# [The survey is open.](https://forms.gle/RbPa1THoifxFEuB46)
[**š live results dashboard**](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/26a6d397-1d8e-4e92-bb84-b6eb36485121) *(refreshed every 15 mins)*
Anyone feel like Sunak took a leaf from Trump's book?
Always attacking whether it's true or not, rambling, repeating himself and repeatedly interrupting.
We need mics cut off next time.
True but not to the same level. Repeating the party policy is fine to an extent, messing up a question is fine, but it seemed to be Rishi's entire strategy.
Itll be interesting to compare tonight's debate with the sunak debate fresh in our minds. But I think sunak always debates like this, he did exactly the same in the tory leadership debate with truss.
I think trump does it because those repetative arguments are genuinely the best arguments he can make because he doesnt understand anything in depth. Conversely, i think sunak does it because he thinks the audience are stupid people who need slogans repeted over and over.
This kind of debate format, yes, but not a good debate format.
What we need to do is did what the American's did after Trump and have debates where mics get cut off. Sunak was very much the British Trump in that debate, screaming lies, always being aggressive, interrupting.
You are probably right but his methods are so divisive. Appeals to Reform voter types, makes the rest of us a little sick in our mouths with such populist bullshit. Keir should've had him on the ropes but when people only have the concentration span for soundbites and factoids we end up with this travesty and we never get to the bottom of our nation's problems.
I don't know who these debates are for anyway, Rishi is just spouting bullshit, his TRIPLE LOCK PLUS^^^TM is worth essentially Ā£29 a year from 2028, he should be embarassed. The media actually needs to hold him to a higher standard and stop pretending whoever comes in needs a silver bullet. All these debates have treated rishi like an up and comer and not held him to account for his last 5 years as part of the tory brain trust. Any time he says he's lowering taxes they need to cut his mic and tell him that we're experiencing the highest burden since post war.
Then they turn to starmer and expect him to magic up some money and explain how he's going to do it
The only people who believe there are actual undecideds are Tory voters. The only people who are actually undecided are ex tories who might vote reform instead.
Rishis plan isnāt costed at all. He keeps saying he wants to abolish NI but doesnāt have a timeframe or a plan or the funds. Maybe heās waiting for the thresholds to rise high enough but isnāt telling us
Don't forget everyone: "What Kier Starmer isn't being straight with you about" is that you will be "surrendering to the Labour party" via "taxes, taxes, taxes, and taxes". Literally every time he started repeating himself I audibly groaned and wanted to fast forward. Alas I don't have supernatural control over time.
Yeah, because massive tax cuts (especially those which are going to benefit the more well off) are going to benefit us so much, obviously (sarcasm for those not sure). I accept that taxes may need to go up. Hopefully these are fairly distributed. It's just a fact of life given the state of our economy. We may need to spend and invest to grow, there's no magic way out of this.
Sunak clearly the better debater with an open mic like that, tore Starmer to pieces on several issues.
If he didn't have 14 years of Conservative gov hanging around his neck i think Sunak would be sitting pretty.
They need to do away with the audience, and mute a speakers microphone when they run out of time.
>He was just shouty with soundbites
Which is better than quiet with soundbites.
Starmer needed to refute Sunak more robustly, and make his own point more robustly.
>That's not debating, he didn't say anything useful
He said plenty that's useful, indeed he snookered Starmer several times.
Doesn't matter because as I said, his words don't mean anything next to the result of 14 years of Conservatives gov.
>he has no plan (apart from Rwanda which is just a joke).
He quite clearly has a plan, which is why he was able to reference specific policies when answering questions, and when talking about past votes in Parliament.
Well he did, if you listened, he just didn't bawl over the top of his opponent which is plain disrespectful. Rwanda was quite clearly refuted, and Sunak just misrepresented his policies (tax cuts, yeah, just what we need)?
Shouting over your opponent like a petulant child is not being a better debater. Repeating the same phrases instead of answering the question is not being a better debater.
>Shouting over your opponent like a petulant child is not being a better debater.
In an open mic debate, being able to make your point heard is an important skill.
>Repeating the same phrases instead of answering the question is not being a better debater.
Sunak seemed much more able to go off script than Starmer.
Sunak, as usual, came across like a petulant 7 year old boy arguing the toss with his parents over a Ā£50 Robux gift card in Smyth's Toys. To a lot of voters who reduce politics to little more than football-esque tribalism and 'pwning' the other side, he did 'well' and is reflected by a reasonable rating on polling.
Sunak went on full attack mode. He had no choice really, but it didnāt come off well. It was interesting as the roles were essentially reversed. If you didnāt know any history and watched the debate you would think Sunak was the opposition and Starmer the incumbent.
I think Sunak lost by winning a "debate" in the very loosest of terms
Sunak treat this as a university debate with roysters doysters at the old boys clubs or something and so was heavily on the attack and argumentative.
Starmer seemed to treat this as an exercise in expressing Prime Ministerial dignity and leadership qualities.
The end result is Sunak got more "hits" in but looked like a massive petulant bellend in the process which hurts him more than Starmer.
The cheek of calling the decision of voters to not vote for him 'surrender' - honestly it's despicable. Surrender would be giving in to his fearmongering instead of voting with your conscience, either directly or strategically.
It's pure fucking projection. If you have a brain and can see through the bullshit, you see how toxic it is. And hopefully this election is the death of the Tories, either completely for being the populist, right-wing hateful bastards or they have a complete renaissance.
"And as the debate ended there was no handshake between the pair, which is unusual for these TV clashes."
SKy News reports on this, is this true? Downvoting both Sunak and Starmer on this minor detail, need more civility in debates, not less.
Exactly and why they ask the questions? The questions usually have a preamble about their own lives (who cares) and then the actual question is usually badly formed. Then the candidates spend the first half a minute in their fake "I know how you feel because my mother's cousin's neighbour is in the same situation" as if we cared that their own lives were the same as someone in the audience.
So, just have the political journalists asking the well formed questions. If you're afraid of bias, have a small panel of them making them.
The other thing they should have (and what the US debate will have tonight) is a mute button for the microphones. it's absolutely irritating when they start talking over each other (Sunak much more than Starmer).
I feel Sunhak has run such a terrible campaign its like he is intentionally trying to lose. Starmer hasn't painted himself in glory at any debate Rishi is gotten the better of him. Labour should win but it won't be as big as people think.
sunak won --- largely because he spoke more words --- but it really won't be enough. starmer needed to avoid an astronomical gaffe, which was a low bar that he surpassed.
Did they explain the audience make up at any point? It sounded Tory heavy based on applause, which is a bit rough considering the polls show they're less than 20% of the electorate. They definitely weren't following the QT model
They cant be out of touch as it is based on the last election results. Before the next election we dont know what the true political make up of the British population is.
The question was how leaders would protect those who cannot work from sanctions. Sunaks answer was essentially a rant (the beatings will continue until morale improves) about how everyone who can work must do so and he promised stricter sanctions and to cut the amount of money disability claimants would recieve, along with making the process more difficult.
Stamer basically said the NHS needs to be fixed because many people can't work because they haven't received proper treatment, and he supports trial employment programs that support the disabled back into work. Neither answered the question, which was about protecting those unable to work from sanctions, although labour at least, have a history of voting against them.
Disgusting really. Disabled people literally need extra money to just get around the world. They aren't living a life of luxury. Triangulating attacks on them is abhorrent.
Sadly even if Starmer believes differently at this moment saying "more money for disabled" other than through their NHS would be seen as a gaff as it's been so thoroughly toxified by Tories and media.
I really hope its just a media tactic. Sadly it's worse than vilification, we've gotten to the point the UN has criticised the UK for grave and systemic violation of their rights. Thousands have died of starvation or suicide and the government is now trying to delay the release of reports that could be damning to say the least. The benefit fraud they claimed was rife amongst PIP was found by their own department to be nothing. A total lie. Labour will have to do more to restore the public perception of disabled people, tbh, the UK has been enacting what is basically a quiet eugenics policy.
True, but I think he could dog whistle a little better about it. When it comes to race or LGBT issues Kier is very careful about his wording. As always disability is on the lesser side of the protected terms and rights.
I absolutely loathe the way BBC handle debates and think itās borderline election interference. It stinks to high heaven.
Letās consider the hypothetical, that Sunak and Starmer were level in the polls before this debate. The BBC spin is outrageously biased and we can all see it. From hand picking a crowd thatās completely non representative of the electorate as a whole, loading questions to direct the debate in a specific direction and Laura Kās ever graceful insight.
We need some regulation on the way these debates are conducted.
I didn't see any bias in questions and for them you can't blame BBC for bias as they were asked by the audience. You can blame BBC for letting audience asking the questions instead of having guts to make them themselves as the audience questions are always bad (not because of bias but because how they are formed).
What was lacking from the side of BBC was a mute button for the moderator so she could have muted the candidate who tried to speak over when it was other person's turn to speak. That favoured Sunak to some extent as Starmer is too polite to do that.
Laura K wasn't moderating the debate, Mishal Husein was and she did a better job than ITV couple of weeks ago.
Thereās no way that the BBC donāt know what the questions are before they let the audience ask them. There are bound to be questions that werenāt asked because they werenāt picked. Just as the audience were likely picked.
Well, as I said to me the problem with the questions was not that they were biased (I don't think they were) but that they were just badly formed. Just ask the f*cking question, nobody is interested in your life story.
