Snapshot of _(@YouGov) SNAP POLL/ Who performed best overall in tonight's debate? Rishi Sunak: 50% Keir Starmer: 50%_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1806064283417301213)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[And yet......](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1806068008407683294)
Who do BBC debate viewers think came across as more...
Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 50%
Likeable: Sunak 33% / Starmer 52%
In touch: Sunak 18% / Starmer 63%
Prime Ministerial: Sunak 41% / Starmer 42%
These are more important than the headline numbers. If people don't trust or like, Sunak, nor believe that he understands their lives, then it really doesn't matter how effectively he debated Srarmer.
The best he can hope for and what he seemed to be angling for was some of the Reform vote.
It's more important to you. Other people obviously have different priorities judging by the headline numbers. And it's the headline number that affect how people vote.
....but the headline number was a draw! Using your basic assumption - that the overall score is all important, then the debate has a neutral impact upon voting intention. So what then will people look at to help them to decide their vote?
I don't agree with your basic assumption either but your conclusion is not even the logical outcome of that assumption!
Its like Rory Stewart said, if you watch the debate with a marking scheme, you will mark Sunak higher, because he made his points clear, succinctly and often. The problem with that is that to any normal person he comes across as a complete bellend; so it is perfectly understandable why someone may think Sunak "won" the debate while thinking Starmer would be the better PM
The same way Farage keeps somehow coming across as a populist favourite; not what he's saying but how he's saying it appeals to the population, despite what he's saying approaching peak Hitler at a startling pace.
Starker suffers from too long in chambers having to make points to people with substance and a preset approach.
That & does anyone trust a word Sunak says???
The repeated use of Surrender to Labour, seems more a line to use with his colleagues than the general public, who are crying out for a change of government for quite sometime now, kicking the tories out is anything but surrender
I think historically the incumbent has always done well on the "prime ministerial" question as being the prime minister makes you seem "prime ministerial" essentially by definition.
I do wonder how people interpret the question as it's a bit of a weird one. I could definitely imagine some people thinking they're being asked whether the person is the prime minister. I think I would have to answer "I don't know" because I really don't know what it's supposed to be getting at.
Well I'm sure most people here would say that the last 5+ Prime Ministers have been untrustworthy, unlikeable, and out of touch. So in that sense, having those qualities would make you more Prime Ministerial...
> Prime Ministerial: Sunak 41% / Starmer 42%
I always dislike this question because one is the prime minister lol. You have to ponder too much about whether the person asked is saying they look like past PMs, an ideal PM, something else? If we're comparing to recent PMs, I don't think Keir Starmer is Prime Ministerial because he wasn't fined for partying during lockdown, hasn't crashed the economy, and hasn't been suspended for lying to parliament. He's better than that.
Why not just ask who they think seems the better leader.
Indeed on that basis it's fairly impressive that the guy who hasn't done the job of being Prime Minister comes across more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister
There was a fantastic video by Vsauce I think that went through a study which aimed to prove the public vote for leaders purely based on their physical appearance. The test was they showed a number of test subjects photos of different leaders and their opponents in counties they would not be aware of. They were then asked to say who they thought won solely based on a picture of the candidates. Subjects were able to correctly answer the vast majority of times (if you find the video you can try it yourself, I remember I guessed all correctly which was a bit scary).
Somewhat a silly example but I do think there is some truth that people choose a leader based on their "gut" as opposed to any logical decision on policies. That would explain why you end up with weird quirks like the data above.
I can't seem to find it either, I assume it must have been an aside during a longer video not about that specific experiment.
I am pretty sure the below is the study though. They conducted it with children and adults. Both were correct over 70% of the time with their choices.
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/why-children-can-predict-the-outcomes-of-elections-simply-by-looking-at-candidates-faces/
I don't know how anyone can like a guy who screams at their opponent, repeatedly lies and knows people are aware that he is. Starmer pushed through pretty calm and collected mostly. Even putting Sunak in his place a couple of times for being an ass. If I had watched only this debate not knowing which side either of them were on, I'd fucking despise Sunak based off tonight alone.
Sorry to be pedantic, it's likely most of the same 33%, but the statistics alone don't mean this is the same group of people. It is possible (although highly improbable) that the people who find him more likeable and the people who find him more trustworthy have no overlap!
Completely. I mean the Rwanda scheme is shit, will cost more money than it will save and is against human rights but there needs to be a better comeback than just “smash the gangs”.
I actually agree with Starmer that is the way forward but he needed more detail behind it.
He started talking about how he had done it before and the moderator cut him off saying that is a very different thing before he could finish the comparison (smashing terrorist cells is harder than smashing trafficking gangs).
The great problem is Starmer never actually answered the question of what he'd do with illegal migrants in the country other than repeating 'the claims need to be processed'
EDIT: I think he did mention sending people back to where they'd come from at one point too, I forgot that
Nor did Rishi.
He said “Send them to Rwanda” even though the notion of sending 50k people to Rwanda is ludicrous. As is the notion of sending a dozen and that dissuading the rest of the tens of thousands coming over.
Keir’s made sense but was poorly put across. Rishi’s was stupid but had some solid screech and tetch behind it.
Dishonest? It was a radical shift of policy on the spot. From "some will go to Rwanda to deter others [at exorbitant cost]" to "all boat arrivals will go to Rwanda [even if we spend our entire budget on it]"
It sounded like he wants to deport literally everyone, whereas before I thought the point of the Rwanda plan was to send maybe 300 max and hope the other 49,700 get the idea?
He didn’t even say all would go, Starmer directly asked him if all 50k would go and he said a handful of planes, so unless he’s about to announce a much larger plane with a much larger capacity, he had no answer - but shouting over Starmer works by making people miss it.
And Rishi shouldn't have been able to get away with that totally unprovable anecdote about 2 migrants "saying" they weren't crossing the channel because they didn't want to go to Rwanda. Laughable!
Didn't get a chance. But the answer is to actually process all the applications quickly (unlike what is happening now) so they either get deported back to the country they came from or they stay here and can work rather than costing £££££ being kept in the hotel at the taxpayers expense.
Starmer should have brought up what James Sunderland said about the Rwanda policy.
[Home secretary’s aide says Rwanda policy is ‘crap’, in leaked recording](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/23/home-secretary-aide-says-rwanda-policy-is-crap-in-leaked-recording)
>An aide to the home secretary and Conservative parliamentary candidate said the government’s Rwanda scheme is “crap”, in a leaked recording.
>
>In the recording first obtained by the BBC, Sunderland, who is James Cleverly’s parliamentary private secretary, said: “The policy is crap, OK? It’s crap,” before adding: “I have been part of this for the last two years, and I’m immersed in it and I probably shouldn’t say too much.”
I'm actually quite worried about private sector pensions (SIPPs etc.) being ramraided by a future government. It just feels like we've had that too good for too long and an obvious, glaring loophole that everyone is taking advantage of.
It is quite possible we'll have an annual tax free allowance on pensions similar to ISA limits, as a lot of other countries do it that way.
I could see a flat tax relief on pension contributions or 20% or 25% instead of it being linked to your marginal rate of tax.
Labour were also denying they'd get of the 25% tax free lump sum, it would be a very brave government that scrapped that but it would be a Wealth tax of sorts.
That Labour have no hard plans about what they do to tax thresholds in two years time is not surprising. They can decide that in 1-year and 10 months time.
The problem is it wasn’t silence, it was avoidance, waffle, and prevarication done badly. It’s clearly not going to change the outcome of the election dramatically, but it still wasn’t well handled.
The Tories keep trying to provoke Labour into long term statements. Some of which will certainly become lies because the future isn't 100% predictable.
The Tory answer the same questions because they don't care they are lying.
I don’t get why you’re getting funny about this. I’m simply saying I think Starmer could have handled that line of attack better than he did. He came across either indecisive or evasive depending on your perspective. Generally I think he’s done very well, but on that he didn’t. I don’t get why you think that’s such a controversial statement.
