Sunak says he is clear about EHRC, gets some applause, still not totally direct on leaving it, but heavy implication. Starmer applause on saying he won't do that.
There's a third way, renegotiation. A growing number of countries seem to be keen on the idea.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Sunak doing a little better, based on energy and breaking Starmer's flow, but when Starmer gets going he has scored some hits. Both have clear catch phrases, but have eased up on them as things have gone one.
My focus is on social care plans. Sunak claims he will continue with the existing plan on care costs - which is the cap. Trialling in some areas this year and implemented in Oct 2025.
Starmer did not commit to that. Waffled about a care plan in the manifesto which will be costed and talked (rightly) about low pay being problem in sector.
Martin Lewis @MartinSLewis So it seems the raise taxes £2,000 line is done by costing the Labour spending proposals and then calculating the impact pro-rata. Now of course even if correct it doesn't have to come from tax it could be from borrowing etc. #ITVdebate
Following the Truss debacle I don't think Labour would risk funding much of it from borrowing.
It's the single best thing about Truss having been PM.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Sunak doing a little better, based on energy and breaking Starmer's flow, but when Starmer gets going he has scored some hits. Both have clear catch phrases, but have eased up on them as things have gone one.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
My dislike for Sunak is no secret, but Starmer is delivering a university lecture while Sunak is (a) being allowed to run riot and (b) being very direct and aggressive, which is likely working.
Sunak won that first half for me, far more combative.
You are biased of course, but I agree. But that was because of amateurish moderation. Starmer more measured and prime ministerial.
Am I biased? What is that based on? Point to a comment I have made on PB that is baised. With the very greatest respect, I feel like I am probably one of the most unbiased posters on here.
To add, hopefully in an unbiased way, I think Starmer has improved in the 2nd half.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
My dislike for Sunak is no secret, but Starmer is delivering a university lecture while Sunak is (a) being allowed to run riot and (b) being very direct and aggressive, which is likely working.
Starmer – Situation is intolerable, tens of thousands have been killed. Need a ceasefire straight away. Need hostages out. Need humanitarian age. We have to find a path to peaceful resolution two state. (Not a terrible response given need to straddle several wings of his party.)
Sunak –(dials back performative anger, gets more serious) – says UK led on aid, needs two state solution. World is uncertain place. Increased investment in defence.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Not objective, of course, but: Sunak - shouty, pissy Starmer - boring, sometimes not flat out aggressive enough (e.g. the tax rise claim from Sunak)
As usual, I don't think it will move many votes. Not a clear winner overall. But I know what to expect from both of them. Your less engaged member of the public, which we lack on here, might be seeing something new.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
My dislike for Sunak is no secret, but Starmer is delivering a university lecture while Sunak is (a) being allowed to run riot and (b) being very direct and aggressive, which is likely working.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Sunak doing a little better, based on energy and breaking Starmer's flow, but when Starmer gets going he has scored some hits. Both have clear catch phrases, but have eased up on them as things have gone one.
Sunak 6/10 Starmer 5/10
That is a fair summary
Agreed.
Etchingham 4/10 overall (although better after the break, she clearly got the hairdryer treatment at half time!)
Contrary to everyone else I’m thoroughly enjoying this debate. That might be because my uncle and I are taking a slug of good whiskey every time the word ‘plan’ is mentioned.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
My take:
Overall, quality of debate has been poor. Poor moderation, though slightly less shouting over each other after the first break. Both Starmer and Sunak squabbling children talking in soundbites. Sunak somewhat worse for shouting over Starmer. Very little substance to the debate, lots of attacking the other leader's supposed policies or track record, not much detail on what they will actually do to fix things.
I doubt it will move the needle one way much or the other. People have made up their minds already, and seem to think their own candidate is doing better due to confirmation bias.
To me it looks like the scene in Futurama where Jack Johnson debates John Jackson, with added talking over each other.
Sunak says he is clear about EHRC, gets some applause, still not totally direct on leaving it, but heavy implication. Starmer applause on saying he won't do that.
