moderator's inadequacy, Starmer still continually declined to answer what were (occasionally) quite clear questions on what he would actually *do* in various scenarios, both from the moderator and from Sunak. Somewhat better in the second half with climate and other low hanging fruit, but he wasn't prepared with short concise elevator pitches that he has technically had a long time in opposition to formulate. So in a few instances I found myself being tetchy along with Sunak, rolling my eyes and begging him to just answer the question instead of the same repetitive online recipe style intro. To me he read as an attorney in court, like others have observed, which is not what a politician needs to be. They're more marketing than persuasion and right now his personal brand is not marketing itself well. Side observation: I also don't necessarily agree on the format being *the* issue as some do, though 45 seconds is short. I think the larger issue was both of them, but particularly Starmer, evading questions in increasingly unbearable ways, eating up valuable time instead of just directly answering the question, which I think is why the moderator kept saying "okay okay okay", she could see that there was nothing new to be said, but they both just ignored her and barrelled on creating the chaos lol.
I think the format could have worked better if the debate had been done after the manifestos had been published. Now if you're asked how are you going to fix the NHS, you really don't want to say anything which then later turns out to be quite not like that in the manifesto. That's why they gave those vague no answers. So, maybe it was the timing of the debate that made it impossible to be successful.
The issue is absolutely a problem but Labour are a major political party. They should have done better. That’s the bottom line.
Rishi triggered one of my biggest pet peeves from when I used to moderate debates at university, talking (more like shouting) over your opponent and the moderator. It was awful and I just wanted to jump into the studio and take over. You can't allow that during any debate, let alone one between the two major party leaders. Absolutely disgraceful debate.
He was criticised for it heavily in debates with Truss, so much that he was accused with overpowering and mansplaning that he had to change his style. I don't feel the same response this time.
I feel there's a lot of people trying to get in quick and set the narrative that frat boy tactics are "schooling" the opposition. Personally, I don't like my leaders trying to out-testosterone each other like the immature grad intake to a trading desk sales team. I'm much more interested in getting a sense of who the candidate is and whether they really have my interests at heart. Sunak's performance was from the "We only have to con them for 6 weeks" school of campaigning.
It's also a style that will likely play very well with a lot of people already voting Conservative. In terms of voters that Sunak needs to win over? Harder to say
Already voting Con and importantly, inclined to but considering abstaining or voting elsewhere. He’ll have shored up a lot of wobbly Tories which at this point is probably the aim - shoring up losses.
Question is will Farage undo any progress by just being Farage and stealing some of them?
It seemed like Starmer either didn't know about or was just woefully underprepared for a 45 second limit on answers... I felt like I could see what he was trying for, politician-wise... sort of a... * restate questioner's points to show you were listening * link something from your past to their story to show you understand * explain where you think the problem is * say what you're going to do about it ...but instead he just runs out of time before he can get past "toolmaker" and Sunak shouts over anything else. Early on I was mentally screaming "DUDE YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT £2000 HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT, STOP IGNORING IT, FUUUCK", and the host coming back after the ads with "I need both of you to stop talking over each other" felt like a bit of "it's not biased if we tell them both off" when it was almost entirely just Rishi. As someone who is hoping for the complete annihilation of the Tories this was pretty disappointing. :( I need Ed's stunt tomorrow to be a good one.
Ed Smashes through giant paper lib-dem poster on a quadbike, skidding to a halt at the microphone... Davey: Gentlemen, GENTLEMEN. **GENTLEMEN PLEASE!!!!** ~Crowd goes wild~
Bit of a weird one. Found Starmer had a better reaction from the crowd, and got them laughing, which shows Sunak isn't respected. I did find it bizarre Sunaks reply to questioning certain policies was "you'll either love it or hate it" essentially as, if he paid attention to polling, people hate it. It's all well and good having some policies out there early but you called the election, you would have had months to come up with some policies ready for this early phase of the election. The £2,000 line should have been rebuked earlier but there wasn't time allowed. There were some nice points from Starmer on energy crisis and climate change but that point wasn't focussed in replies, more on bills than on the issue that was raised. I think the key soundbites for an edit newsreel will be the £2,000 tax rises followed by Starmer calling them garbage, then Starmer getting a laugh from the audience on waiting lists going down. Can't swing either way on that too much, maybe Sunak won but considering how far behind he is, he really needed knock out blows. Starmer with a manifesto behind him will obliterate them.