Yeah I’m watching on catch-up and Starmer only repeats “we need to process the migrants” which will be perceived as such a nothing response compared to “send them somewhere else”
Starmer always get caught in the trap of wanting to give a thorough wordy answer over getting the point across in the 10 uninterrupted seconds you get
Idk the notion of it taking 300 years to send everyone to Rwanda made me laugh out loud, I think Kier at the very least got across how ridiculous the whole policy is.
As far as I can tell, Starmer's illegal immigration policy is a de facto amnesty policy where "processing" is just rubber stamping all claims as legitimate.
We already have a 75% approval rate but with this soft approach you'd incentivise even more illegal immigration.
It's not a sensible approach. It's not an amnesty. It's just looking at this situation sensibly.
Rwanda deal is literally for a couple of hundred people...and taking the same number back in return.
There are 10s of thousands of people in the UK already that crossed asking for asylum.
They are stuck in limbo because they haven't been processed, the holding facilities are full, hence why they're in hotels, awaiting decisions.
This is mainly because the Home Office has a huge backlog because it's been run badly.
Saying we will fix this by sorting out the home office to process these people to either deport or grant asylum and get them out of hotels is actually what will happen. Either with Tory or Labour government.
The Rwanda plan is not going to send tens of thousands of people out of the country.
But that's missing the point. People don't want them processed if it means granting asylum claims. That's rewarding behaviour that infuriates the public.
Which is why Starmer's answer on the debate tonight was so weak.
Processing the claims is the first step to deporting people back to the country they came from. The alternative is to have them staying in hotels forever at huge taxpayer expense. I feel Starmer got so close to making this point but just got interrupted over and over.
Honestly, his plan is the only sensible one. The problem is sensible is kinda dry and boring and takes time to explain rather than just being a simple but incorrect soundbite of "we'll send them all to Rwanda". Tories don't want to actually fix the problem as having immigration problems gives them something to rail against to get votes. They're the ones who reduced the number of people processing applications by an enormous amount, going from 2 week processing time to 2 years.
If the case is genuine, claiming asylum in a country the claimant feels safe in is a basic human right.
The only way to find out if a case is genuine or fake is to process it, and process it quickly.
If genuine, asylum granted. If fake, deported.
The only way to actually solve the problem is to talk to the French and other European governments like adults, then come up with a unified Europe wide approach. I suspect that that would have the "BREXIT UNDONE LABOUR BAD" crowd going mental though. Which is why the only sensible solution can't happen and why the problem is going to continue.
A unified European wide solution that prevents illegal immigrants from claiming asylum in Europe?
Or just some agreement to take a certain amount in line with the population / land mass?
"Illegal immigrants" is not a thing in many jurisdictions, but yes, a Europe-wide solution to solve the migration crisis is needed.
It doesn't help that Russia and Belarus are weaponising this, by forcing migrants across their territories to EU border fences, mind.
> "Illegal immigrants" is not a thing in many jurisdictions
Can you name a single country on earth that doesn't restrict the rights of non-citizens to immigrate?
Do you not understand what I wrote? Most countries automatically restrict the rights of non-citizens to immigrate. If you attempt to immigrate without a visa or overstay your visa you have immigrated illegally - you are an illegal immigrant.
I can't think of a single country on earth where this doesn't apply.
There's a good amount of people that would approach a debate the same way Rishi would, constantly shouting their nonsense over the other person to make their point, so they see Rishi do it, see themselves in Rishi (oo er) and think he's doing a good job.
Rishi really fumbled the bag setting the election date such that all the campaigning would coincide w the Euros football. Who is watching these debates?
But surely the Euros and football is more likely to be watched by younger people? Also more youngsters with plans in the summer?
Older people who have just been psychologically skullf**d by Rishi telling them their pensions and taxes are going to go up will turn up (as history shows).
It was all very unedifying and I walked out after 25 minutes because Sunak kept interrupting and the moderator was too weak. I think they should have their microphones shut off once they’ve answered the question to allow their opponent to answer, and then debate.
I doubt this will shift the dial much, if at all.
I suppose he’s trying to look calm and dignified, but that allowed Sunak to rant over him. That wasn’t a great advert for democracy and voters deserved better from the participants, the moderator, and the format.
[Conservative 2019 voters who viewed the #BBCdebate think Sunak won by 82% to 18%](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1806065663242293608)
Tories will be happy with this number.
I’d imagine CCHQ are pretty pleased with that debate.
YouGov have said, prior to the debate, two thirds of those they polled expected Starmer to win.
A 50/50 split seems a good result given those prior expectations.
I'm sure they are, not sure it will make much difference though with just over a week to go, but I do think in a parallel Universe, with a different leader and Reform UK not splitting the right-wing vote, that this would not be a clear cut Labour victory.
Sunak did what William Lane Craig does, talked a lot of plausible nonsense that does not stand up to scrutiny but is hard to properly rebut in a debate format, especially this style of debate where the moderator cuts you off mid answer after laying the foundational premises and before you can get to the conclusion.
Poor from Starmer. Against Sunak it really should be an open goal. Too much waffle, not enough hope.
Sunak is lying, but he does it with confidence and it sounds vaguely plausible (if you're unaware of, or you ignore everything outside of the debate.), and more importantly assertive.
Keir spends his time either looking across at Rishi like a startled goldfish, weakly trying to interrupt, or sometimes getting to his point by way of stories of his old job.
>Keir spends his time either looking across at Rishi like a startled goldfish, weakly trying to interrupt
I didn't really see it that way personally. To me it seems like he's trying return to sensible politics rather than shouting over everyone stuff. It looked like there were mainly times he opened his mouth to call out lies etc but held himself for after Rishi had finished speaking.
I think this debate summed up the election: the majority of the country will be delighted to see the back of the Tories - but have zero faith in Starmer and no idea what he actually stands for or will do. It’s one thing being pragmatic etc. it’s another thing seeming for all the world to have no vision or long term plan or even any ideology to speak of which might hint the way he will play the cards.
This is why I feel the honeymoon period for Labour will be very short. Whatever Labour actually do is going to give off the vibe that they weren't being entirely honest. I get the impression that Labour's mission to just win the election is going to cost them in office.
I agree. Starmer looked like a rabbit in the headlights much of the time.
I am sick of hearing his father was a toolmaker.
Kept telling us he had run CPS , tried to give impression he had led investigations in mid Atlantic and Northern Ireland.
(He didn't)
But this was Starmer. All about him and the past.
A grim performance. He will not be happy.
Sunak was better than he has been, but i dont like his talking over Starmer
Did you watch the same program? Sir kier doesn’t talk over people, he isn’t rude and he waits his turn because he is fair. He didn’t say a single lie unlike riski rishy, who repeated unproven, unfunded and blatant lies for 90 minutes.
Also how do you finish your point when the interviewer cuts you off multiple times and lets your opposition speak freely the entire time?
Read what i said not what you think i said.
I complained about Rishi speaking over Starmer
Starmer put out a lot of guff, father toolmaker, CPS, Northern Ireland. Useless backeard stuff irrelevant to the questions. Looking backeard not forward
Just padding. His answers on excessive migration were awful.
I am not a Sunak fan. Do not support him but he won tonight
No you dont. You dont like an accurate analysis.
You are unable to be impartial.
No one could reasonably think that Starmer " Toolmaker CPS Nortern Ireland, Prosecutions etc was answering the questions.
Nobody could possibly.think Sunak, shouting over his opponent, was being "Prime Ministerial:.
((Which was one of the questions in the Yougov survey).
I keep on thinking a witty repost to "my father was a tool maker" would be something like "well he did make you".
I know it's not debate worthy, but give it time and I suspect it will become tabloid worthy. That is it Starmer doesn't drop the line asap.
Maybe tool isn't an insult in the UK. It definitely is in Ireland.