The questions are often rewritten/reworded by production. When you apply you're asked to tick a box acknowledging that your submitted question may be reworded. And your encouraged by production to add the biographical bits - a simple "what is your party going to of to tackle the housing crisis?" isn't good enough, you need to ask "I'm 29yrs old and earning Ā£x but can't save for a deposit, what are you going to do to help me get on the ladder?". It's infuriating, I don't know anyone who likes that format of question, but for some reason it's the standard now.
Right. So which side are you accusing them of bias towards? Everyone from both sides accuse the BBC of bias constantly, which to me is a sign of impartiality frankly.
Sure, the BBC run impartial stories for the most part, but every time election rolls up to debates, the whole thing is always designed to put Labour on a back foot. Just look at the focus of questions today.
If you want to see what impartiality is in a debate then you should have watched the Sky debate.
You spout absolute nonsense, then when questioned on it you resort to the typical "u mad bro?" response.
They merely advised that you check your facts before you spout shite, doesn't seem like anger to me.
Iām not promoting it, Iām merely pointing out that I thought the news network owned by Rupert Murdoch was less biased than the BBC. That just goes to show how bad the BBC was.
I feel you should both know that Rupert Murdoch hasn't owned any stake in Sky in almost 6 years. It's a subsidiary of Comcast, a publicly listed company.
I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Politicians master one skill over any other, shifting the narrative.
Did you see his answer to the question about how to protect disabled people? He didn't say a single word about it, but kept talking how he's going to force the people who can work to work "as that's fair".
Always dragging the narrative away from Tories' record but in the next breath shouting that the public should judge Kier Starmer on his record.
Man's a cockroach
Sunak interrupting so many times and sounding like an utter bellend really wound me the hell up Iāll admit.
Starmer absolutely bungled the immigration questions and I wish heād pushed back against Sunak more but I think leaving Sunak to make himself look like a jumped up 6th form student in debate club was a good move too.
such a wierd non-debate about immigration. How do they manage to debate this topic without discussing Brexit? How is that not the biggest issue? So weird, it's like a national psychosis...
Sorry but the biggest issue in world politics currently is how to protect democracy from Russia. It's not featured much in this election as all parties except Reform seem to align very well on it. And of course that's why in a debate between Labour and Tories it's not even discussed.
I already had a low opinion of Sunak but the more I hear his policies and views, the more I find him callous and petulant. He has a very naive consideration of how the world and people act; and he cannot understand why reality does not work the way his childlike plans are devised.
Iād be amazed if Johnson came back. His tenure as Prime Minister was disastrous for him - he was meant to be the Good Times post-Brexit PM but instead ended up self-destructing due to his deep-seated personality flaws.
Mishap Hussain (the host) was clearly extremely biased, letting Rishi interrupt Starmer and interrupting him herself far more than she interupted Sunak. On multiple occasions she also argued the Tory line for Rishi instead of just asking questions and even made jabs at Starmer and made jokes at his expense to undermine him.
This is absolutely disgusting from a host that is meant to be unbiased and neutral:
At one point Sunak interrupted with a question, and she repeated the same question to Starmer rather than let him answer the original question that was asked.
I'm about half way through watching on iPlayer. Does it get any better? Sunak seems very tetchy and keeps interrupting all the time.
Edit; flipping typo.
Keir Starmer is needing to find the balance between bringing respect and professionalism back to politics and needing to shout quite a bit louder to get heard above Rishiās annoying interrupting.
Who's going to be leader of the opposition though? It seems unlikely the Tories will lose so badly they won't have a Tory leader taking front and centre at PMQs. Sunak will certainly go after defeat, but who's next? A return for Boris? The Haunted Victorian Pencil?Ā
If we're really unlucky Farage might be opposition....
Reform is more likely to just merge with the conservative party and the opposition will be farage and quite large at that. A vote for reform is a vote for more fascist tories.
Dunno. A lor of me was predicting that before Farage became leader of Reform. That combined with the Boris camp all going oddly quiet for a long time. Trouble seemed to be brewing.
Now I think the old school Tories will turn the party intoĀ a quiet retirement home for neo-liberal Thatcherites who think Starmer isn't quite neoliberal Thatcherite enough.
I imagine the right of the Tory party will switch to Reform. I fully now expect Boris and Rees Mogg to join and mysteriously be given important positions in the party, like they expect people to believe they haven't been talking to them for ages already.
I love how after the debate the BBC had Robert and the young girl (who asked the question about housing) in the spin room.
Robert - a Tory voter and probably someone who will vote reform - right wing
The young girl (don't remember her name, sorry!) - probably a Corbynista who will vote green - left wing
Where's the centrist in this? Why not get the women on who asked about cost of living or about running her business - people more likely to be in the middle of the spectrum. BBC picking people at polar opposites of the debate, probably to cause division. Boring.
Are you saying she was a "Corbynista" simply because she was young?
She didn't say anything that was far left, she was talking primarily about probably the most salient issue for all people at the moment - building houses (sprinkled in with professionals leaving for Australia).
She was a massive Tory. "So I'm thinking of leaving the country to work in the UAE how will you keep me?"
The correct answer to this was: we won't, we believe you've got every right to work abroad and it's great our education system has opened up such a wonderful opportunity for you.
I really don't understand why Labour knowing Sunaks propensity for petulance and talking over people, didn't get Starmer to open his debate by saying, that he fully expects Sunak to talk over him throughout but he will demonstrate leadership and control and this should be about who is the best option for the country rather than who can whine and interrupt the most.
Just watching now. Whose the entitled dickhead screaming at the top of their lungs. The election isn't about you. Let it go, we don't even hear what you're talking about
Random protestors-presumably not protesting the election, I believe Ā they are protesting local council budget cuts and are using the election debacle the as a public spot to stage that protest
Tbf to Rishi heās doing a decent job of clawing out of the deep, deep hole the Conservative Party is in. Starmer needs to more assertively say heās lying about this āpension taxā or whatever Rishi keeps banging on about.
Well he needs to point out that some pensioners already pay income tax on their pensions, and those that do will not benefit from this apparent triple lock plus.
The amount of tax to be paid annually without subscribing to this stupid buzz word policy is *drumroll* 29 pounds a year each under the current pension scheme and presumably Labour's ongoing plan, and that won't take effect until 2027-28.
What a fucking dealbreaker.
My dad said "Starmer not answering any questions again - never said how he was gonna deal with all the asylum seekers"
"He did though - process them faster and do deals with other countries to send people back"
"He didn't say any of that though"
"Yes he did - that's why Sunak asked if he was going to sit down with the Taliban"
\*silence\*
"You don't have to like the guy but if you don't listen to what he says you can't complain you don't know what his plans are."
With all due respect to your Dad, people doing this with politicians just because they don't like them drives me round the twist.
My partner's Mum is very suspicious of Labour, and seized on Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare, calling him a liar because 'we all would if it was serious' and acting like he'd made a major gaffe.
If they want to disagree with him, fine, but projecting whatever they want onto him is nonsense.
I dont remember him saying that he'd send people back, he said process them which as mishal mentioned would mean most of them staying or something along those lines
Then on the taliban part he didnt address it, it was a question after all
What he said was "Under the Prime Minister's scheme you have thousands of people sitting in hotels who, once they've got here, can't be returned anywhere...because they're not being processed, they can't be returned anywhere"
The Taliban/Ayatollah question seems pretty silly - surely those are the countries we wouldn't return people to because it's not safe?
I specifically recall KS saying they would be processed and sent back. More pressingly how can anyone believe this Rwanda thing with 50000 people unprocessed? Would the Tories just fast track them through like Stalin did with dissenters?
Absolutely agreed. Rishi flexing on how many Visas they've binned recently too last night is just stupidity.
Why are we turning down Visa applications of potentially tax paying, working people while paying to keep these poor Afghans in hotels? It's completely busted.
Yeah this commenter is just hearing what they want to hear. Sunak mocked him saying "you're going to do deals with Iran and the Taliban?"
Starmer absolutely didn't say he would do those things, he just kept repeating "process them"
Yeah, like Reform have any idea at all how to get anything done!
Lets have a fever dream and assume that they get into power, you think any of those muppets have any idea how to get policy enacted? Or are they going to go crying to "the deep state" because they have no idea about the process of government?
I mean their entire thing is blaming everyone else for problems and not actually offering any workable alternatives! I'd kinda like to see them in charge and floundering, just not in a country that Ilive in.
It doesn't have to be only reform. It can be a coalition of smaller parties. The current two party system we have is no longer working as both parties are essentially the same.
Yougov suggesting very predictably that the public (what small percentage watched) didn't get much of the debate. 50 / 50 split, great for Starmer, terrible for Sunak, will have essentially no impact.
Can we be factual for a second? Small boat arrivals aren't illegal if you're seeking asylum. We have an obligation under international law to process asylum seekers. If someone does not have the legal right to stay then at that point they are in the country illegally. Rishi is lying.
Sunak also mentions people fleeing the Taliban from Afghanistan-they would be refugees and not illegal migrants making his witty āsit down with the Talibanā remark completely invalid
Sunak in twenty years, and frankly a spliff rather than more mexican coke and he might make a decent politician. As it stands he's just... unlikably petulant.Ā
His performance tonight struck me as myopic. Like he genuinely thinks he can win the election if he just says the 'right thing'. Starmer will win next week, and I'm going to say confidently with at least a hundred seat majority not because Starmer is particularly good but because the country is just sick of nothing working. You can't argue against the dismal record of the conservative party, hoping that screeching tax rise tax rise, tax rise is going to save you.Ā
Also, Sunak kept saying that Conservatives will reduce your taxes but they arenāt? They donāt plan to reduce income taxes and income tax hasnāt reduced under them.