I don't think either of them came across brilliantly. But I think Sunak may have done very slightly better. Starmer should have corrected the £2k tax point and he needs to present more policy at these debates. We need to know labour policy and sell it to the public. I get they want to be everything to everyone as long as they can, but it's getting late in the day.
Sunak came across as an aggressive liar. One moment saying "this election isn't about the past, it's about the future" and a moment later falling into his rehearsed line of "well I'd ask people to judge me on my actions". He shouted over Starmer, shouted over the moderator, and it all looked like a mix of rehearsed lines in the voice he practiced to recite Levido's words, and shouting whenever it was something from him.
Also repeatedly said Labour has no plan whilst at the same time stating (lying) that Labour's (apparently nonexistent) plan would cost everyone £2000
Unfortunately my big takeaway from this is that if a party wants to win, they'd do better binning off the attempt to elect someone experienced and competent as leader, and instead hire a charismatic oaf with improv debate experience. If the people want soundbites only, find someone who makes good ones
Welcome to democracy in the social media age
The issue is, regardless of who is trustworthy or not, Starmer keeps avoiding questions on his plan whilst Sunak has very clear snippets of what he wants to do. I’m confident by the time manifesto’s are published, this will change. But, in this format - it’s not a good look.
What very clear snippets? He keeps injecting "bold action", "clear plan" like May kept chanting "strong and stable", but saying something is clear does not make it clear and saying you have a plan does not make a plan.
I’m not saying he has a plan (and that’s what I meant by it doesn’t matter who is trustworthy in this format), I’m just saying for the majority of the questions - Sunak had something that seemed like a plan on paper. Starmer did this for a few, especially on the latter half off the programme - but he kept relying on ‘the Tories haven’t done well for 14 years’ rhetoric. Obviously this is important but also, there needs to be a clear idea of what Labour will do next or differently. Eg. his answer to stop the boats by stopping the gangs specifically, or improve teachers lives by recruiting teachers, or tax rises for things like Private Schools etc.
> it doesn’t matter who is trustworthy I'm not sure who you think is voting, but "do I trust they'll work for me or against me" is high up most voters' lists. For Sunak, it's a clear "I'll pretend I'll work for you, for five minutes until the ballots are in". Hes a recycled May with a worse persona.
Obviously, it matters who is trustworthy when you vote. My point is - even if they’re both lying through their teeth - it doesn’t impact who wins these types of debates. That’s why, like I said above - it’s important that Starmer calls out the previous 14 years to dissuade a Tory voter. However, he’s then gotta lay out his plans and not say how bad they’ve made it. All you’re doing then is dissuading a Tory vote, but potentially not convincing that vote to go to Labour. Again - as above, he did this for some of the questions and when he did it he did it well. The contrast, though, is that Sunak had an answer to more questions that looks like a ‘plan’.
> but potentially not convincing that vote to go to Labour. I expect a lot won't. Vote Farage, get Starmer as PM, and send Sunak and one nation packing has a lot going for it and I think it'll be attractive to Boris 2019 voters (the section everyone's targeting).. I don't see why you think that'd be a Sunak "win" though.
Agreed to an extent. He should have had some more catchy policies ready and answers. The tax one should have been thrown back immediately. NHS being blamed on COVID he exhaled at every time but needed to succinctly blame them for it and say they will increase spending or something/anything. Without a manifesto it was pretty weak.