Starmer himself made this joke at the Labour conference a few years back. "My father was a toolmaker. And so, in a way, was Boris Johnson's." Rolling in the aisles, they were.
Yrs that joke has been done.
Misses the point. Hes not a bad guy. Just bland and incapable of being decisive. His bit on trzns stuff is ridiculous. Tied himself in lnots.
I think this debate summed up the election: the majority of the country will be delighted to see the back of the Tories - but have zero faith in Starmer and no idea what he actually stands for or will do. It’s one thing being pragmatic etc. it’s another thing seeming for all the world to have no vision or long term plan or even any ideology to speak of which might hint the way he will play the cards.
Honestly Kier should look at that and be happy. Sunak bullied his way through that debate and wouldn't allow Starmer to speak. Starmer was very stiff and not able to react to attacks.
Sunak only “bullied” to the extent that Starmer was useless in effectively countering many points. “Stiff” is an understatement. His centrist stance will win this election but he is an utter charisma vacuum who makes dull party leaders like Sunak, May and Corbyn look like bloody Elvis Presley by comparison. As soon as the honeymoon period is over, Labour’s poll lead will plummet with Starmer at the helm.
Here's the thing, there is still a week to go and many more betting scandals to come out. By the date that matters, Polling Day, this debate will have been forgotten and people will fall back on how they feel which is overwhelmingly about ditching the Tories
Rishi talked a load of crap, but he exploited Starmer's inability to give a concise answer.
It sounded like Starmer was waffling when he was actually adding context a lot of the time. He came across quite fake, imo.
50% when polling at 15% is a win. Let's see if it changes anything.
In a few days nobody's going to remember this just like they didn't remember the last one. If anything I'm seeing less publicity about this debate so I'd be surprised to see it talked about past tomorrow still given that it's the last week of an election campaign and the Tory betting scandal is dominating the news rn.
I know they say don't ever speak too soon but the Tories are slipping into third in more and more polls, and they're 20-25 points behind Labour in most polls. Whatever impact this debate has, there's simply not enough time for Sunak to turn this around. If he comes out on top from here it would be the greatest electoral upset ever, bar none.
Starmer can't give a concise answer because labours strategy is "say nothing and try to appeal to absolutely everyone (except the far left)". As soon as he starts giving honest, direct answer, that strategy falls apart.
Agreed. His startegy is working though.
Whether it will work once he's in power is more doubtful. I see a Macron type administration that peters along, unable to do anything, but still in power despite being massively unpopular.
Yep definitely a good strategy if the goal is just to get elected. Not so good if you actually want to govern in a way that might win you reelection in 5 years.
Part of me wonders if his reason for Lords reform is that he knows the Salisbury Doctrine won't apply to a bunch of stuff that he actually needs to do, and he doesn't want a protracted and embarrassing stand-off with the lords over stuff like council tax reform, which he is obviously planning on doing but refuses to put in the manifesto because reasons.
Sunak probably would have come out ahead of Starmer by quite some distance because in the details of the debate he did better
The part where he kept dropping the same thing every minute is what would have exhausted viewers and turned them off
'dont surrender x to Labour'
'labour will raise your taxes'
You can't say this quite literally at the end of the every sentence, its psychotic.
What the hell happened with Starmer. The immigration section was apocalyptic. I could swear he's not been this bad in the past? Normally he bangs on about properly funding the home office so we can process applications quickly and deport as necessary. Did he just fuck up or has something changed that means he can't say this any more?
Why couldn’t Starmer say that those waiting on a decision will be processed according to the regular procedure and receive a decision on their right to stay in the UK as per the law? Starmer sometimes looks like he’s in shock when faced with a simple question which he should be able to give a reasonable answer to and would make Sunak sound like a lunatic.
The fact it's even a draw is ridiculous, any decent politician would make mince meat of Sunak, Blair would've had him on toast. Starmer waffles and stutters unable to get his point across, quite incredible for a Barrister.
Assuming the right vote is split, which holds up from people I know who voted Tory in 2019;
We can safely assume the 50% for Labour is largely going to them. 50% of the Tory side in the debate? That doesn't seem a safe assumption when every previously Tory voter I know says they're voting for Reform.
That also discounts the centre-ish voting Lib Dem because the Tories are too right and Labour are too left for them on the basis that Labour will walk it anyway. Throw in a few middle class Green votes and it's going to throw up some big surprises on the night.
For the snap poll to be 50:50 it means a significant number of those people who have said the will not be voting Tories were impressed. That means Sunak changed their mind, at least for the evening it went from 40-20 to 35-35. Whether that’s enough to change their mind when it comes to actually voting is another matter.
Note that the YouGov Snap Poll for the first debate had Sunak at 51% and Starmer at 49%, larger polls from other panels the day after gave Starmer a much bigger lead. And it also wasn't reflected in GE polling.
Maybe. But politics is so tribal that people will view the debate through tinted glasses and make their judgements on “performance” accordingly. For Sunak to be near Starmer with that in mind is still a relative success.
No, the YouGov question is always:
>**Leaving aside your own party preference**, who do you think performed best overall in tonight's debate?
Based on past debates, this seems to make significant difference - ITV one showed evens with the qualifier and massive Starmer win on another pollster without the qualifier.
As I say, they seemed to last time.
[Yougov with the qualifier got 46-45-9 for Sunak.](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49618-general-election-2024-itv-debate-snap-poll)
[Svanta without qualifier got 39-44-17 for Starmer](https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676)
That assumes they abided by it last time, too. In the famously tribal world of political opinions, I think it’s fair to say plenty of people will not be able to leave their party preferences aside as easily as that.
You’re trying to make it too binary, I’m taking degrees. The point is both those previous polls were much closer than the election polls. My opinion is that writing a sentence asking people to put party preference aside does not magically make everyone put party preferences aside - especially not subconsciously. There will be a gradient where some people will be able to do it more than others but *on average* the perception of who did best will still be weighted towards people’s existing political preferences. I think it’s naive to expect that the qualifier removes all (or even most) of people’s bias.
That means - all else being equal I would expect a perfect 50:50 performance to be weighted towards the election polls. Putting it the reverse way, if there’s a big difference in the election polls and you see a much smaller difference in the debate polls then I suggest that’s a sign the person from the lagging party performed better then the other. Even if you can show the qualifier did have *some* effect.
Essentially, there are broadly 3 options:
1. The qualifier completely removes bias so we can interpret the debate polls at face value - I don’t think this is a reasonable expectation.
2. The qualifier *partially* removes bias so we can interpret the debate poll *relative* to the election polls to get an idea of who really performed better. Of course it’s not easy to know how partially the qualifier removes bias so it’s not easy to quantify.
3. Snap debate polls are meaningless
I think (1) is entirely naive, I think probably (3) is closest to the truth. If I was pushed I’d say reality was between (2) and (3), which means - to repeat the point - it’s probably fair to say that when the debate polls are closer than election polls then the lagging party’s debater probably performed better. How much better is hard to say given it’s impossible to know how partial the qualifier effect is.
I want what your smoking lmao (especially with that username). Starmer did his job of not being utterly obliterated in this debate, it's not like he needs to be on the attack at sunak in these debates to aim for 500/550 seats.
Most people have already made up their minds.. and let's be honest most of the undecideds that will vote won't have watched it tonight anyway
Sunak needed Starmer to drop an absolute howler that will be replayed in the media over and over afterwards...and even then the Tories would still probably be comfortably behind
Did he though?
It seemed to me that Sunak's 'surrender' jibes were aimed at Reform voters more than Labour voters. A continuation of the vote Reform, get Starmer campaign. Sunak making tax & immigration his headlines, ain't the best way to attract Labour voters.
I agree he just came across really desperate for something to stick. After an hour of him yapping I’m sure a lot of people have come away a bit annoyed at him.
Starmer couldn't answer a single question properly and can't seem to give any clear plans or policies. He kept saying generalised waffly phrases like 'smash the gangs' which Sunak countered brilliantly.
