Categories
The real winner of tonight’s debate was Starmer & Labour – politicalbetting.com
The real winner of tonight’s debate was Starmer & Labour – politicalbetting.com
Conservative voters thought Truss did better (47% vs 38% for Sunak).Labour voters thought Sunak did better (41% vs 30% for Truss). pic.twitter.com/XsAnuzZBVX
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think Truss will actually do marginally better with the public but I am not concerned.
Yes, cliches can be true, but its unknowable how one of these two will do up against Starmer and co until they are actually doing it, implementing policies and so on, so we may as well focus on who won it amongst those who took part.
From the figures Tory voters thought Truss won it, and even taken together it's basically a dead heat, evaporating Sunak's only trump card.
Contrarily, however, I thought both candidates did OK. And both came across as sane and articulate and up-to-the-job
Whoever really ‘shines’ in these debates?
Sunak cares about nothing but delivering austerity economics with his glib and inappropriate nation’s credit card”. A shame he didn’t spend the last three years as Chief Sec to Treasury and learn a bit more before putting himself forward. I do buy to an extent Truss’s like that she’s learnt to take the Treasury advice with a pinch of salt, he hasn’t. He’s totally captured by them.
Equally, the concept and coining of the term (2 separate events) goes back only to 2008.
My gut - which was ultimately right about BoJo - says it won't happen
"I strongly suspect that Liz Truss is still a Lib Dem remainer at heart but that she made a calculated career choice to go Tory, so this is all an act. It’s not even a particularly good act. If you are taken in by it, I have a bridge to sell you…"
Now, they shouldn't do that regardless of their opponents gender, and I believe Sunak was mansplaining based on reports, but the definition still seems rather nebulous to me. Unless it's something you can prove happens more in situations of X, then its hard to say X is the reason. If they do it for X and Y then X cannot be the reason.
Time allowed for earrings, suits, etc etc: 5m45
https://twitter.com/archiebland/status/1551675116022644736
One thing that was consistent in the hate fight was that every time anyone raised what Truss said or did, she looked like she was chewing a wasp. As Tim Farron says, she doesn't act like anythings she says is remotely true.
It's difficult to convincingly change when it's the FS v the until recently CofE.
I expect a bounce. And probably Tory poll leads.
But, this will go the way of the Blair/Brown handover, rather than the May/Johnson one.
Imho.
After watching the debates:
> 47% of viewers thought that Rishi Sunak would be a good prime minister,
> while 45% thought Liz Truss would be a good prime minister.
Liz Truss was seen as more compassionate and trusted to tackle illegal immigration.
Viewers thought that Liz Truss would be more likely to be more of a change (41%) than said the same about Rishi Sunak (24%).
65% of viewers thought that Rishi Sunak would be more of the same.
Over half (52%) of viewers thought that the candidates were mostly negative about their opponent's plans.
Only 38% thought that they were mostly positive about their own plans.
If yes, the mansplaining charge has legs.
I'm unsure myself. I'd need to see him up against a male Truss as a control.
"Vote LD, we're so good at being duplicitous one of us might become Tory PM"?
65% of viewers thought that Rishi Sunak would be more of the same.
Since that is not happening he cannot correct the interpretation amongst those who got that impression. He needed that tactic to make him look strong, but it doesn't seem to have worked and has some downsides.
However, she's not. And Sunak can hector Starmer at PMQs for two years without any damage being done, and then yell at him in the debates, and again no damage done. Ed Davey leads the LDs. so that's also fine, and if he ever has to debate Nicola, I'm sure the British public will forgive him talking over her, if it means we can't hear her.
I just don’t think she’s any more charismatic than Starmer, that’s all
I think she's leaps ahead in tackling the issues and having ideas, as is Sunak..
How well or badly you think her ideas might go is up for political debate, but there is real substance there. What real substance from Keir's leadership debate is there that points to a policy a PM Keir might introduce?
Transitioning now is probably the only way she/he/they/zhe could lose.