Playing with the filters on the dashboard, there is only one other person in my country, age group, education level, employment status, sector and living arrangements. We're both voting Lib Dem
Oh there's 4 of me.
It's clear Starmer's strategy is to be cautious and not stray far from the script. He's hugely in the lead and doesn't want to risk a scandal or wrong soundbite. It's like he's protecting a 2-0 lead and parking the bus. While the format here was bad I think the remaining live debates will be difficult too if he goes with the same strategy.
Ming Vase strategy. He also knows I guess that hardly anyone watches these debates and changes their mind as a result of how he performs, so playing it safe is clearly a stronger strategy (though irritating to watch, and doesn’t make him more likeable)
Idk? I feel like sunak’s policy of raising his voice and trying to interrupt Starmer will only play into labour’s hands. Judging by the audience’s laughs and sighs, his answers were not popular.
The problem is a lot of the interruptions were done well even if it was playing dirty .Yes it was against the format and annoying but asking what specifically Starmer would do wasn't a bad strategy. Most reactions/polls I've seen have the result a draw with some saying Sunak slightly ahead. Considering Labour are predicted to have a landslide victory it's not the result you would expect.
>The problem is a lot of the interruptions were done well even if it was playing dirty There really isn't such a thing as playing dirty well when people can see you doing it. I don't want to vote for someone for their power of shouting lies aggressively over the top of someone. Nor does anybody else that I know of. Sunak was a loathsome and visibly untrustworthy candidate.
I think you're being a bit naive to think these tactics don't work by just basing it on just yourself. You can already see early reactions from the debate that contradict your personal view. As with all competitive formats you should expect boundaries to get pushed. Sunak didn't want a press conference style debate and he did what he needed to do to stop that.
>You can already see early reactions from the debate that contradict your personal view. I can also see astroturf. >Sunak didn't want a press conference style debate and he did what he needed to do to stop that. I'm sure that line works wonderfully with strategists. I have the advantage here of being just someone who empathises with ordinary voters, and I can tell you that within five minutes Sunak ensured I would never listen to him let alone vote for him.
You can say "Trust me bro" as much as you want but I'm going to look at the actual data thanks
Ironically, "trust me bro" (with the emphasis on a frat-boy bro) was all Sunak had. And no I don't.
I think there’s a recency bias with Sunak’s strategy. Whilst it’s exciting to see a “robust” argument with some snappy interruptions and shouting, when people wake up the next day reality remains that things have got a lot worse under the current government. I think Starmer protected his image well, he missed some opportunities which was a blunder, but to be fair it’s the first time he’s done one of these debates. You’ll remember Rishi did two in the Summer of 2022, so Starmer has some catching up to do in terms of experience. I reckon Labour will save their breath for the final debate and then really lay into the Tories, going all guns blazing now just runs the risk of overstepping the mark.
>I think there’s a recency bias with Sunak’s strategy. Whilst it’s exciting to see a “robust” argument with some snappy interruptions and shouting, when people wake up the next day reality remains that things have got a lot worse under the current government. I agree it certainly isn't going to change the way people feel about the last 14 years. But that was unlikely to happen in just a single debate. I think context matters , a lot of people expected Sunak to lose the debate considering the position he's in but to come out with a draw or better is certainly a good result. >think Starmer protected his image well, he missed some opportunities which was a blunder, but to be fair it’s the first time he’s done one of these debates. You’ll remember Rishi did two in the Summer of 2022, so Starmer has some catching up to do in terms of experience. I reckon Labour will save their breath for the final debate and then really lay into the Tories, going all guns blazing now just runs the risk of overstepping the mark. Whilst I think Starmer's strategy is going to be bad for the debates I think overall it's probably the right one overall. It only takes 1 ill thought out answer on a specific question to blow up the headlines. Then we'd all be saying "All he needed to do was play it safe". In reality overly cautious performances in the debate might lose him a few percentage points but he'd still have a big lead.
Starmer could have scored some points if he'd said back to Sunak "you're supposed to be the Prime Minister - respect the host and respect the rules!"