I disagree. At 20 points up your priorities are different. He doesn't need to sell policy, that's already done. What he achieved tonight was reinforce peoples misgivings about Sunak on trust & likeability. The poll results show he achieved that comfortably.
He didn’t really counter them brilliantly though - if your voting because immigration the you want an answer to immigration and if you paid attention during that debate, having just said Starmer would surrender the borders and send nobody to Rwanda, Sunak proceeded to refuse to commit to removing most of the people to Rwanda and instead committed to a handful of planes.
He was trying to win back Reform voters not Labour voters and he couldn’t even manage that.
Thus backing up the question asked "Are you really the best that the Conservatives and Labour can do?" posing the question that I have asked on a number of times "Where, in the grand scheme of British politics, does it say that the leader of the party with the most seats automatically becomes Prime Minister, where in other countries the Prime Minister is elected by the whole membership of the House, the largest party putting forward a nominee"
If one party has a clear majority they can form a government. Not much the other parties can do about that. If not they negotiate with other MP's to get a majority.
If the MP's of the majority party decide to change things they can "cross the floor of the house" or use their parties internal rules to change who is party leader. Evidence from other GE's is the voters hate it when a party does that. And usually vote them out at the next GE. If the new leader immediately calls a GE (as Boris did) they might win it. If not (as Sunak didn't) looks like he's going to lose...
Can someone explain to me what Labours plans actually are? I've only seen a few clips from Starmer from tonights debate, but have watched quiet a few of the others, and it really feels like he doesn't have any plans.
I want to want to vote for Labour, but every time I see Starmer talk it feels like he's clueless.
I'm pretty sure he's mentioned Liz Truss more then he's mentioned Sunak himself, which I don't get cause Sunak was constantly saying that what Liz Truss would do would be shit.
I just don't get what I would be voting for with Labour other then "you aren't the tories"
Nationalised rail, new government backed Energy business to compete with other energy companies, crackdown on gangs running illegal migration routes, 40,000 new homes (willing to change planning laws), cutting NHS waiting lists by employing more staff particularly mental health staff are just some policies I can think of
The energy thing actually sonds like a good idea I can get behind, I'd forgotten that one. Maybe nationalised rails too
The rest of it just sounds like nonsense, he's regularly voted against bills to crack down on gangs, every goverment says they will build new homes, and NHS staff dont appear out of the blue, people don't want to go work in the NSH as much anymore, because people know its shit, its the same with teachers, I don't get where these people to be hired come from.
Well thats the gamble with manifestos parties can basically say what they want. For me, this is where the last 14 years of the Tories come in. I would rather anyone but them and I think that is a good reason to vote labour.
"anyone but them" is probably the worst possible reason to vote for a party.
If you don't actually want labour, don't vote for them, the torries really don't stnad a chance this cycle, its a great chance to vote for a party you believe in
You mean the manifesto that mentions the Torries more then it does Labour in the intro?
The one with key promises but next to nothing on how they will actually get done.
I read it.
Well like it or not, that's the most detailed answer you will get on Labour's plans.
I don't know what made you think some random person on Reddit will know more.
Labour doesn't have detailed plans for 5 years. Because they aren't willing to lie by claiming they can predict 5 years into the future.
The Tories have plans for 5 years because they are willing to lie. If you think the Tories are going to come close to all their plans you should look at their past record.
You should look at Labours past record too then...
I am fine with people having plans and failing at them, its crazy to not have a plan and they are going to be elected goverment.
Blair & brown are long gone. So not relevant to Starmer.
In case you haven't noticed the Tories have created a complete mess. Going to take a while to even identify it all. let alone fix it.
Reforms to the planning system, use of certain parts of green belt land, industrial strategy council, railway nationalisation, Great British energy, faster transition to net zero, more money on joint intelligence ops vs smuggling gangs, increased spending on HO to process applications at pace, independent ethics commissioner for parliament that can open its own investigations, cutting off second jobs for most MPs, rolling back union laws to 2010, big workers rights package, bringing forward leasehold plans Tories abandoned, tenant rights packages, government backed scheme to avoid deposits for first time home buyers, utilising currently unused private capacity to help bring down waiting lists in hospitals more quickly (alongside investments in more scanners and well paid overtime), social care minimum wage (currently they end up getting paid less than minimum wage because of rules on how their hours are calculated) as the first step to a social care service... to name a few.
He is either clueless or he does have plans but does not want to share any of it with the electorate. I will never vote Conservative, but Sunak seems like a straight forward human being. The more of Starmer I see the less I like him. His only quality that ever comes through is his self professed ruthlessness.
Sunak is literally selling a plan on illegal immigration that doesn't exist - Rwanda doesn't have the capacity necessary to act as a deterrent. How is that straightforward? He just says rubbish with a straight face.
Rishi got the most claps from the audience. The problem with Keir was that he just wanted to go on about the fact that life under the Tories isn't working but couldn't really answer how he was going to fix it.
I thought Rishi came off better.
Labour are going to inherit a - finally - growing economy, and take all the credit for the next few years.
And then our taxes will rise and we’ll want them out too.
Snapshot of _(@YouGov) SNAP POLL/ Who performed best overall in tonight's debate? Rishi Sunak: 50% Keir Starmer: 50%_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1806064283417301213) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1806064283417301213) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[And yet......](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1806068008407683294) Who do BBC debate viewers think came across as more... Trustworthy: Sunak 39% / Starmer 50% Likeable: Sunak 33% / Starmer 52% In touch: Sunak 18% / Starmer 63% Prime Ministerial: Sunak 41% / Starmer 42%
These are more important than the headline numbers. If people don't trust or like, Sunak, nor believe that he understands their lives, then it really doesn't matter how effectively he debated Srarmer. The best he can hope for and what he seemed to be angling for was some of the Reform vote.
It's more important to you. Other people obviously have different priorities judging by the headline numbers. And it's the headline number that affect how people vote.
....but the headline number was a draw! Using your basic assumption - that the overall score is all important, then the debate has a neutral impact upon voting intention. So what then will people look at to help them to decide their vote? I don't agree with your basic assumption either but your conclusion is not even the logical outcome of that assumption!
Its like Rory Stewart said, if you watch the debate with a marking scheme, you will mark Sunak higher, because he made his points clear, succinctly and often. The problem with that is that to any normal person he comes across as a complete bellend; so it is perfectly understandable why someone may think Sunak "won" the debate while thinking Starmer would be the better PM
The same way Farage keeps somehow coming across as a populist favourite; not what he's saying but how he's saying it appeals to the population, despite what he's saying approaching peak Hitler at a startling pace. Starker suffers from too long in chambers having to make points to people with substance and a preset approach.
That & does anyone trust a word Sunak says??? The repeated use of Surrender to Labour, seems more a line to use with his colleagues than the general public, who are crying out for a change of government for quite sometime now, kicking the tories out is anything but surrender
Interested by the at least 3% of people who thought sunak was less trustworthy, less likeable and less in touch but more prime minister material
I think historically the incumbent has always done well on the "prime ministerial" question as being the prime minister makes you seem "prime ministerial" essentially by definition. I do wonder how people interpret the question as it's a bit of a weird one. I could definitely imagine some people thinking they're being asked whether the person is the prime minister. I think I would have to answer "I don't know" because I really don't know what it's supposed to be getting at.
Well I'm sure most people here would say that the last 5+ Prime Ministers have been untrustworthy, unlikeable, and out of touch. So in that sense, having those qualities would make you more Prime Ministerial...
If the last 5+ had done anything that was great success...? IIRC Boris is the only one that did anything well. And Sunak helped remove Boris.
It's likely because he was called it so in people's mind he is seen as it
> Prime Ministerial: Sunak 41% / Starmer 42% I always dislike this question because one is the prime minister lol. You have to ponder too much about whether the person asked is saying they look like past PMs, an ideal PM, something else? If we're comparing to recent PMs, I don't think Keir Starmer is Prime Ministerial because he wasn't fined for partying during lockdown, hasn't crashed the economy, and hasn't been suspended for lying to parliament. He's better than that. Why not just ask who they think seems the better leader.