They plan to abolish NIC with gradual reductions but no NIC means no state pension funding. Itās a pretty mental policy and I donāt see how they donāt increase income tax if theyāre abolishing NIC
Did I dream a massive uproar 2wks ago after Jeremy Hunt said the eventual plan was abolish NI and CCHQ flatly denied it, saying it was mad?
I'm fucking spinning.
I dunno if they denied it but itās definitely in their manifesto. Like literally number 1 on their manifesto, cut NI from 12% to 6% by April 2027 for employees. Theyāre doing the same for self employed NIC.
The only other tax cut mentioned isnāt really a tax cut but rather a constant increase in tax free allowance for pensions so that pensions never get taxed no matter how much they rise.
I donāt know how they plan to pay for this tax free pension whilst slashing NI in half in the next two years but there you go I guess.
My local MP, Gary Sambrook (Secretary of the 1922 Committee) posted a pamphlet the other day claiming the Conservatives wound reduce NI by a third, introduce Triple Lock Plus, double free childcare, spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030 and introduce their new form of National Service for 18 year olds.
Which makes me wonder how much they'd slash local authority grants to pay for it (when many are already increasing council tax by 4.99% and implementing millions of pounds of spending cuts to avoid having to issue a s114.
Not only that but benefits in general and NHS spending. Every single service will be slashed and made worse by these removals in NIC.
The three biggest revenue generators in this country are income tax, NIC and VAT. They arenāt cutting income tax and thereās no mention of VAT cuts but halving (And eventual abolishment) of NIC means a loss of Ā£86.15b in revenue. Letās say he cracks down on benefit scroungers like he says he will by cutting UC. UC for 2023/24 will be Ā£80.9b, so even if he literally scraps all UC payments all at once that doesnāt offset the lost Ā£86.15b they are giving up in NIC.
Thereās Ā£64.7b in local government funding, so I guess they can cut there. I donāt know what happens when the rest of the NIC gets cut and they have to cut another Ā£86.15b in social spending.
Basically, something has to give for them to just give up a massive part of revenue earning within two years. Some services will be massively cut to tue point where they wonāt even function well any more as certain spending is essentially untouchable by the government (Pensions and NHS).
The thing is he made virtually no good points, his āballsyāness was almost entirely interrupting and ignoring starmerās points. He is a better public speaker but at the end of the day it doesnāt mean shit when it comes to how good of a leader he will be. If anything this refusal to listen to others opinions would suggest he would be a bad leader.
Not being a prick, but the 70% of people voting for someone they believe in next week... Please try and convince me I can do the same.
I've always been a Labour supporter but Starmer is offering absolutely nothing worth voting for. Those who disagree, please convince me otherwise. I'd love to celebrate a Labour party I believe in winning next week
Mate, boring is good in politics, especially when it's coming from opposition, who by rights with this polling could be offering plans to colonise Mars and all sorts.
I am not a Starmer stan at all but there is a costed manifesto to reverse a generation's worth of damage done by disaster capitalists who have lied and manipulated the country, ever since they managed to convince our parents that Gordon Brown personally caused a global financial crash.
Its very rare for an election to come around where you can vote for whoever you want and it wont affect the outcome one bit.
Its guaranteed that Labour will get 400+ seats, what you can change is the vote count for the other parties if they match your values better this time for example Green or Lib Dems or an independent or whoever.
The vote count is probably gonna get discussed much more this time too because of how lopsided the seats per vote results will be, and also because everyone's expecting a Large Labour seat majority anyway and its been talked to death already.
Yes, I completely agree.
In normal circumstances I'd just 100% vote tactically to stop the Tories, however, I live in a Labour safe seat and Labour are going to win in a landslide overall.
That said, I'm not sure where to vote. The Lib Dems have my favourite manifesto I think, but Ed Davey's involvement in the postal scandal and the general vibe of the Lib Dems over the years puts me off. Greens are furthest left but I don't enjoy their stance on Nuclear energy and their blocking of solar farms. I worry about NIMBYism from the Greens and their weird birth policy (which they've backtracked on) was also a red flag. We do have an independent socialist candidate but I worry when it comes to vote count that it won't be clear why I've voted Independent. Spoiling the ballot is another option but then that's what all the terfs are doing so I don't want to do that either.
I've never been so undecided and actively willing to listen to everyone. As of right now, pretty much everything is on the table other than Tory or Reform.
> please convince me otherwise
People who voted for the government last election voted for Boris' plans. They ousted him and we got the Lettuce's plan... ousted and we got Rishi's plan. People didn't vote for Rishi nor his plans.
If you want change or even a chance for change, vote for the one that would remove a tory from your constituency. After that, if you don't like SKS, there's a big chance he won't be the one picking a date for the next election 5 years from now anyway.
That's the best I got. I really hate FPTP but that's what we have.
Yes, that's fair enough. If the election was going to be close, or I lived in a constituency which was close between the Tories and Labour, I'd be 100% voting Labour. I'm very glad the Tories are going to be gone
I havenāt voted Labour for this election, but I know my area will be safe. I just couldnāt get behind something I donāt believe in, but it would have been different if it was close, like you said.
The Tories basically want to stop me and my partner being together in this country, and that will 100% happen if they get back in. At least with Labour, thereās a chance it will be delayed/revisted/paused/cancelled.
I actually don't like Labour very much but I absolutely fucking refuse to go through another 5 years of the worst of two evils. I will happily take stale pot noodle over mouldy bread with a sprinkle of maggots.
I saw someone online describe it as a choice between getting pissed on once vs. being shit on every day for the next 5 years. Pretty much sums up my view on the situation.
Yes, I completely agree with this. As I say, it was the specific statement of voting for the party you believe in, as opposed to just stopping the Tories, that I questioned.
I'm very very glad the Tories are going to be ousted and if I lived in a seat that was closely contested between Labour and the Tories, I'd 100% be voting Labour.
Starmer is centrist, boring, a terrible public speaker, absolutely has issues with being a leader or a facilitator... but he's intelligent, considered, not trying to be a populist no answers politician, and most importantly, hes not one of the gang thats fucked up the country over the last 14 years!
I'm not massively enthused by him but I think that a competent, centrist bureaucrat that's pretty boring is what the country needs for a bit.
I agree with the idea of this, I'm just concerned when I look across at Germany, France, Argentina, possibly the US, and see this pattern/cycle of centrists coming in to "change" things after a far right government screws everything up, the centrist not doing enough to change the country and therefore the public getting sick of them, and then a far right nutjob coming in as the centrist wasn't radical enough.
I completely agree that Starmer's Labour Party are a far better option for the country than the conservatives, I just don't like the idea of bouncing between vague centrist and far right nutjob. Hopefully I'm wrong
Iām so sick of waiting for the next norm or convention to be broken, the proroguing of Parliament, the attacks on the judiciary and the media and charities, ministers bullying civil servants, lying to Parliament, lying to the press, lying to us.
Waiting for the next cruel targeting of a vulnerable group to try to shore up a failing government for a day or two, totally bereft not only of ideas but of a will and capability to govern. Iām sick of the very obvious sense that the people ruling our lives are in it only for themselves, with no vision or motivation aside from their career or their wealth or their grudges.
No government is perfect, and the next Labour government will mess up, disappoint, fall short- they could be promising you the world right now, and aside from the fact that they wouldnāt get elected, theyād deliver less.
But they really seem ready to try to govern decently and deliberately. Some stability will do wonders for this country.
I don't believe Starmer's government will be as corrupt, self-serving or as inept as the Tories have been for the past 14 years.
I don't personally agree he's offering nothing, nor that the big two parties are essentially the same, however even when I concede those points I'm left with the either-or of: - "Fresh blood, eagerness and potential optimisations for efficiencies" vs "Known entrenched failures and further corruption and cronyism"
Only one of those options has even a modicum of tempered, potential hope for the future, IMO.
What is comes down to most for me is that I truly do believe Labour will *try* to fix things. That gives me so much hope. Currently I donāt feel like our government genuinely actively tries to fix anything, itās just about fiddling stats and misleading and division for them.
I think Starmerās a genuinely normal and very competent person, but in trying to walk the tightrope thatās needed to get elected he comes across stilted and wooden. I wonāt lie- Iāve been unimpressed with many of his media performances this election cycle.. at the same time I understand heās trying to be pragmatic and keeping to his lines. Getting elected with our electorate is so difficult. I canāt convince you any more than that without knowing specifics about your situation and what you care about.
Yeah, I completely agree with your points on the Conservatives not wanting to fix things and Starmer at least trying, and I honestly think in a conversation I'd agree with him on a lot of things.
With regards to being convinced, it's not just about my situation, it's about anything. I'm 23 but on a good enough job that I'm fairly confident I'll be able to buy a home in the next five years. I don't struggle financially, I'm not anti-immigration. The Tories have been a shitstain on our country but I haven't personally felt the negative effects. I feel strongly about LGBTQ issues, homelessness, and generally people less comfortable than me financially.
I'm struggling to see the optimism in Labour. What positive change are they going to enact? In what measurable says will people's lives be better? This is what I've been waiting for Starmer to answer and I'm still left waiting (for reference, I voted for Starmer in the Labour leadership election).