Student debt
The environment
What are her policies on the above
Not least because I could see the Truss/Boris crowd trying to legally challenge it.
It's the hard stare, exasperation, rapid interruptions.
But the pile up of issues became too much for him in the end and he had to go.
Labour is hamstrung by a commitment to a very hawkish, and in fact rather Conservative, fiscal policy, which leaves little scope for doing things on CoL, which is the biggest crisis facing the UK. Labour would do better than either Truss or Sunak on healthcare in England, which is the other big crisis.
He was a terrible PM, this is not in dispute
The first ten minutes was spent on CoL and Truss had plans - an immediate reversal of National Insurance and suspending the green levy on electricity were both mentioned. Specific policies that can be introduced.
Student debt never came up.
Environment mentioned technology etc which is the right answer.
Starmer will always be boring
Sunak will always be posh
Truss will always be a bit odd
Seems more plausible to me that she had a slightly off night is all.
Even though he was a great PM. Him being terrible is in dispute, he was great overall but still had to go despite being great because he broke the law. Brexit, Trade Negotiations, Ukraine and Covid vaccines were all handled great. Covid lockdown he was too authoritarian, but better than every other country in Europe barring Sweden.
So on all the big issues, the big calls were completely right in my eyes.
I can't remember who coined it but the right epithet for Boris is he got the big calls right, but treated the small calls with utter contempt.
The pressure on Wallace would be immense.
Time allowed for the End of the Ice Age: 1m 46s
Time allowed for potential alien invasion: 12s
Time allowed for the inevitable heat death of the universe: 0
I must have completely missed that, if so. If he did, I'll take it back, but can you please link to Keir saying that?
It is hard to put a finger on quite why she comes across as dim. I think it is her intellectual rigidity and poor communication skills, but May had those faults too, and didn't come over as dim.
The Tories should have picked two candidates who weren’t right at the centre of the “ broken promises “.
Sticking with Sunak and Truss will come back to bite the Tories . After a brief honeymoon as many have a sense of relief that Johnson has left no 10 the wheels are going to come off big time .
I don't think the reaction is generational, I've not seen the clips so might well agree he came across very badly (that does appear to be the consensus), but I am very wary of trusting a judgement which presumes on a person's motivations (intentional or otherwise) in a way we claim is 'proven' based on nothing more than gut feeling.
Sure, that's ultimately how we judge things, but I personally feel better if we call it gut feeling rather than ascribing it some higher status because we 'know it when we see it'. That makes it sound like more than us engaging in mind reading.
I bet we could find hundreds of examples of a politician or speaker saying something and being very confident we know what they intended, what was in their heart, and the prejudices driving them even unintentionally, and then discovering we were completely wrong.
There was a light example of that sort of thing yesterday, with a presumption that people criticising the Rwanda scheme and making a dark joke about it must have been motivated by having an issue with Rwanda itself, when alternative explanations existed. The assumption of why people made the comments was misplaced.
Surprise on the downside? Tories (especially the ones who never reconciled to Boris) seem split on her.
Both possibilities seem equally plausible to me.
We knew from the first YouGov poll that he lost every matchup, whether it was against Mordaunt, Badenoch or Tugendhat. My assumption was that MPs would understand there's a substantial anyone-but-Rishi vote and that it's non-ideological; somewhere between 30/40% was Sunak's ceiling, and the rest of the membership would back anyone to stop him.
So if you're an MP and you're backing Sunak in the first round of voting, you haven't seen the poll, fine, I get that. And I understand backing him when the field is crowded with Zahawi, Hunt, etc. But I cannot understand, after the second YouGov poll confirming that members have made their minds up and there's no viable path for Sunak to win over the membership, why MPs kept voting for him? Surely it is a suicide mission, handing the leadership to whoever is going against him? Unless you think Sunak can win over the membership despite starting at a massive disadvantage and against all logic or conventional wisdom - but as we've just seen, he can't?
I'm honestly not trolling - can anyone explain this to me?