Based on Cleverley on R4 this morning and Rishi tonight, leaving ECHR is definitely in the manifesto.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
I'll try. Sunak is very aggressive and impassioned. He is making his points with ferocity. Swinging wildly. Sounds committed. But veering towards the deranged. He's by any standards rude. Starmer seems to have been thrown a little. He's remained calm. But I think it is dawning on him the Sunak does not intend to fight in a gentlemanly manner. He appears to have frozen a little. He looks every inch what he is. A prosecutor. But he's labouring under the prosecutor's nightmare. He's not getting the defendant he expected and planned for. And with a woefully weak judge. Doesn't seem to be able to improvise. He needs to either go in two footed in return. Or stick to the game plan. It's going better for Sunak. But perhaps that may be low expectations. Difficult to say how it will be judged by the more important constituency, those who aren't really familiar with them. Sunak on a split decision so far. But leading with his chin.
Do you think Starmer is threat to security Sunak – labour cannot be trusted. Going after Rayner over Trident. Starmer – shocking - I was director of public prosecutions, dealt with terror plots. Know how important to keep people safe. At time he was making money betting against country in financial crisis, says Sunak ridiculous. Sunak – says Starmer worked for extremists (Starmer calls that desperate)
Sorry Starmer, but the DPP doesn’t stop terror attacks, it prosecutes terrorists once arrested. He got away with it here, but overplaying the DPP role may explode on him at some stage.
Sunak won that first half for me, far more combative.
You are biased of course, but I agree. But that was because of amateurish moderation. Starmer more measured and prime ministerial.
Am I biased? What is that based on? Point to a comment I have made on PB that is baised. With the very greatest respect, I feel like I am probably one of the most unbiased posters on here.
To add, hopefully in an unbiased way, I think Starmer has improved in the 2nd half.
For some reason I thought you were a self-declared Tory. Apologies if that is wrong.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
My dislike for Sunak is no secret, but Starmer is delivering a university lecture while Sunak is (a) being allowed to run riot and (b) being very direct and aggressive, which is likely working.
Ta
Starmer came across to me as someone desperate not to fuck up. Pretty cold and nervous initially. Which is exactly the situation. Sunak has nothing to lose now. Starmer just has to get through this bilge without fucking up a massive amount.
Sunak says he is clear about EHRC, gets some applause, still not totally direct on leaving it, but heavy implication. Starmer applause on saying he won't do that.
Based on Cleverley on R4 this morning and Rishi tonight, leaving ECHR is definitely in the manifesto.
Mental. The obstacles to that reverse takeover by RefUK are falling away.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
I'll try. Sunak is very aggressive and impassioned. He is making his points with ferocity. Swinging wildly. Sounds committed. But veering towards the deranged. He's by any standards rude. Starmer seems to have been thrown a little. He's remained calm. But I think it is dawning on him the Sunak does not intend to fight in a gentlemanly manner. He appears to have frozen a little. He looks every inch what he is. A prosecutor. But he's labouring under the prosecutor's nightmare. He's not getting the defendant he expected and planned for. And with a woefully weak judge. Doesn't seem to be able to improvise. He needs to either go in two footed in return. Or stick to the game plan.
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 2m 🔵SURREY HEATH: It seems Seb Payne lost to Ed McGuinness by just two votes. Someone present tonight writes: "Seb was top in the first round of voting (when Anna got knocked out). And then in the second round there were only two votes in it. Had to go through two recounts."
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Not objective, of course, but: Sunak - shouty, pissy Starmer - boring, sometimes not flat out aggressive enough (e.g. the tax rise claim from Sunak)
As usual, I don't think it will move many votes. Not a clear winner overall. But I know what to expect from both of them. Your less engaged member of the public, which we lack on here, might be seeing something new.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sunak is judged generally to have edged it. More energy and happy to tell blatant lies, which Starmer is struggling with a bit. You can do the calm reasonable man thing - as Clegg did - but you have to address it direct to the viewers, and t helps if you have two other people bickering so can look like the grown up.
You also need charisma to pull off the calm reasonable person thing, I think.
Sunak has edged it I think but I'll be fascinated to see the snap poll after.
Snap polls are usually based on what people like about each person regardless of performance. But anything divergent from the normal position will be interesting.
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 2m 🔵SURREY HEATH: It seems Seb Payne lost to Ed McGuinness by just two votes. Someone present tonight writes: "Seb was top in the first round of voting (when Anna got knocked out). And then in the second round there were only two votes in it. Had to go through two recounts."