Indeed on that basis it's fairly impressive that the guy who hasn't done the job of being Prime Minister comes across more like a Prime Minister than the Prime Minister
There was a fantastic video by Vsauce I think that went through a study which aimed to prove the public vote for leaders purely based on their physical appearance. The test was they showed a number of test subjects photos of different leaders and their opponents in counties they would not be aware of. They were then asked to say who they thought won solely based on a picture of the candidates. Subjects were able to correctly answer the vast majority of times (if you find the video you can try it yourself, I remember I guessed all correctly which was a bit scary). Somewhat a silly example but I do think there is some truth that people choose a leader based on their "gut" as opposed to any logical decision on policies. That would explain why you end up with weird quirks like the data above.
Would be interested in watching that, got a link or any reminders/titles? Cant find it.
I can't seem to find it either, I assume it must have been an aside during a longer video not about that specific experiment. I am pretty sure the below is the study though. They conducted it with children and adults. Both were correct over 70% of the time with their choices. https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/why-children-can-predict-the-outcomes-of-elections-simply-by-looking-at-candidates-faces/
Thanks anyhoo
Sunak messed up big. That snap poll will not be reflected in tomorrow's polls.
I don't know how anyone can like a guy who screams at their opponent, repeatedly lies and knows people are aware that he is. Starmer pushed through pretty calm and collected mostly. Even putting Sunak in his place a couple of times for being an ass. If I had watched only this debate not knowing which side either of them were on, I'd fucking despise Sunak based off tonight alone.
[удалено]
Sorry to be pedantic, it's likely most of the same 33%, but the statistics alone don't mean this is the same group of people. It is possible (although highly improbable) that the people who find him more likeable and the people who find him more trustworthy have no overlap!
[удалено]
For sure, I was being (unnecessarily) pedantic, it's definitely the same people. But I couldn't let it go, sorry!
Loving the cynicism of the people who felt Sunak was less trustworthy, less likeable, and less in touch, but somehow more prime ministerial.
Well, he literally is the prime minister.
How the fuck can he lose every question yet is nearly tied on Prime Ministerial? W.t.f.
Because he is the prime minister. Some people might not understand the question, I don’t either
Proof that you can chat a load of shit for 90 minutes but as long as you scaremonger you'll convince half the population you're right
Starmer absolutely fucked the immigration questions
Completely. I mean the Rwanda scheme is shit, will cost more money than it will save and is against human rights but there needs to be a better comeback than just “smash the gangs”. I actually agree with Starmer that is the way forward but he needed more detail behind it.
He started talking about how he had done it before and the moderator cut him off saying that is a very different thing before he could finish the comparison (smashing terrorist cells is harder than smashing trafficking gangs).
I noticed this too, she did seem rather biased. so did the audience.
The great problem is Starmer never actually answered the question of what he'd do with illegal migrants in the country other than repeating 'the claims need to be processed' EDIT: I think he did mention sending people back to where they'd come from at one point too, I forgot that
Nor did Rishi. He said “Send them to Rwanda” even though the notion of sending 50k people to Rwanda is ludicrous. As is the notion of sending a dozen and that dissuading the rest of the tens of thousands coming over. Keir’s made sense but was poorly put across. Rishi’s was stupid but had some solid screech and tetch behind it.
Yes, I should have noted that. I felt Rishi was being dishonest by going along with the idea that all migrants would be sent to Rwanda.
Dishonest? It was a radical shift of policy on the spot. From "some will go to Rwanda to deter others [at exorbitant cost]" to "all boat arrivals will go to Rwanda [even if we spend our entire budget on it]"
Except the policy isn't actually shifting, just his words - hence dishonesty Although tbh I'm still not 100% clear on the policy
It sounded like he wants to deport literally everyone, whereas before I thought the point of the Rwanda plan was to send maybe 300 max and hope the other 49,700 get the idea?
He didn’t even say all would go, Starmer directly asked him if all 50k would go and he said a handful of planes, so unless he’s about to announce a much larger plane with a much larger capacity, he had no answer - but shouting over Starmer works by making people miss it.
And Rishi shouldn't have been able to get away with that totally unprovable anecdote about 2 migrants "saying" they weren't crossing the channel because they didn't want to go to Rwanda. Laughable!
Didn't get a chance. But the answer is to actually process all the applications quickly (unlike what is happening now) so they either get deported back to the country they came from or they stay here and can work rather than costing £££££ being kept in the hotel at the taxpayers expense.
Starmer should have brought up what James Sunderland said about the Rwanda policy. [Home secretary’s aide says Rwanda policy is ‘crap’, in leaked recording](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/23/home-secretary-aide-says-rwanda-policy-is-crap-in-leaked-recording) >An aide to the home secretary and Conservative parliamentary candidate said the government’s Rwanda scheme is “crap”, in a leaked recording. > >In the recording first obtained by the BBC, Sunderland, who is James Cleverly’s parliamentary private secretary, said: “The policy is crap, OK? It’s crap,” before adding: “I have been part of this for the last two years, and I’m immersed in it and I probably shouldn’t say too much.”
And the pension question.
I'm actually quite worried about private sector pensions (SIPPs etc.) being ramraided by a future government. It just feels like we've had that too good for too long and an obvious, glaring loophole that everyone is taking advantage of. It is quite possible we'll have an annual tax free allowance on pensions similar to ISA limits, as a lot of other countries do it that way.
I could see a flat tax relief on pension contributions or 20% or 25% instead of it being linked to your marginal rate of tax. Labour were also denying they'd get of the 25% tax free lump sum, it would be a very brave government that scrapped that but it would be a Wealth tax of sorts.
That Labour have no hard plans about what they do to tax thresholds in two years time is not surprising. They can decide that in 1-year and 10 months time.
Indeed, but that doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t answer that attack line from Sunak well.
Nor does it change the fact that most voters have seen that everything Sunak says is a lie. Silence is better than lies.
The problem is it wasn’t silence, it was avoidance, waffle, and prevarication done badly. It’s clearly not going to change the outcome of the election dramatically, but it still wasn’t well handled.
The Tories keep trying to provoke Labour into long term statements. Some of which will certainly become lies because the future isn't 100% predictable. The Tory answer the same questions because they don't care they are lying.
I don’t get why you’re getting funny about this. I’m simply saying I think Starmer could have handled that line of attack better than he did. He came across either indecisive or evasive depending on your perspective. Generally I think he’s done very well, but on that he didn’t. I don’t get why you think that’s such a controversial statement.
I don't agree. Any more detailed response would have been exactly what the Tories wanted.
I cringed. I know what he meant but did not come across at all
Yeah I’m watching on catch-up and Starmer only repeats “we need to process the migrants” which will be perceived as such a nothing response compared to “send them somewhere else” Starmer always get caught in the trap of wanting to give a thorough wordy answer over getting the point across in the 10 uninterrupted seconds you get
Idk the notion of it taking 300 years to send everyone to Rwanda made me laugh out loud, I think Kier at the very least got across how ridiculous the whole policy is.
As far as I can tell, Starmer's illegal immigration policy is a de facto amnesty policy where "processing" is just rubber stamping all claims as legitimate. We already have a 75% approval rate but with this soft approach you'd incentivise even more illegal immigration.
It's not a sensible approach. It's not an amnesty. It's just looking at this situation sensibly. Rwanda deal is literally for a couple of hundred people...and taking the same number back in return. There are 10s of thousands of people in the UK already that crossed asking for asylum. They are stuck in limbo because they haven't been processed, the holding facilities are full, hence why they're in hotels, awaiting decisions. This is mainly because the Home Office has a huge backlog because it's been run badly. Saying we will fix this by sorting out the home office to process these people to either deport or grant asylum and get them out of hotels is actually what will happen. Either with Tory or Labour government. The Rwanda plan is not going to send tens of thousands of people out of the country.