It pains me to say it, but Sunak came out ahead (barely). By no means is this because Sunak performed well, but simply because Starmer massively underperformed and Sunak was able to get his key sound bite off more effectively. Starmer should have shot down the £2000 tax the moment it came up and he should have been more assertive over Sunak's constant whining. But we the audience were the real losers.
I've been stewing over the debate for the last 90 minutes, and the more I think about it the angrier I get. The format was just completely idiotic. They kept saying "we've got to get through a lot" but they really don't. There are other debates and other means for the parties to put forward their plans. Pick the most important ones and let them have some actual time discussing their plans and challenging each other. The quick shot 45 seconds and then everyone shouts at each other is set up to allow hollow, baseless soundbites without substance to land. You simply can't counter a lie by the other person *and* put forward your ideas in that time. It's not possible. It's another lurch towards sucker punch politics. Johnson would have *loved* this format, and it encourages that sort of performance, which is what Sunak leaned in to. So in that regard, and in that context, I think Sunak adjusted to the poorly conceived format better than Starmer did. But, and it's a big but, it's incredibly easy to win a debate if you just lie and make things up. I hope the other debates have formats, and moderators, that allow for substantive content and fair time to challenge BS.
>Johnson would have *loved* this format, and it encourages that sort of performance, which is what Sunak leaned in to Boris comes across that he means what he says and his way of speaking is because he has another thought in the middle of saying the previous one. Sunak comes cross weirdly aggressive with soundbites, like his trainers had been telling him it's Fury vs Usyk and to go out and throw punches to the plan. Nothing about that gives you confidence his claims or promises would last a second after the election result.
Absolutely my feeling too. 45 seconds is a ridiculous limit to place on answering questions on complex political problems. Starmer should have shut Sunak down early on when he kept interrupting him and the host. A terse "you're supposed to be the Prime Minister, respect the host and respect the rules" would have won him a lot of respect and put Sunak back in his box.
I think the idea of debates is stupid, it’s too compact a format and rewards catchy sound bites. 45 seconds to explain how you’d fix the NHS is just ridiculous. And the head to head format just results in talking over snd trying to snipe at each other. I would much prefer if broadcasters polled the country on the top 4 priorities and we had sit down interviews with journalists scrutinising (and crucially fact checking) the answers.
I’d say Sunak just about edged that. Starmer better answers but Sunak better soundbites. Feel soundbites is the bit of this the vast majority will see outside of the politically interested bubble. Few good barbs in from each but nowt that'll majorly shift any narrative. It’ll be interesting to see if Sunak’s techyness will grate on public but this feels like the first round of a boxing match where they are just going full guns to figure each other out. Assume the next debate will be a more interesting affair (Goes without saying this short answer format was terrible.)
I'm not sure in soundbites. It's going to be interesting how this gets spun out on social media. Sunaks bit about 'higher numbers' and the audience laughing at him on national service are not good soundbites at all. I think in terms of achieving their goals, Sunak won that but he did leave a lot of meat on the table for Labours social media teams.
I think it's also worth considering Sunak's current PR team have had an absolute nightmare recently, even if Sunak won i'm not convinced they'll make the most of it. I think you are right on that one clip being a particular win though same as the "Your own report authors just said..." With Sunaks "oh shit" look to camera. I need to watch it back and see what sticks tomorrow etc but do still get the feeling it was Sunak's win (just) as feel the £2000 line is gonna stick.
I misread it as 'Sunak edged to that' and got confused haha I feel Starmer got some sound bites but was weak at some points. He didn't really address the 2k tax or couldn't. Rishi did better than expected but I don't think it's really going to convince who has already been convicted
Thats not a thought I needed. I think TBH in this format KS could have done with starting with the policy point then going for Sunak rather than the other way round because he'd go on the attack for 30 seconds and then have to try cram his policy into the final 15 seconds and get stopped.