My personal view is that heās trying to approach things differently. Rather than overpromise and underdeliver like every politician before him, he is keeping things as basic and achievable as possible. I can understand why that comes across as not very inspiring in comparison with the other parties who promise the world.
The key thing is - everything in the manifesto should be 100% achievable. Rayner has pledged to act on ending homelessness. 1.5m new homes is very significant for young people if they can achieve it by bringing house prices down (hopefully rents too with BTL landlords). Breakfast clubs for children help address child poverty. Reducing the waiting lists gets more of the public back to work.
Ultimately this approach does all come back to growth. Thereās not a lot of money to go around because of the tories. Unlocking growth unlocks the amount of spending they can commit to. If they can achieve that I think weāll be seeing a much more optimistic turn to Labour policy.
The manifesto is their baseline, not a pipe dream.
Thanks for this comment. It's probably the closest thing to exactly what I was looking for and does make me feel a lot better about this Labour party.
I wasn't aware of Angela Rayner's homelessness comments. I read the bit in the manifesto and was very disappointed. One small paragraph summarised as, the last Labour government were good on homelessness, the current Tory government are bad on homelessness, we're going to try and be good on homelessness. No plans, no promises, no attention. Rayner's comments certainly make me feel better, but I am sad issues like that aren't brought up more.
I do understand that there's not a lot of money to go round and that other parties have the luxury of being able to promise anything knowing they won't get in. Starmer will get in and is expected to enact everything in his manifesto. It's different for him.Ā
No worries, glad it helped.
Iām not sure why the homelessness units policy wasnāt on the manifesto, I only heard about it very recently, maybe it just came in too late to be included.
Regardless, more policies can be made on top of what is already in the manifesto, so is likely one of them.
Yes. I'm not aggressively anti-Starmer, and as a member of the Labour party I did vote for him to be leader, I'm just slightly disappointed with what he's putting forward.
As you've said though, it's better to under promise and over deliver, than vice versa. Hopefully when he gets in he can start fixing the mess and then pushing us further.
Starmer is offering to cull the tories.
That's all I need at the moment tbh.
Actual hope for the future can start when Sunak's tories are in the ground.
That's fair enough and I'm not going to pretend I'm not going to be elated when the Tories are annihilated in a week, it's just the 70% voting cause they believe in their party, as opposed to just stopping the Tories, that are confusing me at the moment, and that I'm looking to find more positivity from
I'm a soft-left Labourite. I became a supporter under Brown during the 2010 election, and joined the party under Ed Miliband in 2015 when I finally accepted that it was the party which best reflected my values.
I wasn't big on Corbyn, and vehemently disagreed with how unrealistic his policies were and how out of touch and naive he was on international politics. Still, the party best represented my core values, and I kept my membership. I continued to vote for Labour despite my concerns as it was the party which best reflected my values and the one I believed in.
Labour was demolished in 2019, the party was broken. The memories of that defeat and the pointlessness of it will live with me for a long time. Starmer was given an impossible task, requiring a record swing to even recover to a healthy position nevermind becoming Prime Minister, and now he seems to be on the cusp of pulling off a political miracle and winning a handsome majority.
Yes, the manifesto is too safe. But that is in part as Starmer knows he needs to achieve his commitments if that trust in the party is to last beyond an election cycle. There is no point standing with a manifesto like we did in 2017 or 2019 if we can't achieve it. He is going to inherit a country on its knees and broken and can only offer so much. Money can only go so far and tough decisions about what to prioritise and what to allocate has to be taken. He also has to appeal to the right parts of the electorate in the right places if he is to win, and fight off the perceptions that Labour are feckless and irresponsible Unfortunately that means standing on a pretty modest platform. Still the manifesto is ambitious in restoring workers rights, building new homes, constitutional changes, nationalising our failing railways and building a clean energy future.
It's like restoring a decrypt house. We might all want a swanky new kitchen or a new extension, but structural repairs are necessary before that work can begin. Once we're assured the house is structurally sound and won't fall down we can go about making it our home. In 1997 Labour had the luxury of inheriting a healthy balance sheet and a growing economy. Unfortunately the Tories have left us in a bigger fucking mess than they did back then, and it'll be harder this time. Keep the faith, and involve yourself in the party so you can be part of its future.
its the cruel aspect of our electoral system and right wing dominated press - we can't have an election win with positivity and new ideas until such point as the tories are annihilated and no longer a factor.
I was just apathetic. I was looking for policies that I could get behind and believe in, and there weren't any. It was so vague, and I felt like it mentioned the Tory party more than it mentioned what Labour's plans were.
Even that debate, they kept mentioning promises Starmer couldn't fund. What promises? Having read the manifesto, none come to mind at all.
He's not promising new things, he's offering to replace and repair things that have been intentionally dismantled and defended. He's restoring a status quo that existed in a time when things were affordable and kids could read. I like his Cabinet too, more than I liked Corbyn's.
This is what you get if the entire UK media slams a left wing Labour party at every turn. You get a Labour party too scared to do anything that the left wing of the Conservatives wouldn't do.
He needs to be in power for two terms to affect any changes. If they make big promises and revolutionary ideas get put forward which aren't achieved he will be fucking RINSED at PMQs and we'll get the Tories back in 5yrs with Reform as opposition. Horrifying prospect
People won't vote for a party that's made little change either especially with the state the country is in, the general opinion will turn to conservatives and labour are the same which then we get reform as opposition in 2029
I literally just said that. labour has an enormous task on its hands and they know perfectly well that people have to see improvements to their lives by 2029, but there is no point in promising glitzy stupid things in the manifesto. No one is getting rid of tuition fees and no one is promising net zero by 2030.
Just sensible offerings which I for one am happy to accept in their first parliament.
That's assuming labour do more than what they've stated in their manifesto, at the moment it's not enough. If they did then I'd agree with you and would be a great strategy to set expectations low and deliver high results.
The problem is they won't and id rather a government attempt to change people's life's regardless if they can be "rinsed at PMQs" otherwise we will get reform because of a non spending government.
In your first reply it came across as saying we should not spend but if that's not what you meant then I just read the comment wrong
Yes - I disgaree. I believe in the Labour Party, not just Starmer. I believe in the team around him and the genuine commitment to serve and make change after years of being unable to do something.
Let me also say that Starmer just did a 10 year job of turning around a party in 5. Itās about winning. And I have faith once he wins, heāll be able to act altruistically. Something like this
> It's about winning
I know you can't enact change without being in government, but this is the wrong mindset.
It's never about winning. It's about proposing policies that will **actually** improve things. Labour have chosen to **not** use the power of the state to invest in the future and provision quality public services. That's damning.
Sure, they'll obviously be better than the Tories, that's a given. They're truly shite on nearly every level. But Starmer and Reeves are actively pushing the same failed economic ideology of "no money" that led to Austerity. It's deeply concerning and if they're lying and they'll about turn and realise they're being economically illiterate after the election then that's also concerning due to how brazenly dishonest it would be. But I think they're earnest when they incorrectly promote their fiscal rules as being some kind of good economic management.
same on brexit too (as printed in black and white in the manifesto and reiterated tonight).
it seems to be a consistent theme across the debates that every āisnāt brexit a bit shit, what will you do about itā question gets a round of applause for the questioner. opinion polls show an appetite for some sort of change.
and yet you really canāt tell the two parties apart when it comes to any future relationship with the EU. the country seems to have moved on from 2019 but the two main parties have not
Which members of the team do you believe in and why?
I understand the winning focus, and I sincerely hope you're right because they will win. I just don't see why they've released a manifesto that's completely lacking in ideas or, ironically, change
# [The survey is open.](https://forms.gle/RbPa1THoifxFEuB46) [**š live results dashboard**](https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/26a6d397-1d8e-4e92-bb84-b6eb36485121) *(refreshed every 15 mins)*
Anyone feel like Sunak took a leaf from Trump's book? Always attacking whether it's true or not, rambling, repeating himself and repeatedly interrupting. We need mics cut off next time.
While i don't disagree. Starmer also did some rambling, repeating himself and interrupting too.
True but not to the same level. Repeating the party policy is fine to an extent, messing up a question is fine, but it seemed to be Rishi's entire strategy.
Itll be interesting to compare tonight's debate with the sunak debate fresh in our minds. But I think sunak always debates like this, he did exactly the same in the tory leadership debate with truss. I think trump does it because those repetative arguments are genuinely the best arguments he can make because he doesnt understand anything in depth. Conversely, i think sunak does it because he thinks the audience are stupid people who need slogans repeted over and over.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This kind of debate format, yes, but not a good debate format. What we need to do is did what the American's did after Trump and have debates where mics get cut off. Sunak was very much the British Trump in that debate, screaming lies, always being aggressive, interrupting.
You are probably right but his methods are so divisive. Appeals to Reform voter types, makes the rest of us a little sick in our mouths with such populist bullshit. Keir should've had him on the ropes but when people only have the concentration span for soundbites and factoids we end up with this travesty and we never get to the bottom of our nation's problems.