But that's missing the point. People don't want them processed if it means granting asylum claims. That's rewarding behaviour that infuriates the public. Which is why Starmer's answer on the debate tonight was so weak.
Processing the claims is the first step to deporting people back to the country they came from. The alternative is to have them staying in hotels forever at huge taxpayer expense. I feel Starmer got so close to making this point but just got interrupted over and over.
If he deports in large numbers then he'll be getting a 2nd term with ease.
Honestly, his plan is the only sensible one. The problem is sensible is kinda dry and boring and takes time to explain rather than just being a simple but incorrect soundbite of "we'll send them all to Rwanda". Tories don't want to actually fix the problem as having immigration problems gives them something to rail against to get votes. They're the ones who reduced the number of people processing applications by an enormous amount, going from 2 week processing time to 2 years.
If the case is genuine, claiming asylum in a country the claimant feels safe in is a basic human right. The only way to find out if a case is genuine or fake is to process it, and process it quickly. If genuine, asylum granted. If fake, deported.
The only way to actually solve the problem is to talk to the French and other European governments like adults, then come up with a unified Europe wide approach. I suspect that that would have the "BREXIT UNDONE LABOUR BAD" crowd going mental though. Which is why the only sensible solution can't happen and why the problem is going to continue.
A unified European wide solution that prevents illegal immigrants from claiming asylum in Europe? Or just some agreement to take a certain amount in line with the population / land mass?
"Illegal immigrants" is not a thing in many jurisdictions, but yes, a Europe-wide solution to solve the migration crisis is needed. It doesn't help that Russia and Belarus are weaponising this, by forcing migrants across their territories to EU border fences, mind.
> "Illegal immigrants" is not a thing in many jurisdictions Can you name a single country on earth that doesn't restrict the rights of non-citizens to immigrate?
Non-citizen does not equal illegal immigrant. Nice goalpost shift.
Do you not understand what I wrote? Most countries automatically restrict the rights of non-citizens to immigrate. If you attempt to immigrate without a visa or overstay your visa you have immigrated illegally - you are an illegal immigrant. I can't think of a single country on earth where this doesn't apply.
There's a good amount of people that would approach a debate the same way Rishi would, constantly shouting their nonsense over the other person to make their point, so they see Rishi do it, see themselves in Rishi (oo er) and think he's doing a good job.
Only saw the second half but personally liked Starmer's demeanor a lot more.
Starmer did much better in the first half imo. Just wrecked Rishi on the first question about standards in politics.
Rishi really fumbled the bag setting the election date such that all the campaigning would coincide w the Euros football. Who is watching these debates?
Proof that Sunak doesn't do football: He thought watching England play would make people feel happier
Brutal.
But surely the Euros and football is more likely to be watched by younger people? Also more youngsters with plans in the summer? Older people who have just been psychologically skullf**d by Rishi telling them their pensions and taxes are going to go up will turn up (as history shows).
[удалено]
Not sure where you are but it was 30 degrees in London today…
It was a joke, old people will walk through snow, rain, and wind to vote. July 4th weather looks mild.
Only people I know watching these are utter bores. Most people have made their minds up long ago, and aren’t going to be swayed by this dross
I havent watched one with the quarters on 5th/6th so I won't be watching the fallout either
It was all very unedifying and I walked out after 25 minutes because Sunak kept interrupting and the moderator was too weak. I think they should have their microphones shut off once they’ve answered the question to allow their opponent to answer, and then debate. I doubt this will shift the dial much, if at all.
At least Starmer and Sunak aren’t going to debate each other ever again, not even at PMQs.
These have been a miserable set of debates. I couldn't watch any of them through to the end and I _like_ politics
Sunak gets away with the interruption becomes Starmer never says anything with any conviction.
I suppose he’s trying to look calm and dignified, but that allowed Sunak to rant over him. That wasn’t a great advert for democracy and voters deserved better from the participants, the moderator, and the format.
Simply put Keir just isn’t shutting Rishi down hard enough. Very bizarre, there must be a reason why.
At this point Labour have won. Better to retain your dignity and not lower the bar further than the tories already have when you’re winning anyway.
Or he is just a bit crap at these things
A little bit of A, a little bit of B
I suspect that it would look like bullying if anyone half competent pressed Sunak on his behaviour.
Focus groups don't want him to be nasty to the young Indian lad.
Strange. I actually thought Starmer did really well.
[Conservative 2019 voters who viewed the #BBCdebate think Sunak won by 82% to 18%](https://x.com/YouGov/status/1806065663242293608) Tories will be happy with this number.
I’d imagine CCHQ are pretty pleased with that debate. YouGov have said, prior to the debate, two thirds of those they polled expected Starmer to win. A 50/50 split seems a good result given those prior expectations.
I'm sure they are, not sure it will make much difference though with just over a week to go, but I do think in a parallel Universe, with a different leader and Reform UK not splitting the right-wing vote, that this would not be a clear cut Labour victory.
Sunak did what William Lane Craig does, talked a lot of plausible nonsense that does not stand up to scrutiny but is hard to properly rebut in a debate format, especially this style of debate where the moderator cuts you off mid answer after laying the foundational premises and before you can get to the conclusion.
Poor from Starmer. Against Sunak it really should be an open goal. Too much waffle, not enough hope. Sunak is lying, but he does it with confidence and it sounds vaguely plausible (if you're unaware of, or you ignore everything outside of the debate.), and more importantly assertive. Keir spends his time either looking across at Rishi like a startled goldfish, weakly trying to interrupt, or sometimes getting to his point by way of stories of his old job.
>Keir spends his time either looking across at Rishi like a startled goldfish, weakly trying to interrupt I didn't really see it that way personally. To me it seems like he's trying return to sensible politics rather than shouting over everyone stuff. It looked like there were mainly times he opened his mouth to call out lies etc but held himself for after Rishi had finished speaking.
I think this debate summed up the election: the majority of the country will be delighted to see the back of the Tories - but have zero faith in Starmer and no idea what he actually stands for or will do. It’s one thing being pragmatic etc. it’s another thing seeming for all the world to have no vision or long term plan or even any ideology to speak of which might hint the way he will play the cards.
This is why I feel the honeymoon period for Labour will be very short. Whatever Labour actually do is going to give off the vibe that they weren't being entirely honest. I get the impression that Labour's mission to just win the election is going to cost them in office.
I agree. Starmer looked like a rabbit in the headlights much of the time. I am sick of hearing his father was a toolmaker. Kept telling us he had run CPS , tried to give impression he had led investigations in mid Atlantic and Northern Ireland. (He didn't) But this was Starmer. All about him and the past. A grim performance. He will not be happy. Sunak was better than he has been, but i dont like his talking over Starmer
Did you watch the same program? Sir kier doesn’t talk over people, he isn’t rude and he waits his turn because he is fair. He didn’t say a single lie unlike riski rishy, who repeated unproven, unfunded and blatant lies for 90 minutes. Also how do you finish your point when the interviewer cuts you off multiple times and lets your opposition speak freely the entire time?
Read what i said not what you think i said. I complained about Rishi speaking over Starmer Starmer put out a lot of guff, father toolmaker, CPS, Northern Ireland. Useless backeard stuff irrelevant to the questions. Looking backeard not forward Just padding. His answers on excessive migration were awful. I am not a Sunak fan. Do not support him but he won tonight
Starmer beat Sunak in every poll question apart from appearing priministerial. That is the literal definition of Sunak 'losing'.
So despite him winning every other category, the one that arguably matters the most, he lost? Come on.
I honestly think we watched different debates.
No you dont. You dont like an accurate analysis. You are unable to be impartial. No one could reasonably think that Starmer " Toolmaker CPS Nortern Ireland, Prosecutions etc was answering the questions. Nobody could possibly.think Sunak, shouting over his opponent, was being "Prime Ministerial:. ((Which was one of the questions in the Yougov survey).