"Andrea Jenkyns 🇬🇧 For Leeds South West & Morley @andreajenkyns
The scenes in Clacton today were impressive and good to see @Nigel_Farage undeterred by more infantile behaviour from the Left. No surprise to see Labour laugh at an attack on a conservative - their hypocrisy knows no bounds! We must elect good conservatives to Parliament."
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 2m 🔵SURREY HEATH: It seems Seb Payne lost to Ed McGuinness by just two votes. Someone present tonight writes: "Seb was top in the first round of voting (when Anna got knocked out). And then in the second round there were only two votes in it. Had to go through two recounts."
That’s tough. I’m not sure why there seems to be so much animus towards Seb Payne. He seems like a pretty decent chap.
I haven't watched the debate. Too busy at work and sort of decided not to do so too.
I know this is probably an impossible question to ask in an election campaign where everyone is very invested, including me, but...
Does anyone have an objective take on how well Starmer and Sunak have done here please?
Not objective, of course, but: Sunak - shouty, pissy Starmer - boring, sometimes not flat out aggressive enough (e.g. the tax rise claim from Sunak)
As usual, I don't think it will move many votes. Not a clear winner overall. But I know what to expect from both of them. Your less engaged member of the public, which we lack on here, might be seeing something new.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sunak is judged generally to have edged it. More energy and happy to tell blatant lies, which Starmer is struggling with a bit. You can do the calm reasonable man thing - as Clegg did - but you have to address it direct to the viewers, and t helps if you have two other people bickering so can look like the grown up.
You also need charisma to pull off the calm reasonable person thing, I think.
I think Sunak's full on approach swamped the first half, but he is fading fast second half.
A debate of two halves, but many will have switched off by the second half.
I am missing the debate on account of a thing. Is it as dreadful as anticipated?
You made the right choice, even if your “thing” was a root canal.
Won't go into details, but it's been nearly as painful. Situation where one is desperate to go home but can't. Interminable waiting. Would rather be at home watching these two TBH.
Interesting Starmer frequently addresses RIshi as Prime Minister, not Mr Sunak or just not calling him anything.
Pinning what is wrong with the country firmly at his feet. This is the PM, not just another contendr for the job. If the country is in the shit then it is HIS fault. It is a clever tactic which is disguised as good manners.
Question – what can you offer the young generation (applause) Starmer – important you have further education opportunities you need, technical too (dad was a toolmaker). Will build houses (my note – will he?). I won’t send you on national service, teenage dad’s army? (Light laugh, but not much) Sunak – (more serious again) – national service will be transformational (incredulous laughs). Will be very positive. Want you to have financial security by cutting taxes (some groans).
Weaker from Sunak, he was less energetic and trying to blame Starmer for having no bold ideas
I am missing the debate on account of a thing. Is it as dreadful as anticipated?
You made the right choice, even if your “thing” was a root canal.
Won't go into details, but it's been nearly as painful. Situation where one is desperate to go home but can't. Interminable waiting. Would rather be at home watching these two TBH.
Interesting Starmer frequently addresses RIshi as Prime Minister, not Mr Sunak or just not calling him anything.
Pinning what is wrong with the country firmly at his feet. This is the PM, not just another contendr for the job. If the country is in the shit then it is HIS fault. It is a clever tactic which is disguised as good manners.
Comments
Call for Sting.
Sunak 6/10
Starmer 5/10
Starmer did not commit to that. Waffled about a care plan in the manifesto which will be costed and talked (rightly) about low pay being problem in sector.
So a definite divide there.
(Feel bad for them on this question, as our influence is low)
Starmer 5/10
To add, hopefully in an unbiased way, I think Starmer has improved in the 2nd half.
(Not a terrible response given need to straddle several wings of his party.)
Sunak –(dials back performative anger, gets more serious) – says UK led on aid, needs two state solution. World is uncertain place. Increased investment in defence.
Sunak - shouty, pissy
Starmer - boring, sometimes not flat out aggressive enough (e.g. the tax rise claim from Sunak)
As usual, I don't think it will move many votes. Not a clear winner overall. But I know what to expect from both of them. Your less engaged member of the public, which we lack on here, might be seeing something new.