I don't know who these debates are for anyway, Rishi is just spouting bullshit, his TRIPLE LOCK PLUS^^^TM is worth essentially Ā£29 a year from 2028, he should be embarassed. The media actually needs to hold him to a higher standard and stop pretending whoever comes in needs a silver bullet. All these debates have treated rishi like an up and comer and not held him to account for his last 5 years as part of the tory brain trust. Any time he says he's lowering taxes they need to cut his mic and tell him that we're experiencing the highest burden since post war. Then they turn to starmer and expect him to magic up some money and explain how he's going to do it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The only people who believe there are actual undecideds are Tory voters. The only people who are actually undecided are ex tories who might vote reform instead. Rishis plan isnāt costed at all. He keeps saying he wants to abolish NI but doesnāt have a timeframe or a plan or the funds. Maybe heās waiting for the thresholds to rise high enough but isnāt telling us
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Maybe look in the mirror. Not the paper. A mirror
Don't forget everyone: "What Kier Starmer isn't being straight with you about" is that you will be "surrendering to the Labour party" via "taxes, taxes, taxes, and taxes". Literally every time he started repeating himself I audibly groaned and wanted to fast forward. Alas I don't have supernatural control over time.
Yeah, because massive tax cuts (especially those which are going to benefit the more well off) are going to benefit us so much, obviously (sarcasm for those not sure). I accept that taxes may need to go up. Hopefully these are fairly distributed. It's just a fact of life given the state of our economy. We may need to spend and invest to grow, there's no magic way out of this.
Sunak clearly the better debater with an open mic like that, tore Starmer to pieces on several issues. If he didn't have 14 years of Conservative gov hanging around his neck i think Sunak would be sitting pretty. They need to do away with the audience, and mute a speakers microphone when they run out of time.
He was just shouty with soundbites. That's not debating, he didn't say anything useful, he has no plan (apart from Rwanda which is just a joke).
>He was just shouty with soundbites Which is better than quiet with soundbites. Starmer needed to refute Sunak more robustly, and make his own point more robustly. >That's not debating, he didn't say anything useful He said plenty that's useful, indeed he snookered Starmer several times. Doesn't matter because as I said, his words don't mean anything next to the result of 14 years of Conservatives gov. >he has no plan (apart from Rwanda which is just a joke). He quite clearly has a plan, which is why he was able to reference specific policies when answering questions, and when talking about past votes in Parliament.
Well he did, if you listened, he just didn't bawl over the top of his opponent which is plain disrespectful. Rwanda was quite clearly refuted, and Sunak just misrepresented his policies (tax cuts, yeah, just what we need)?
>Well he did, if you listened No, he let Sunak run all over him.
Shouting over your opponent like a petulant child is not being a better debater. Repeating the same phrases instead of answering the question is not being a better debater.
>Shouting over your opponent like a petulant child is not being a better debater. In an open mic debate, being able to make your point heard is an important skill. >Repeating the same phrases instead of answering the question is not being a better debater. Sunak seemed much more able to go off script than Starmer.
Sunak, as usual, came across like a petulant 7 year old boy arguing the toss with his parents over a Ā£50 Robux gift card in Smyth's Toys. To a lot of voters who reduce politics to little more than football-esque tribalism and 'pwning' the other side, he did 'well' and is reflected by a reasonable rating on polling.
Sunak went on full attack mode. He had no choice really, but it didnāt come off well. It was interesting as the roles were essentially reversed. If you didnāt know any history and watched the debate you would think Sunak was the opposition and Starmer the incumbent.
I think Sunak lost by winning a "debate" in the very loosest of terms Sunak treat this as a university debate with roysters doysters at the old boys clubs or something and so was heavily on the attack and argumentative. Starmer seemed to treat this as an exercise in expressing Prime Ministerial dignity and leadership qualities. The end result is Sunak got more "hits" in but looked like a massive petulant bellend in the process which hurts him more than Starmer.
Exact same as other debates tbh, same questions being asked, same answers in return
Just watching this now. The bellend shouting in the background is very annoying.
Rishi Sunak?
I hadn't got to his first interruptions, but jesus he's frustrating and his constant "don't surrender..." line is awful.
The cheek of calling the decision of voters to not vote for him 'surrender' - honestly it's despicable. Surrender would be giving in to his fearmongering instead of voting with your conscience, either directly or strategically.
It's pure fucking projection. If you have a brain and can see through the bullshit, you see how toxic it is. And hopefully this election is the death of the Tories, either completely for being the populist, right-wing hateful bastards or they have a complete renaissance.
"And as the debate ended there was no handshake between the pair, which is unusual for these TV clashes." SKy News reports on this, is this true? Downvoting both Sunak and Starmer on this minor detail, need more civility in debates, not less.
Sunak was disgraceful and honestly at times Starmer looked like he wanted to deck him.
Why is there even an audience at these fucking things?
Exactly and why they ask the questions? The questions usually have a preamble about their own lives (who cares) and then the actual question is usually badly formed. Then the candidates spend the first half a minute in their fake "I know how you feel because my mother's cousin's neighbour is in the same situation" as if we cared that their own lives were the same as someone in the audience. So, just have the political journalists asking the well formed questions. If you're afraid of bias, have a small panel of them making them. The other thing they should have (and what the US debate will have tonight) is a mute button for the microphones. it's absolutely irritating when they start talking over each other (Sunak much more than Starmer).
I feel Sunhak has run such a terrible campaign its like he is intentionally trying to lose. Starmer hasn't painted himself in glory at any debate Rishi is gotten the better of him. Labour should win but it won't be as big as people think.
sunak won --- largely because he spoke more words --- but it really won't be enough. starmer needed to avoid an astronomical gaffe, which was a low bar that he surpassed.
"won"
Did they explain the audience make up at any point? It sounded Tory heavy based on applause, which is a bit rough considering the polls show they're less than 20% of the electorate. They definitely weren't following the QT model
Think it was roughly 50/50 ith a few undecideds.
They probably follow the 2019 results as well as the Brexit referendum.
Ah just 5 years out of touch then.
They cant be out of touch as it is based on the last election results. Before the next election we dont know what the true political make up of the British population is.
Both replies to the disabled woman were non-answers, but sunak was especially vile.
What did he say?
The question was how leaders would protect those who cannot work from sanctions. Sunaks answer was essentially a rant (the beatings will continue until morale improves) about how everyone who can work must do so and he promised stricter sanctions and to cut the amount of money disability claimants would recieve, along with making the process more difficult. Stamer basically said the NHS needs to be fixed because many people can't work because they haven't received proper treatment, and he supports trial employment programs that support the disabled back into work. Neither answered the question, which was about protecting those unable to work from sanctions, although labour at least, have a history of voting against them.
Disgusting really. Disabled people literally need extra money to just get around the world. They aren't living a life of luxury. Triangulating attacks on them is abhorrent.
Sadly even if Starmer believes differently at this moment saying "more money for disabled" other than through their NHS would be seen as a gaff as it's been so thoroughly toxified by Tories and media.
I really hope its just a media tactic. Sadly it's worse than vilification, we've gotten to the point the UN has criticised the UK for grave and systemic violation of their rights. Thousands have died of starvation or suicide and the government is now trying to delay the release of reports that could be damning to say the least. The benefit fraud they claimed was rife amongst PIP was found by their own department to be nothing. A total lie. Labour will have to do more to restore the public perception of disabled people, tbh, the UK has been enacting what is basically a quiet eugenics policy.
I agree. I think slowly moving away from this toxic shite is the only way as trying to rapidly move overtly seems to get public backlash
True, but I think he could dog whistle a little better about it. When it comes to race or LGBT issues Kier is very careful about his wording. As always disability is on the lesser side of the protected terms and rights.
Not another one
I absolutely loathe the way BBC handle debates and think itās borderline election interference. It stinks to high heaven. Letās consider the hypothetical, that Sunak and Starmer were level in the polls before this debate. The BBC spin is outrageously biased and we can all see it. From hand picking a crowd thatās completely non representative of the electorate as a whole, loading questions to direct the debate in a specific direction and Laura Kās ever graceful insight. We need some regulation on the way these debates are conducted.
I didn't see any bias in questions and for them you can't blame BBC for bias as they were asked by the audience. You can blame BBC for letting audience asking the questions instead of having guts to make them themselves as the audience questions are always bad (not because of bias but because how they are formed). What was lacking from the side of BBC was a mute button for the moderator so she could have muted the candidate who tried to speak over when it was other person's turn to speak. That favoured Sunak to some extent as Starmer is too polite to do that. Laura K wasn't moderating the debate, Mishal Husein was and she did a better job than ITV couple of weeks ago.
Thereās no way that the BBC donāt know what the questions are before they let the audience ask them. There are bound to be questions that werenāt asked because they werenāt picked. Just as the audience were likely picked.
Well, as I said to me the problem with the questions was not that they were biased (I don't think they were) but that they were just badly formed. Just ask the f*cking question, nobody is interested in your life story.
The questions are often rewritten/reworded by production. When you apply you're asked to tick a box acknowledging that your submitted question may be reworded. And your encouraged by production to add the biographical bits - a simple "what is your party going to of to tackle the housing crisis?" isn't good enough, you need to ask "I'm 29yrs old and earning Ā£x but can't save for a deposit, what are you going to do to help me get on the ladder?". It's infuriating, I don't know anyone who likes that format of question, but for some reason it's the standard now.
The BBC didn't pick them.
Right. So which side are you accusing them of bias towards? Everyone from both sides accuse the BBC of bias constantly, which to me is a sign of impartiality frankly.
Sure, the BBC run impartial stories for the most part, but every time election rolls up to debates, the whole thing is always designed to put Labour on a back foot. Just look at the focus of questions today. If you want to see what impartiality is in a debate then you should have watched the Sky debate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which makes it even more damning for the BBC!
It's not owned by murdoch get your facts straight.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You spout absolute nonsense, then when questioned on it you resort to the typical "u mad bro?" response. They merely advised that you check your facts before you spout shite, doesn't seem like anger to me.