I keep on thinking a witty repost to "my father was a tool maker" would be something like "well he did make you". I know it's not debate worthy, but give it time and I suspect it will become tabloid worthy. That is it Starmer doesn't drop the line asap. Maybe tool isn't an insult in the UK. It definitely is in Ireland.
Starmer himself made this joke at the Labour conference a few years back. "My father was a toolmaker. And so, in a way, was Boris Johnson's." Rolling in the aisles, they were.
Ah nice!!
That was recently during the election campaign, not a few years ago.
2021: [https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/starmer-brands-boris-johnsons-father-a-tool-maker-during-labour-speech-b2183349.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/starmer-brands-boris-johnsons-father-a-tool-maker-during-labour-speech-b2183349.html)
Ahh, thank you. He's said it again recently in that case.
Yrs that joke has been done. Misses the point. Hes not a bad guy. Just bland and incapable of being decisive. His bit on trzns stuff is ridiculous. Tied himself in lnots.
The guy is crap at debates basically
I think this debate summed up the election: the majority of the country will be delighted to see the back of the Tories - but have zero faith in Starmer and no idea what he actually stands for or will do. It’s one thing being pragmatic etc. it’s another thing seeming for all the world to have no vision or long term plan or even any ideology to speak of which might hint the way he will play the cards.
Honestly Kier should look at that and be happy. Sunak bullied his way through that debate and wouldn't allow Starmer to speak. Starmer was very stiff and not able to react to attacks.
Sunak only “bullied” to the extent that Starmer was useless in effectively countering many points. “Stiff” is an understatement. His centrist stance will win this election but he is an utter charisma vacuum who makes dull party leaders like Sunak, May and Corbyn look like bloody Elvis Presley by comparison. As soon as the honeymoon period is over, Labour’s poll lead will plummet with Starmer at the helm.
…yet he has one of the highest net approval ratings of any current uk politician
… from an electorate that gave the Tories power for 14 years and voted for Brexit.
>current uk politician That's a very low bar.
Here's the thing, there is still a week to go and many more betting scandals to come out. By the date that matters, Polling Day, this debate will have been forgotten and people will fall back on how they feel which is overwhelmingly about ditching the Tories
Add an option for "Don't really give a shit, wish I hadn't wasted my time" and you'll get a clear winner
I like how Sunak still fearmonger about freedom of movement like that's a bad thing
Rishi talked a load of crap, but he exploited Starmer's inability to give a concise answer. It sounded like Starmer was waffling when he was actually adding context a lot of the time. He came across quite fake, imo. 50% when polling at 15% is a win. Let's see if it changes anything.
In a few days nobody's going to remember this just like they didn't remember the last one. If anything I'm seeing less publicity about this debate so I'd be surprised to see it talked about past tomorrow still given that it's the last week of an election campaign and the Tory betting scandal is dominating the news rn. I know they say don't ever speak too soon but the Tories are slipping into third in more and more polls, and they're 20-25 points behind Labour in most polls. Whatever impact this debate has, there's simply not enough time for Sunak to turn this around. If he comes out on top from here it would be the greatest electoral upset ever, bar none.
> Let's see if it changes anything. It won't.
No one is watching this shite, let’s be honest here
I watched it. And dismissed everything Sunak said as more lying soundbites.
Genuinely don't get the point then. I know Sunak is full of shite, it's why I have no interest in wasting my time watching it.
Starmer can't give a concise answer because labours strategy is "say nothing and try to appeal to absolutely everyone (except the far left)". As soon as he starts giving honest, direct answer, that strategy falls apart.
Agreed. His startegy is working though. Whether it will work once he's in power is more doubtful. I see a Macron type administration that peters along, unable to do anything, but still in power despite being massively unpopular.
Yep definitely a good strategy if the goal is just to get elected. Not so good if you actually want to govern in a way that might win you reelection in 5 years. Part of me wonders if his reason for Lords reform is that he knows the Salisbury Doctrine won't apply to a bunch of stuff that he actually needs to do, and he doesn't want a protracted and embarrassing stand-off with the lords over stuff like council tax reform, which he is obviously planning on doing but refuses to put in the manifesto because reasons.
I thought Starmer performed quite well really. Kept rolling my eyes every time Sunak pivoted to tax. Let's see what the later polls reveal
It's a good thing Keir doesn't have to be good to win
Massive improvement by Starmer, Sunak is the better debater so to go 50/50 with him is a much improved performance.
Sunak probably would have come out ahead of Starmer by quite some distance because in the details of the debate he did better The part where he kept dropping the same thing every minute is what would have exhausted viewers and turned them off 'dont surrender x to Labour' 'labour will raise your taxes' You can't say this quite literally at the end of the every sentence, its psychotic.
What the hell happened with Starmer. The immigration section was apocalyptic. I could swear he's not been this bad in the past? Normally he bangs on about properly funding the home office so we can process applications quickly and deport as necessary. Did he just fuck up or has something changed that means he can't say this any more?
That result is arguably far worse for Sunak considering he's the one that needs to make something happens. Starmer will continue to ride the wave.
I have the YouGov app but I'm very rarely ever asked about political items like this. Why?
Don’t see why they even waste time doing these debates. Nobodies mind is being changed and it’s the same waffle we have to put up with every other day
Why couldn’t Starmer say that those waiting on a decision will be processed according to the regular procedure and receive a decision on their right to stay in the UK as per the law? Starmer sometimes looks like he’s in shock when faced with a simple question which he should be able to give a reasonable answer to and would make Sunak sound like a lunatic.
The fact it's even a draw is ridiculous, any decent politician would make mince meat of Sunak, Blair would've had him on toast. Starmer waffles and stutters unable to get his point across, quite incredible for a Barrister.
Assuming the right vote is split, which holds up from people I know who voted Tory in 2019; We can safely assume the 50% for Labour is largely going to them. 50% of the Tory side in the debate? That doesn't seem a safe assumption when every previously Tory voter I know says they're voting for Reform. That also discounts the centre-ish voting Lib Dem because the Tories are too right and Labour are too left for them on the basis that Labour will walk it anyway. Throw in a few middle class Green votes and it's going to throw up some big surprises on the night.
Not a good result for Sir Keir. A draw is better for the party 20 points behind.
On what basis? Surely the ones behind need to make massive gains?
For the snap poll to be 50:50 it means a significant number of those people who have said the will not be voting Tories were impressed. That means Sunak changed their mind, at least for the evening it went from 40-20 to 35-35. Whether that’s enough to change their mind when it comes to actually voting is another matter.
Note that the YouGov Snap Poll for the first debate had Sunak at 51% and Starmer at 49%, larger polls from other panels the day after gave Starmer a much bigger lead. And it also wasn't reflected in GE polling.
The question is who performed better in the debate, I'm not sure that correlates much or even at all to who you will vote for.
Maybe. But politics is so tribal that people will view the debate through tinted glasses and make their judgements on “performance” accordingly. For Sunak to be near Starmer with that in mind is still a relative success.
No, the YouGov question is always: >**Leaving aside your own party preference**, who do you think performed best overall in tonight's debate? Based on past debates, this seems to make significant difference - ITV one showed evens with the qualifier and massive Starmer win on another pollster without the qualifier.
Yeah, because people will totally abide by that.
As I say, they seemed to last time. [Yougov with the qualifier got 46-45-9 for Sunak.](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49618-general-election-2024-itv-debate-snap-poll) [Svanta without qualifier got 39-44-17 for Starmer](https://x.com/Savanta_UK/status/1798237025038139676)
That assumes they abided by it last time, too. In the famously tribal world of political opinions, I think it’s fair to say plenty of people will not be able to leave their party preferences aside as easily as that.
If most people didn't abide by it last time, why were the YouGov result (with qualifier) and Savanta result (without qualifier) so different?