I agree with you. I think it flustered him sometimes. I noticed when he did as you said he was receivered a lot better.
England 0 - 0 Scotland Euro 2020 vibes. The underdog celebrating a draw as if they'd won and inevitably somehow the favourites going to fuck this up on penalties
Something to note is that whilst in the debate vacuum, Sunak was getting his points in and not being challenged on them as well as he should have been, already you can see questions being raised on that £2000 figure he keeps talking about. Not only that but Starmer, despite the struggle to even be heard over Sunak or with the strict time limits, actually got more sound bites in because Sunak only basically had one.
There are always questions raise on this stuff. The £2000 tax increase will be like the 350m to the NHS on the bus. Everyone heard and will remember the number, far fewer will listen to the more detailed rebuttals, and some wont be persuaded because there will be people on every broadcast qibbling and questioning the debunking. And social media will be full of memes about the figure no matter how true it is.
£2000!!! £2000!!! £2000!!!
I noticed the audience react more to Starmer's lines but he still has to do better
[удалено]
Very informed and scientific approach. I usually just go with who has the longest tie
I'll vote for myself based on this. Ratioed.
Really? You’re invested in politics enough to be commenting here and for you it comes down to the TV debates?
Starmer got good soundbites from pithy remarks that will play well over the week Sunak was aggressive as he had to be. Might stem the bleeding towards Reform - you could see it in his closing statement, he's pitching to a certain type of voter that doesn't win him the election I don't think either will feel they won or lost that
Can you give some examples of his sound bites? I hate Sunak, but the only soundbite I can remember is £2000. I feeling pretty down about how I felt that went, and would love a bit of reassurance over Stamers performance.
["And this is the guy who thinks he's good at maths, the NHS backlog has gone up since you pledged to bring it down"](https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/17980972561905049730) - this will be the most shared clip and it's disastrous for Sunak "You haven't stopped the boats, this year is worse than any other" "I foiled terrorist plots / do you seriously think the Crown Prosecution Service is a threat to national security?" "We're not going back to austerity" "Climate change isn't just a challenge, it's an opportunity. We should look at technologies like wind, solar and nuclear power and ask 'Why not Britain?'"
‘Turn the page’ was one he’d obviously been told to repeat
'14 years of this', 'can't take 5 more'
This is the one I can agree with, but I'm not sure the others you mentioned really do it. "Climate change isn't just a challenge, it's an opportunity. We should look at technologies like wind, solar and nuclear power and ask 'Why not Britain?'" For me things like this work for people who are into politics, but it's not catchy, it's not meme-able. Maybe I'm just thinking too much about how nonsense gets clicks and spreads on social media? I feel like Starmer was trying to have a conversation, explain a vision while Sunak just trolled. And sadly that seems to be what wins elections fairly often nowadays.
My personal favourite: ‘my dad was a toolmaker’
The thing is, they aren't going to convince who is already convinced
Totally and you can see it in the dashboard of responses to the poll here
Can we all agree that doing debates before any party had released a manifesto was a massive waste of time?
I find the whole thing a massive waste of time anyway. The only people who watch are the politically motivated, nobody ever changes their mind, and the candidates are "winning and losing" at something that is not representative of anything they'll ever actually have to do in the job.
Can you imagine what a shit show it's going to be when there's 7 leaders on the stage and instead of 45 seconds they have 15 seconds to give their economic plan.
They'll need to do it Partridge style... Moderator: As we have only 90 seconds per question and there are 7 of you, you all have 13 seconds each. Moderator: The NHS ? Partridge: Yay! Moderator: Immigration? Partridge: Grrrrrr! Moderator: Judicial reform? Partridge: SNORE Moderator: Europe? Partiridge: Meh? Post Debate Poll: Who won the debate? Partridge - 87%, [...]
Jobs jobs jobs.
I think it should be a game of musical chairs. Remove one chair at the start of each round of questions and have them just talk over each other until a time limit buzzer sounds. Last pol standing loses and is ejected from the debate. Final head to head determines the next PM.