Iām not promoting it, Iām merely pointing out that I thought the news network owned by Rupert Murdoch was less biased than the BBC. That just goes to show how bad the BBC was.
I feel you should both know that Rupert Murdoch hasn't owned any stake in Sky in almost 6 years. It's a subsidiary of Comcast, a publicly listed company.
I do know that Murdoch doesnāt own Sky any more, though I had thought he still had some influence over it.
Or that the speculation is correct and he's endorsing Starmer, like he did Blair in '97.
Rishi spent ages talking about the future not realising this election is totally about the past 14 years
I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Politicians master one skill over any other, shifting the narrative. Did you see his answer to the question about how to protect disabled people? He didn't say a single word about it, but kept talking how he's going to force the people who can work to work "as that's fair".
Always dragging the narrative away from Tories' record but in the next breath shouting that the public should judge Kier Starmer on his record. Man's a cockroach
What is the point of these debates
You may as well just PMQās Same non answers
So we can watch the pantomime
Sunak interrupting so many times and sounding like an utter bellend really wound me the hell up Iāll admit. Starmer absolutely bungled the immigration questions and I wish heād pushed back against Sunak more but I think leaving Sunak to make himself look like a jumped up 6th form student in debate club was a good move too.
such a wierd non-debate about immigration. How do they manage to debate this topic without discussing Brexit? How is that not the biggest issue? So weird, it's like a national psychosis...
Sorry but the biggest issue in world politics currently is how to protect democracy from Russia. It's not featured much in this election as all parties except Reform seem to align very well on it. And of course that's why in a debate between Labour and Tories it's not even discussed.
I already had a low opinion of Sunak but the more I hear his policies and views, the more I find him callous and petulant. He has a very naive consideration of how the world and people act; and he cannot understand why reality does not work the way his childlike plans are devised.
Perfect summary
Sunak is only in to prepare the tories for the return of Boris.
Iād be amazed if Johnson came back. His tenure as Prime Minister was disastrous for him - he was meant to be the Good Times post-Brexit PM but instead ended up self-destructing due to his deep-seated personality flaws.
Mishap Hussain (the host) was clearly extremely biased, letting Rishi interrupt Starmer and interrupting him herself far more than she interupted Sunak. On multiple occasions she also argued the Tory line for Rishi instead of just asking questions and even made jabs at Starmer and made jokes at his expense to undermine him. This is absolutely disgusting from a host that is meant to be unbiased and neutral:
Well, she certainly gave us a chance to see Sunak for what he is.
At one point Sunak interrupted with a question, and she repeated the same question to Starmer rather than let him answer the original question that was asked.
She was great in the last debate too.
I honestly think Rishi came out on top of this unfortunately. Almost had me believing the absolute bollocks coming out of his mouth.
I'm about half way through watching on iPlayer. Does it get any better? Sunak seems very tetchy and keeps interrupting all the time. Edit; flipping typo.
Wait, what? Justin Timberlake was there?!
Keir Starmer is needing to find the balance between bringing respect and professionalism back to politics and needing to shout quite a bit louder to get heard above Rishiās annoying interrupting.
Heāll only have to deal with it for another week luckily
Rishi should still be arguing from across the floor at PMQs... Ah, who are we kidding.
Who's going to be leader of the opposition though? It seems unlikely the Tories will lose so badly they won't have a Tory leader taking front and centre at PMQs. Sunak will certainly go after defeat, but who's next? A return for Boris? The Haunted Victorian Pencil?Ā If we're really unlucky Farage might be opposition....
Reform is more likely to just merge with the conservative party and the opposition will be farage and quite large at that. A vote for reform is a vote for more fascist tories.
Dunno. A lor of me was predicting that before Farage became leader of Reform. That combined with the Boris camp all going oddly quiet for a long time. Trouble seemed to be brewing. Now I think the old school Tories will turn the party intoĀ a quiet retirement home for neo-liberal Thatcherites who think Starmer isn't quite neoliberal Thatcherite enough. I imagine the right of the Tory party will switch to Reform. I fully now expect Boris and Rees Mogg to join and mysteriously be given important positions in the party, like they expect people to believe they haven't been talking to them for ages already.
I love how after the debate the BBC had Robert and the young girl (who asked the question about housing) in the spin room. Robert - a Tory voter and probably someone who will vote reform - right wing The young girl (don't remember her name, sorry!) - probably a Corbynista who will vote green - left wing Where's the centrist in this? Why not get the women on who asked about cost of living or about running her business - people more likely to be in the middle of the spectrum. BBC picking people at polar opposites of the debate, probably to cause division. Boring.
I think they were both quite Tory.
Are you saying she was a "Corbynista" simply because she was young? She didn't say anything that was far left, she was talking primarily about probably the most salient issue for all people at the moment - building houses (sprinkled in with professionals leaving for Australia).
She was a massive Tory. "So I'm thinking of leaving the country to work in the UAE how will you keep me?" The correct answer to this was: we won't, we believe you've got every right to work abroad and it's great our education system has opened up such a wonderful opportunity for you.
I really don't understand why Labour knowing Sunaks propensity for petulance and talking over people, didn't get Starmer to open his debate by saying, that he fully expects Sunak to talk over him throughout but he will demonstrate leadership and control and this should be about who is the best option for the country rather than who can whine and interrupt the most.
Just watching now. Whose the entitled dickhead screaming at the top of their lungs. The election isn't about you. Let it go, we don't even hear what you're talking about
Heās the prime minister mate, it largely is about him.Ā
It was a protest outside.
Genuinely thought you meant Rishi for a second there.
Someone different starts screaming in a bit, then they get bored and stop, then you can listen to two middle aged men avoiding issues for a bit!
Random protestors-presumably not protesting the election, I believe Ā they are protesting local council budget cuts and are using the election debacle the as a public spot to stage that protest
It was a protest against local council budget cuts.
Ah thanks, Iāll edit my reply
Tbf to Rishi heās doing a decent job of clawing out of the deep, deep hole the Conservative Party is in. Starmer needs to more assertively say heās lying about this āpension taxā or whatever Rishi keeps banging on about.
Well he needs to point out that some pensioners already pay income tax on their pensions, and those that do will not benefit from this apparent triple lock plus. The amount of tax to be paid annually without subscribing to this stupid buzz word policy is *drumroll* 29 pounds a year each under the current pension scheme and presumably Labour's ongoing plan, and that won't take effect until 2027-28. What a fucking dealbreaker.
My dad said "Starmer not answering any questions again - never said how he was gonna deal with all the asylum seekers" "He did though - process them faster and do deals with other countries to send people back" "He didn't say any of that though" "Yes he did - that's why Sunak asked if he was going to sit down with the Taliban" \*silence\* "You don't have to like the guy but if you don't listen to what he says you can't complain you don't know what his plans are."
With all due respect to your Dad, people doing this with politicians just because they don't like them drives me round the twist. My partner's Mum is very suspicious of Labour, and seized on Starmer saying he wouldn't use private healthcare, calling him a liar because 'we all would if it was serious' and acting like he'd made a major gaffe. If they want to disagree with him, fine, but projecting whatever they want onto him is nonsense.
I dont remember him saying that he'd send people back, he said process them which as mishal mentioned would mean most of them staying or something along those lines Then on the taliban part he didnt address it, it was a question after all
What he said was "Under the Prime Minister's scheme you have thousands of people sitting in hotels who, once they've got here, can't be returned anywhere...because they're not being processed, they can't be returned anywhere" The Taliban/Ayatollah question seems pretty silly - surely those are the countries we wouldn't return people to because it's not safe?
I specifically recall KS saying they would be processed and sent back. More pressingly how can anyone believe this Rwanda thing with 50000 people unprocessed? Would the Tories just fast track them through like Stalin did with dissenters?
Starmer pointed out it would take 300 years to send all the illegal entities to Rwanda. The only solution is cooperation with France and the EU.
While it may never be a proper deterrent. It's only 300 years if the initial setup was static and never scaled up over time.
Absolutely agreed. Rishi flexing on how many Visas they've binned recently too last night is just stupidity. Why are we turning down Visa applications of potentially tax paying, working people while paying to keep these poor Afghans in hotels? It's completely busted.
Yeah this commenter is just hearing what they want to hear. Sunak mocked him saying "you're going to do deals with Iran and the Taliban?" Starmer absolutely didn't say he would do those things, he just kept repeating "process them"
Get these actors off the stage. We need real politicians. Don't waste your vote on mainstream parties
Yeah, like Reform have any idea at all how to get anything done! Lets have a fever dream and assume that they get into power, you think any of those muppets have any idea how to get policy enacted? Or are they going to go crying to "the deep state" because they have no idea about the process of government? I mean their entire thing is blaming everyone else for problems and not actually offering any workable alternatives! I'd kinda like to see them in charge and floundering, just not in a country that Ilive in.
It doesn't have to be only reform. It can be a coalition of smaller parties. The current two party system we have is no longer working as both parties are essentially the same.
Ok. On the theme of people complaining but not offering solutions which parties are you wanting to make a coalition here?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Awwww. Man. It's cute that you think that that's a possibility!
That you, Robert?
I cannot believe how much sheās letting Rishi interrupt. Itās completely ridiculous. She may as well not be there.
Yougov suggesting very predictably that the public (what small percentage watched) didn't get much of the debate. 50 / 50 split, great for Starmer, terrible for Sunak, will have essentially no impact.