Etchingham 4/10 overall (although better after the break, she clearly got the hairdryer treatment at half time!)
Overall, quality of debate has been poor. Poor moderation, though slightly less shouting over each other after the first break. Both Starmer and Sunak squabbling children talking in soundbites. Sunak somewhat worse for shouting over Starmer. Very little substance to the debate, lots of attacking the other leader's supposed policies or track record, not much detail on what they will actually do to fix things.
I doubt it will move the needle one way much or the other. People have made up their minds already, and seem to think their own candidate is doing better due to confirmation bias.
To me it looks like the scene in Futurama where Jack Johnson debates John Jackson, with added talking over each other.
Personally I hate the combative approach but I can see how it would work for some.
Sunak is very aggressive and impassioned. He is making his points with ferocity. Swinging wildly. Sounds committed. But veering towards the deranged. He's by any standards rude.
Starmer seems to have been thrown a little. He's remained calm. But I think it is dawning on him the Sunak does not intend to fight in a gentlemanly manner. He appears to have frozen a little. He looks every inch what he is. A prosecutor. But he's labouring under the prosecutor's nightmare. He's not getting the defendant he expected and planned for. And with a woefully weak judge.
Doesn't seem to be able to improvise. He needs to either go in two footed in return. Or stick to the game plan.
It's going better for Sunak. But perhaps that may be low expectations.
Difficult to say how it will be judged by the more important constituency, those who aren't really familiar with them.
Sunak on a split decision so far. But leading with his chin.
Sunak – labour cannot be trusted. Going after Rayner over Trident.
Starmer – shocking - I was director of public prosecutions, dealt with terror plots. Know how important to keep people safe. At time he was making money betting against country in financial crisis, says Sunak ridiculous.
Sunak – says Starmer worked for extremists (Starmer calls that desperate)
Mark Francois to lose his Rayleigh & Wickford seat to Labour by 36% to 34%. Last time the result was Con 73%, Lab 16%.
https://www.survation.com/survation-mrp-labour-set-for-record-breaking-majority/
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/elections/2423
He got away with it here, but overplaying the DPP role may explode on him at some stage.
Its So Much Worse Than That
In any case, I agree with your analysis.
Starmer waffling a lot, not crisp with his answers. Gave a decent answer on immigration I thought.
Overall I'd probably say Sunak edging it.
Starmer says we have to deal with who USA elects
No difference in Rishi's answer - which shows why it was a dumb question.
I had it as -1/-1 … before I turned it off.
Paul Lewis
@paullewismoney
Sunak: we will ensure the state pension is never subject to tax.
Hmmm. @DWP told me in an FOI that 1.5million people already have a state pension which by itself is liable to
I personally know someone who gets a £20k state pension.
@tomorrowsmps
·
2m
🔵SURREY HEATH: It seems Seb Payne lost to Ed McGuinness by just two votes. Someone present tonight writes: "Seb was top in the first round of voting (when Anna got knocked out). And then in the second round there were only two votes in it. Had to go through two recounts."
(Of course I'm biased)
You also need charisma to pull off the calm reasonable person thing, I think.
Waffley Starmer bombing, Sunak clear and combative winning.
Who would have thought it.
Interesting Starmer frequently addresses RIshi as Prime Minister, not Mr Sunak or just not calling him anything.
"Andrea Jenkyns 🇬🇧 For Leeds South West & Morley
@andreajenkyns
The scenes in Clacton today were impressive and good to see @Nigel_Farage undeterred by more infantile behaviour from the Left. No surprise to see Labour laugh at an attack on a conservative - their hypocrisy knows no bounds! We must elect good conservatives to Parliament."
https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1798014763215237618
A debate of two halves, but many will have switched off by the second half.
Starmer – important you have further education opportunities you need, technical too (dad was a toolmaker). Will build houses (my note – will he?). I won’t send you on national service, teenage dad’s army? (Light laugh, but not much)
Sunak – (more serious again) – national service will be transformational (incredulous laughs). Will be very positive. Want you to have financial security by cutting taxes (some groans).
Weaker from Sunak, he was less energetic and trying to blame Starmer for having no bold ideas
Note - bold ideas are not always better