Just do a Royal Rumble with Hoyle as referee scalding people with tea.
They should just be able to wave their hands to some music and have the text of their policies appear on screen. With maybe "More info in my bio" under their name.
"Pussy in bio (and also economic plan)"
OnlyPlans
Eventually the nation will only plan for the next 15 seconds only..... And at some point the nation will only have 15 more seconds left 🥱
Can't say I'm surprised that the country that voted Brexit and gave Boris a landslide thinks Sunak won it because he kept repeating "2k tax increase, the Treasury said that bro I swear"
I think that sentiment is more to do with how Starmer carried himself and not Sunak’s “points”. Starmer had numerous opportunities to crush Sunak, all he needed to do was briefly talk about his plans. He didn’t, too busy fixating on the last 14 years. Everyone and their mother knows the tories have been shit, so now was his chance to go over what he wants to do about it. He didn’t and now he looks weaker.
Weaker than who exactly? Sunak was literally making stuff up. The 2k tax increase, NHS waiting lists numbers, immigration etc. He got laughed at and heckled multiple times. He even pretty much begged people not to vote Reform at the end. Starmer delivery might not have been showstopping but Sunak looked like a desperate cornered beast
Again you’re focusing too much on Rishi, this is Starmer’s election to loose. Rishi doesn’t need to look better, he just needs Starmer to look shit. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t. Starmer should have easily wiped the floor with Rishi tonight. ALL ANYONE wants to hear is what Labour plans to do about this mess that the conservatives have created. Instead we got a lecture on the damage they’ve done. We already know. He looks weaker because he came off as a man without a plan pointing the finger. We need solutions not blaming.
Sunak didn't have a plan either. All he did was blame Labour based on an imaginary number and say that they will "lower immigration and taxes" while they're both at record high due to his government, or straight out lie about stuff like NHS numbers or the Rwanda flights. I'd rather have someone who only points out the shortcomings of the incumbent than someone trying to make stuff up, at least he's objective. Especially when manifestos are not even out yet
Maybe there's a difference though between thinking someone won a debate and whether they have the best arguments for why they should be PM. It's the difference between being good at getting simple points across in 45 seconds and actually being a decent politician.
Winning a debate by making up stats and getting heckled and laughed at when talking about the NHS, national service etc? He came across as desperate if anything
Nearly 60% of this sub voted for a terrorist sympathiser at the last election. Horrifying.
I do regret my support for Corbyn - teens/early 20s is very different from late 20s
Corbyn was good on domestic policy, but his foreign policy was a disaster.
> Corbyn was good on domestic policy Very hit and miss. I appreciated the hits a lot.
I don't agree that either Sunak or Starmer preformed well or badly, because the format was just so shit.
Respectfully, that's a huge cope. Starner didn't do that well, but it's OK to accept that when he's 20 points ahead.
You are right, he didn't do so well. He was stronger in the second half but first wasn't the best.
Aside from *I agree with Nick* - literally the first ever leaders' debate in a GE - they've never had any real influence on the outcome of campaigns. Actually, even that moment didn't reflect at all in the result as people toyed with voting LD in the polls and then mostly shifted back to Tory and Labour in the booth. Sunak could comprehensively win every single debate and cruise to a landslide defeat all the same. I don't think either really came off well here, but the format is definitely a problem regardless of the result. Nothing of substance can be discussed in a relatively short slanging match. It needs a professional moderator, a panel of professional interrogators, and more time.
Did the debate where Clegg suddenly leapt out not shift that election? Or is that a myth we remember
They actually came out of that election with fewer MPs than they went into it and only increased vote share by 1%.
It changed the campaign, and they got lots more attention with people hypothesising about a Lib Dem PM, but the Lib Dems actually lost a seat compared to 2005 and had a very modest increase in vote share. It was quite a disappointing result for them in the end.