MoreInCommon have it 56/44 in favour of Starmer ([here](https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1806086723023036709))
The Snap poll always seems to favour Sunak who operates in soundbites and little substance.
Unfortunately so do the brains of a large number of the electorate.
Can we be factual for a second? Small boat arrivals aren't illegal if you're seeking asylum. We have an obligation under international law to process asylum seekers. If someone does not have the legal right to stay then at that point they are in the country illegally. Rishi is lying.
Thats the same as saying that Rwanda is a safe place because UK law says so
Sunak also mentions people fleeing the Taliban from Afghanistan-they would be refugees and not illegal migrants making his witty āsit down with the Talibanā remark completely invalid
It is illegal under UK law since the Illegal Migration Act - the fact it's complete nonsense notwithstanding.
Mate, this is an election cycle, there's no place for facts here.
I didn't see but did they both shake hands at the end? I really feel like they hate eachother
yeah they loathe each other with cold fury. Honestly I'm pretty good with that from the guy who is (hopefully) going to be prime minister next week.
Sunak in twenty years, and frankly a spliff rather than more mexican coke and he might make a decent politician. As it stands he's just... unlikably petulant.Ā His performance tonight struck me as myopic. Like he genuinely thinks he can win the election if he just says the 'right thing'. Starmer will win next week, and I'm going to say confidently with at least a hundred seat majority not because Starmer is particularly good but because the country is just sick of nothing working. You can't argue against the dismal record of the conservative party, hoping that screeching tax rise tax rise, tax rise is going to save you.Ā
As a middle aged cis white male I find Sunak's levels of entitlement to be culturally appropriative
Also, Sunak kept saying that Conservatives will reduce your taxes but they arenāt? They donāt plan to reduce income taxes and income tax hasnāt reduced under them. They plan to abolish NIC with gradual reductions but no NIC means no state pension funding. Itās a pretty mental policy and I donāt see how they donāt increase income tax if theyāre abolishing NIC
Did I dream a massive uproar 2wks ago after Jeremy Hunt said the eventual plan was abolish NI and CCHQ flatly denied it, saying it was mad? I'm fucking spinning.
I dunno if they denied it but itās definitely in their manifesto. Like literally number 1 on their manifesto, cut NI from 12% to 6% by April 2027 for employees. Theyāre doing the same for self employed NIC. The only other tax cut mentioned isnāt really a tax cut but rather a constant increase in tax free allowance for pensions so that pensions never get taxed no matter how much they rise. I donāt know how they plan to pay for this tax free pension whilst slashing NI in half in the next two years but there you go I guess.
My local MP, Gary Sambrook (Secretary of the 1922 Committee) posted a pamphlet the other day claiming the Conservatives wound reduce NI by a third, introduce Triple Lock Plus, double free childcare, spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030 and introduce their new form of National Service for 18 year olds. Which makes me wonder how much they'd slash local authority grants to pay for it (when many are already increasing council tax by 4.99% and implementing millions of pounds of spending cuts to avoid having to issue a s114.
Not only that but benefits in general and NHS spending. Every single service will be slashed and made worse by these removals in NIC. The three biggest revenue generators in this country are income tax, NIC and VAT. They arenāt cutting income tax and thereās no mention of VAT cuts but halving (And eventual abolishment) of NIC means a loss of Ā£86.15b in revenue. Letās say he cracks down on benefit scroungers like he says he will by cutting UC. UC for 2023/24 will be Ā£80.9b, so even if he literally scraps all UC payments all at once that doesnāt offset the lost Ā£86.15b they are giving up in NIC. Thereās Ā£64.7b in local government funding, so I guess they can cut there. I donāt know what happens when the rest of the NIC gets cut and they have to cut another Ā£86.15b in social spending. Basically, something has to give for them to just give up a massive part of revenue earning within two years. Some services will be massively cut to tue point where they wonāt even function well any more as certain spending is essentially untouchable by the government (Pensions and NHS).
To be fair to him, RS was more ballsy than he has been in previous debates, but I felt he was playing with the freedom of a condemned man
The thing is he made virtually no good points, his āballsyāness was almost entirely interrupting and ignoring starmerās points. He is a better public speaker but at the end of the day it doesnāt mean shit when it comes to how good of a leader he will be. If anything this refusal to listen to others opinions would suggest he would be a bad leader.
Agreed, it was all public school debate club strop. Gross to witness the PM acting like that tonight.
Not being a prick, but the 70% of people voting for someone they believe in next week... Please try and convince me I can do the same. I've always been a Labour supporter but Starmer is offering absolutely nothing worth voting for. Those who disagree, please convince me otherwise. I'd love to celebrate a Labour party I believe in winning next week
Mate, boring is good in politics, especially when it's coming from opposition, who by rights with this polling could be offering plans to colonise Mars and all sorts. I am not a Starmer stan at all but there is a costed manifesto to reverse a generation's worth of damage done by disaster capitalists who have lied and manipulated the country, ever since they managed to convince our parents that Gordon Brown personally caused a global financial crash.
Its very rare for an election to come around where you can vote for whoever you want and it wont affect the outcome one bit. Its guaranteed that Labour will get 400+ seats, what you can change is the vote count for the other parties if they match your values better this time for example Green or Lib Dems or an independent or whoever. The vote count is probably gonna get discussed much more this time too because of how lopsided the seats per vote results will be, and also because everyone's expecting a Large Labour seat majority anyway and its been talked to death already.
Yes, I completely agree. In normal circumstances I'd just 100% vote tactically to stop the Tories, however, I live in a Labour safe seat and Labour are going to win in a landslide overall. That said, I'm not sure where to vote. The Lib Dems have my favourite manifesto I think, but Ed Davey's involvement in the postal scandal and the general vibe of the Lib Dems over the years puts me off. Greens are furthest left but I don't enjoy their stance on Nuclear energy and their blocking of solar farms. I worry about NIMBYism from the Greens and their weird birth policy (which they've backtracked on) was also a red flag. We do have an independent socialist candidate but I worry when it comes to vote count that it won't be clear why I've voted Independent. Spoiling the ballot is another option but then that's what all the terfs are doing so I don't want to do that either. I've never been so undecided and actively willing to listen to everyone. As of right now, pretty much everything is on the table other than Tory or Reform.
> please convince me otherwise People who voted for the government last election voted for Boris' plans. They ousted him and we got the Lettuce's plan... ousted and we got Rishi's plan. People didn't vote for Rishi nor his plans. If you want change or even a chance for change, vote for the one that would remove a tory from your constituency. After that, if you don't like SKS, there's a big chance he won't be the one picking a date for the next election 5 years from now anyway. That's the best I got. I really hate FPTP but that's what we have.
I absolutely agree, but I cannot live through another four years of what the Tories have to offer.
Yes, that's fair enough. If the election was going to be close, or I lived in a constituency which was close between the Tories and Labour, I'd be 100% voting Labour. I'm very glad the Tories are going to be gone
I havenāt voted Labour for this election, but I know my area will be safe. I just couldnāt get behind something I donāt believe in, but it would have been different if it was close, like you said. The Tories basically want to stop me and my partner being together in this country, and that will 100% happen if they get back in. At least with Labour, thereās a chance it will be delayed/revisted/paused/cancelled.
I actually don't like Labour very much but I absolutely fucking refuse to go through another 5 years of the worst of two evils. I will happily take stale pot noodle over mouldy bread with a sprinkle of maggots.
I saw someone online describe it as a choice between getting pissed on once vs. being shit on every day for the next 5 years. Pretty much sums up my view on the situation.
Yes, I completely agree with this. As I say, it was the specific statement of voting for the party you believe in, as opposed to just stopping the Tories, that I questioned. I'm very very glad the Tories are going to be ousted and if I lived in a seat that was closely contested between Labour and the Tories, I'd 100% be voting Labour.
Starmer is centrist, boring, a terrible public speaker, absolutely has issues with being a leader or a facilitator... but he's intelligent, considered, not trying to be a populist no answers politician, and most importantly, hes not one of the gang thats fucked up the country over the last 14 years! I'm not massively enthused by him but I think that a competent, centrist bureaucrat that's pretty boring is what the country needs for a bit.
I agree with the idea of this, I'm just concerned when I look across at Germany, France, Argentina, possibly the US, and see this pattern/cycle of centrists coming in to "change" things after a far right government screws everything up, the centrist not doing enough to change the country and therefore the public getting sick of them, and then a far right nutjob coming in as the centrist wasn't radical enough. I completely agree that Starmer's Labour Party are a far better option for the country than the conservatives, I just don't like the idea of bouncing between vague centrist and far right nutjob. Hopefully I'm wrong
Iām so sick of waiting for the next norm or convention to be broken, the proroguing of Parliament, the attacks on the judiciary and the media and charities, ministers bullying civil servants, lying to Parliament, lying to the press, lying to us. Waiting for the next cruel targeting of a vulnerable group to try to shore up a failing government for a day or two, totally bereft not only of ideas but of a will and capability to govern. Iām sick of the very obvious sense that the people ruling our lives are in it only for themselves, with no vision or motivation aside from their career or their wealth or their grudges. No government is perfect, and the next Labour government will mess up, disappoint, fall short- they could be promising you the world right now, and aside from the fact that they wouldnāt get elected, theyād deliver less. But they really seem ready to try to govern decently and deliberately. Some stability will do wonders for this country.