You’re trying to make it too binary, I’m taking degrees. The point is both those previous polls were much closer than the election polls. My opinion is that writing a sentence asking people to put party preference aside does not magically make everyone put party preferences aside - especially not subconsciously. There will be a gradient where some people will be able to do it more than others but *on average* the perception of who did best will still be weighted towards people’s existing political preferences. I think it’s naive to expect that the qualifier removes all (or even most) of people’s bias. That means - all else being equal I would expect a perfect 50:50 performance to be weighted towards the election polls. Putting it the reverse way, if there’s a big difference in the election polls and you see a much smaller difference in the debate polls then I suggest that’s a sign the person from the lagging party performed better then the other. Even if you can show the qualifier did have *some* effect. Essentially, there are broadly 3 options: 1. The qualifier completely removes bias so we can interpret the debate polls at face value - I don’t think this is a reasonable expectation. 2. The qualifier *partially* removes bias so we can interpret the debate poll *relative* to the election polls to get an idea of who really performed better. Of course it’s not easy to know how partially the qualifier removes bias so it’s not easy to quantify. 3. Snap debate polls are meaningless I think (1) is entirely naive, I think probably (3) is closest to the truth. If I was pushed I’d say reality was between (2) and (3), which means - to repeat the point - it’s probably fair to say that when the debate polls are closer than election polls then the lagging party’s debater probably performed better. How much better is hard to say given it’s impossible to know how partial the qualifier effect is.
I want what your smoking lmao (especially with that username). Starmer did his job of not being utterly obliterated in this debate, it's not like he needs to be on the attack at sunak in these debates to aim for 500/550 seats.
Most people have already made up their minds.. and let's be honest most of the undecideds that will vote won't have watched it tonight anyway Sunak needed Starmer to drop an absolute howler that will be replayed in the media over and over afterwards...and even then the Tories would still probably be comfortably behind
No one is watching these debates and by this stage most people have made their mind up plus the football is on, it won't shift the dial
Pretty obvious that Sunak won this debate, isn't going to help his chances much though
Did he though? It seemed to me that Sunak's 'surrender' jibes were aimed at Reform voters more than Labour voters. A continuation of the vote Reform, get Starmer campaign. Sunak making tax & immigration his headlines, ain't the best way to attract Labour voters.
I agree he just came across really desperate for something to stick. After an hour of him yapping I’m sure a lot of people have come away a bit annoyed at him.
Starmer couldn't answer a single question properly and can't seem to give any clear plans or policies. He kept saying generalised waffly phrases like 'smash the gangs' which Sunak countered brilliantly.
I disagree. At 20 points up your priorities are different. He doesn't need to sell policy, that's already done. What he achieved tonight was reinforce peoples misgivings about Sunak on trust & likeability. The poll results show he achieved that comfortably.
He didn’t really counter them brilliantly though - if your voting because immigration the you want an answer to immigration and if you paid attention during that debate, having just said Starmer would surrender the borders and send nobody to Rwanda, Sunak proceeded to refuse to commit to removing most of the people to Rwanda and instead committed to a handful of planes. He was trying to win back Reform voters not Labour voters and he couldn’t even manage that.
50:50 seems about right to be honest- neither was that good and neither of them landed a critical punch to 'win' the debate.
Starmer was incredibly poor on the immigration segment.
Thus backing up the question asked "Are you really the best that the Conservatives and Labour can do?" posing the question that I have asked on a number of times "Where, in the grand scheme of British politics, does it say that the leader of the party with the most seats automatically becomes Prime Minister, where in other countries the Prime Minister is elected by the whole membership of the House, the largest party putting forward a nominee"
If one party has a clear majority they can form a government. Not much the other parties can do about that. If not they negotiate with other MP's to get a majority. If the MP's of the majority party decide to change things they can "cross the floor of the house" or use their parties internal rules to change who is party leader. Evidence from other GE's is the voters hate it when a party does that. And usually vote them out at the next GE. If the new leader immediately calls a GE (as Boris did) they might win it. If not (as Sunak didn't) looks like he's going to lose...
Can someone explain to me what Labours plans actually are? I've only seen a few clips from Starmer from tonights debate, but have watched quiet a few of the others, and it really feels like he doesn't have any plans. I want to want to vote for Labour, but every time I see Starmer talk it feels like he's clueless. I'm pretty sure he's mentioned Liz Truss more then he's mentioned Sunak himself, which I don't get cause Sunak was constantly saying that what Liz Truss would do would be shit. I just don't get what I would be voting for with Labour other then "you aren't the tories"
Nationalised rail, new government backed Energy business to compete with other energy companies, crackdown on gangs running illegal migration routes, 40,000 new homes (willing to change planning laws), cutting NHS waiting lists by employing more staff particularly mental health staff are just some policies I can think of
The energy thing actually sonds like a good idea I can get behind, I'd forgotten that one. Maybe nationalised rails too The rest of it just sounds like nonsense, he's regularly voted against bills to crack down on gangs, every goverment says they will build new homes, and NHS staff dont appear out of the blue, people don't want to go work in the NSH as much anymore, because people know its shit, its the same with teachers, I don't get where these people to be hired come from.
Well thats the gamble with manifestos parties can basically say what they want. For me, this is where the last 14 years of the Tories come in. I would rather anyone but them and I think that is a good reason to vote labour.
"anyone but them" is probably the worst possible reason to vote for a party. If you don't actually want labour, don't vote for them, the torries really don't stnad a chance this cycle, its a great chance to vote for a party you believe in
>Can someone explain to me what Labours plans actually are? Read the manifesto.
You mean the manifesto that mentions the Torries more then it does Labour in the intro? The one with key promises but next to nothing on how they will actually get done. I read it.
Well like it or not, that's the most detailed answer you will get on Labour's plans. I don't know what made you think some random person on Reddit will know more.
Labour doesn't have detailed plans for 5 years. Because they aren't willing to lie by claiming they can predict 5 years into the future. The Tories have plans for 5 years because they are willing to lie. If you think the Tories are going to come close to all their plans you should look at their past record.
You should look at Labours past record too then... I am fine with people having plans and failing at them, its crazy to not have a plan and they are going to be elected goverment.
Blair & brown are long gone. So not relevant to Starmer. In case you haven't noticed the Tories have created a complete mess. Going to take a while to even identify it all. let alone fix it.
Reforms to the planning system, use of certain parts of green belt land, industrial strategy council, railway nationalisation, Great British energy, faster transition to net zero, more money on joint intelligence ops vs smuggling gangs, increased spending on HO to process applications at pace, independent ethics commissioner for parliament that can open its own investigations, cutting off second jobs for most MPs, rolling back union laws to 2010, big workers rights package, bringing forward leasehold plans Tories abandoned, tenant rights packages, government backed scheme to avoid deposits for first time home buyers, utilising currently unused private capacity to help bring down waiting lists in hospitals more quickly (alongside investments in more scanners and well paid overtime), social care minimum wage (currently they end up getting paid less than minimum wage because of rules on how their hours are calculated) as the first step to a social care service... to name a few.
He is either clueless or he does have plans but does not want to share any of it with the electorate. I will never vote Conservative, but Sunak seems like a straight forward human being. The more of Starmer I see the less I like him. His only quality that ever comes through is his self professed ruthlessness.
Sunak is literally selling a plan on illegal immigration that doesn't exist - Rwanda doesn't have the capacity necessary to act as a deterrent. How is that straightforward? He just says rubbish with a straight face.
Not seen the debate yet. I prefer Keir over Sunak but this is a pretty damning poll for Starmer given he starts with such an inbuilt advantage.
Rishi got the most claps from the audience. The problem with Keir was that he just wanted to go on about the fact that life under the Tories isn't working but couldn't really answer how he was going to fix it.
I thought Rishi came off better. Labour are going to inherit a - finally - growing economy, and take all the credit for the next few years. And then our taxes will rise and we’ll want them out too.