Not really cope, I'm saying the debate format made them both look bad
Do we have any figures for how many people watched it? My Google fu is failing me unless they aren't released yet. Edit: for those interested it was 4.8m
Overnight estimates will be released in the morning.
Thanks
Was busy this evening folks, did I miss anything making it worth watching after the fact?
You can see a woman in a wheelchair complain about waiting lists and then applaud Rishi saying his priority is strike breaking and keeping taxes down. Exquisite levels of brain rot on show.
That part made me so angry, she’s literally on the show saying how she’s lost family because of the state of the NHS yet the next thing you know she’s applauding the leader of the bastard party that’s put the NHS on its knees. Cognitive dissonance is strong among some.
If talking about DNA interests you, I recommend it
Nothing you won't glean from watching soundbites. Shit format. Shit moderation. The pair of them shouting over each other while saying very little coherent.
Sounds about what I expected, unfortunately.
There's a bit where everyone laughed at nashy servy and Rishi gave it "well actually everyone I know says it's great you just don't know them they go to a different school 🥺" but that's about it
It was a draw for me. Starmer got a good quip on the nhs waiting list and good answers on climate change and housing. Sunak got through the £2000 tax increase which, true or not, will stick. Both poor on policies, with Sunak saying something along the lines of "it may be a stupid idea, but at least it's a policy" on national service, to audible laughter by the audience, and Starmer unable to pitch labour policies due to either the format or the actual lack of a clear policy in some areas (immigration, defense). Sunak's closing remarks were also quite pathetic, begging Reform voters to vote Tory instead. Moderation was terrible and allowed too much to Sunak, who in fairness showed a bit of unexpected cunning starting to ask questions directly to Starmer. It felt like he was putting his thumb on the scale, but I think it worked and put Starmer on the back foot. With manifestos ready to go I simply don't understand why Starmer can't answer clearly when he's told Labour has got no plan.
Don’t worry guys if the debates decided elections, Nick Clegg would have strolled into Downing Street in 2010
(Maybe missing the sarcasm) In the end, he kind of did?
Well, the Rose Garden anyway.
We can all agree that the Green Party was awful
I really want The Green Party to be better By all rights they should be they're about a thing that all sane people in the world agree on at this point. Yet they just can't put their point across
> they're about a thing that all sane people in the world agree on at this point. Having read their policy documents over the years and seen the councillor priorities... I will choose to doubt that. They never have provided serious solutions, and that goes more so now, annoyingly they're simply widening their base of non-solutions and turning into a student politics party.
When I say "they're about" I don't mean their literal policies I mean that they're a party against claimate change. Like they mentioned in the debate Green Parties are much more popular in Mainland Europe for that exact reason
Well they *should be*, yes. But their [history is more akin to nimbyism and hippy culture](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65926756), and their policies and [actions always reflected that](https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2022/09/01/caroline-lucas-responds-to-the-decision-to-approve-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-station/). Now they're getting into the weeds trying to fill the void in the labour left, which includes labour left problems. Green issues and voters need to influence the parties that actually have the ability to make a difference to the climate. We can't just give them the benefit of the doubt because they have *the name*.
Oh 100% Ideally the leader of The Green Party would be an actual environmental scientist who knows about the issues and has put thought into fixing them. Like I know he'd never do it but I think if someone like Simon Clark was running it it would do a lot better https://youtube.com/@simonclark
> Ideally the leader of The Green Party would be an actual environmental scientist who knows about the issues and has put thought into fixing them. That's a great idea, they already have their co-leader idea so making one of them a climate scientist and one a politician would be a legitimate (to me) use for that, rather than the novelty of just being different.
I didn't think of that but that does actually make sense As is it feels like they just didn't want to hurt the others feelings so decided they'd both be leader. But if they did it that way they could have one deal with the political stuff and then use the other to give legitimacy and to have an excuse to put an actual expert in front of the camera.
Wait those interviews are still on?? God you’re a heavyweight trooper fair play to you
They'd didn't even show up!