The illusion of choice.
the choice between stubbing your toe and shooting oneself in the head is a bad choice, but a meaningful one nonetheless
I don't believe Starmer's government will be as corrupt, self-serving or as inept as the Tories have been for the past 14 years. I don't personally agree he's offering nothing, nor that the big two parties are essentially the same, however even when I concede those points I'm left with the either-or of: - "Fresh blood, eagerness and potential optimisations for efficiencies" vs "Known entrenched failures and further corruption and cronyism" Only one of those options has even a modicum of tempered, potential hope for the future, IMO.
What is comes down to most for me is that I truly do believe Labour will *try* to fix things. That gives me so much hope. Currently I donāt feel like our government genuinely actively tries to fix anything, itās just about fiddling stats and misleading and division for them. I think Starmerās a genuinely normal and very competent person, but in trying to walk the tightrope thatās needed to get elected he comes across stilted and wooden. I wonāt lie- Iāve been unimpressed with many of his media performances this election cycle.. at the same time I understand heās trying to be pragmatic and keeping to his lines. Getting elected with our electorate is so difficult. I canāt convince you any more than that without knowing specifics about your situation and what you care about.
Yeah, I completely agree with your points on the Conservatives not wanting to fix things and Starmer at least trying, and I honestly think in a conversation I'd agree with him on a lot of things. With regards to being convinced, it's not just about my situation, it's about anything. I'm 23 but on a good enough job that I'm fairly confident I'll be able to buy a home in the next five years. I don't struggle financially, I'm not anti-immigration. The Tories have been a shitstain on our country but I haven't personally felt the negative effects. I feel strongly about LGBTQ issues, homelessness, and generally people less comfortable than me financially. I'm struggling to see the optimism in Labour. What positive change are they going to enact? In what measurable says will people's lives be better? This is what I've been waiting for Starmer to answer and I'm still left waiting (for reference, I voted for Starmer in the Labour leadership election).
My personal view is that heās trying to approach things differently. Rather than overpromise and underdeliver like every politician before him, he is keeping things as basic and achievable as possible. I can understand why that comes across as not very inspiring in comparison with the other parties who promise the world. The key thing is - everything in the manifesto should be 100% achievable. Rayner has pledged to act on ending homelessness. 1.5m new homes is very significant for young people if they can achieve it by bringing house prices down (hopefully rents too with BTL landlords). Breakfast clubs for children help address child poverty. Reducing the waiting lists gets more of the public back to work. Ultimately this approach does all come back to growth. Thereās not a lot of money to go around because of the tories. Unlocking growth unlocks the amount of spending they can commit to. If they can achieve that I think weāll be seeing a much more optimistic turn to Labour policy. The manifesto is their baseline, not a pipe dream.
Thanks for this comment. It's probably the closest thing to exactly what I was looking for and does make me feel a lot better about this Labour party. I wasn't aware of Angela Rayner's homelessness comments. I read the bit in the manifesto and was very disappointed. One small paragraph summarised as, the last Labour government were good on homelessness, the current Tory government are bad on homelessness, we're going to try and be good on homelessness. No plans, no promises, no attention. Rayner's comments certainly make me feel better, but I am sad issues like that aren't brought up more. I do understand that there's not a lot of money to go round and that other parties have the luxury of being able to promise anything knowing they won't get in. Starmer will get in and is expected to enact everything in his manifesto. It's different for him.Ā
No worries, glad it helped. Iām not sure why the homelessness units policy wasnāt on the manifesto, I only heard about it very recently, maybe it just came in too late to be included. Regardless, more policies can be made on top of what is already in the manifesto, so is likely one of them.
Yes. I'm not aggressively anti-Starmer, and as a member of the Labour party I did vote for him to be leader, I'm just slightly disappointed with what he's putting forward. As you've said though, it's better to under promise and over deliver, than vice versa. Hopefully when he gets in he can start fixing the mess and then pushing us further.
Starmer is offering to cull the tories. That's all I need at the moment tbh. Actual hope for the future can start when Sunak's tories are in the ground.
That's fair enough and I'm not going to pretend I'm not going to be elated when the Tories are annihilated in a week, it's just the 70% voting cause they believe in their party, as opposed to just stopping the Tories, that are confusing me at the moment, and that I'm looking to find more positivity from
I'm a soft-left Labourite. I became a supporter under Brown during the 2010 election, and joined the party under Ed Miliband in 2015 when I finally accepted that it was the party which best reflected my values. I wasn't big on Corbyn, and vehemently disagreed with how unrealistic his policies were and how out of touch and naive he was on international politics. Still, the party best represented my core values, and I kept my membership. I continued to vote for Labour despite my concerns as it was the party which best reflected my values and the one I believed in. Labour was demolished in 2019, the party was broken. The memories of that defeat and the pointlessness of it will live with me for a long time. Starmer was given an impossible task, requiring a record swing to even recover to a healthy position nevermind becoming Prime Minister, and now he seems to be on the cusp of pulling off a political miracle and winning a handsome majority. Yes, the manifesto is too safe. But that is in part as Starmer knows he needs to achieve his commitments if that trust in the party is to last beyond an election cycle. There is no point standing with a manifesto like we did in 2017 or 2019 if we can't achieve it. He is going to inherit a country on its knees and broken and can only offer so much. Money can only go so far and tough decisions about what to prioritise and what to allocate has to be taken. He also has to appeal to the right parts of the electorate in the right places if he is to win, and fight off the perceptions that Labour are feckless and irresponsible Unfortunately that means standing on a pretty modest platform. Still the manifesto is ambitious in restoring workers rights, building new homes, constitutional changes, nationalising our failing railways and building a clean energy future. It's like restoring a decrypt house. We might all want a swanky new kitchen or a new extension, but structural repairs are necessary before that work can begin. Once we're assured the house is structurally sound and won't fall down we can go about making it our home. In 1997 Labour had the luxury of inheriting a healthy balance sheet and a growing economy. Unfortunately the Tories have left us in a bigger fucking mess than they did back then, and it'll be harder this time. Keep the faith, and involve yourself in the party so you can be part of its future.
its the cruel aspect of our electoral system and right wing dominated press - we can't have an election win with positivity and new ideas until such point as the tories are annihilated and no longer a factor.
It's lesser of two evils surely. The level is corruption under the tories cannot be rewarded.
You don't like the manifesto?
I was just apathetic. I was looking for policies that I could get behind and believe in, and there weren't any. It was so vague, and I felt like it mentioned the Tory party more than it mentioned what Labour's plans were. Even that debate, they kept mentioning promises Starmer couldn't fund. What promises? Having read the manifesto, none come to mind at all.
He's not promising new things, he's offering to replace and repair things that have been intentionally dismantled and defended. He's restoring a status quo that existed in a time when things were affordable and kids could read. I like his Cabinet too, more than I liked Corbyn's.
This is what you get if the entire UK media slams a left wing Labour party at every turn. You get a Labour party too scared to do anything that the left wing of the Conservatives wouldn't do.
He needs to be in power for two terms to affect any changes. If they make big promises and revolutionary ideas get put forward which aren't achieved he will be fucking RINSED at PMQs and we'll get the Tories back in 5yrs with Reform as opposition. Horrifying prospect
People won't vote for a party that's made little change either especially with the state the country is in, the general opinion will turn to conservatives and labour are the same which then we get reform as opposition in 2029
I literally just said that. labour has an enormous task on its hands and they know perfectly well that people have to see improvements to their lives by 2029, but there is no point in promising glitzy stupid things in the manifesto. No one is getting rid of tuition fees and no one is promising net zero by 2030. Just sensible offerings which I for one am happy to accept in their first parliament.
That's assuming labour do more than what they've stated in their manifesto, at the moment it's not enough. If they did then I'd agree with you and would be a great strategy to set expectations low and deliver high results. The problem is they won't and id rather a government attempt to change people's life's regardless if they can be "rinsed at PMQs" otherwise we will get reform because of a non spending government. In your first reply it came across as saying we should not spend but if that's not what you meant then I just read the comment wrong
Yes - I disgaree. I believe in the Labour Party, not just Starmer. I believe in the team around him and the genuine commitment to serve and make change after years of being unable to do something. Let me also say that Starmer just did a 10 year job of turning around a party in 5. Itās about winning. And I have faith once he wins, heāll be able to act altruistically. Something like this
> It's about winning I know you can't enact change without being in government, but this is the wrong mindset. It's never about winning. It's about proposing policies that will **actually** improve things. Labour have chosen to **not** use the power of the state to invest in the future and provision quality public services. That's damning. Sure, they'll obviously be better than the Tories, that's a given. They're truly shite on nearly every level. But Starmer and Reeves are actively pushing the same failed economic ideology of "no money" that led to Austerity. It's deeply concerning and if they're lying and they'll about turn and realise they're being economically illiterate after the election then that's also concerning due to how brazenly dishonest it would be. But I think they're earnest when they incorrectly promote their fiscal rules as being some kind of good economic management.
same on brexit too (as printed in black and white in the manifesto and reiterated tonight). it seems to be a consistent theme across the debates that every āisnāt brexit a bit shit, what will you do about itā question gets a round of applause for the questioner. opinion polls show an appetite for some sort of change. and yet you really canāt tell the two parties apart when it comes to any future relationship with the EU. the country seems to have moved on from 2019 but the two main parties have not
Which members of the team do you believe in and why? I understand the winning focus, and I sincerely hope you're right because they will win. I just don't see why they've released a manifesto that's completely lacking in ideas or, ironically, change