[Malcolm Armsteen]

[Youngian]

Sunak rose above very low expectations may explain that verdict.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

YouGov
@YouGov
·
2m
Who did better on...

Cost of living: Sunak 38% / Starmer 51%
NHS: Sunak 28% / Starmer 61%
Education: Sunak 31% / Starmer 52%
Tax: Sunak 53% / Starmer 32%
Immigration: Sunak 45% / Starmer 42%
Climate change: Sunak 24% / Starmer 48%

[davidjay]

There's a boxing adage that just because you did better than expected doesn't mean you won the fight.

[Oboogie]

A couple of thoughts:
I wonder how important these debates are in terms of shifting public opinion, is there evidence that good TV debate performances translate into votes?
Also TV viewing is in decline generally so I'll be interested to see the viewing figures, I bet they'll be lower than 2019, let alone 2010.

[AOB]

Sunak had nothing to lose agreeing to a TV debate. Starmer did- a projected landslide. With hindsight, it was a bad move by him because he only has votes to lose, not gain. It's the other way round with Sunak. What Starmer has done is like putting £100 on a horse at odds of 1/100 in a two horse race in the hope of winning an extra quid. The risk isn't worth the return.

[Watchman]

Only saw a bit, so limited take; Sunak was his usual tetchy self. I got the feeling Starmer, because they were out of the stupidity of PMQ’s and with questions from the audience, expected a more grown-up debate, only for Sunak’s to prove that in front of people who challenge him he only has one behaviour

[AOB]

A couple of thoughts:
I wonder how important these debates are in terms of shifting public opinion, is there evidence that good TV debate performances translate into votes?
Also TV viewing is in decline generally so I'll be interested to see the viewing figures, I bet they'll be lower than 2019, let alone 2010.

TV ratings are generally always lower in summer for obvious reasons . Popular dramas always tend to start a new series in September or January for that reason. There wasn't the same hype prior to last night than prior to previous GE debates either.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Tory Chairman may finally have a seat.

[Bones McCoy]

I can't pretend to know how the "ordinary voter" might interpret what they see.

Somebody like my mother, disengaged and a perennial mark for every spiv and conman, will probably tell me.
"Did you see that Rishi, he was full of vim, wasn't he".
Meanwhile I recognise the weekly dose of "Tetchy" with the arrogance to talk across his opponent and the chair.

I was disappointed in Starmer "finest legal mind of his generation" being caught flat footed a couple of times.
I think he was caught out by the format, but he was slow to rebut the £2,000 accusation, doing it once, and softly.

But my biggest disappointment was the format.
* 45 seconds will never produce the detail to unpick events or policies.
* Failure to bookend that 45 seconds by silencing mics.
* So Starmer's 45 has 10 seconds of Sunak shouting over him and another 10 of the chair insisting he answer Rishi's question. He now has 25 seconds and two questions to answer.

The parties will be chopping it into three second clips for their social media campaigns.
But a curse on ITV, they get away with treating their audience like idiots every Saturday night.
I'm amazed a couple of current affairs heads couldn't have overridden the entertainment department.
We deserved the gravitas of Mr Bates, we were served Ant and Dec.

[Bones McCoy]

I don't know whether being unpicked on social media the morning after will cut through.

[Bones McCoy]

Final comment:

A last question from "Gareth".

Christ on the sub's bench, can these broadcasters never contain their "Feed the plebs bingo and football" instincts.
Pointless question, attracting pointless answers.

That light "and finally" moment that closes 30 minutes of grim news and sends you to bed without nightmares does NOT belong in a brief debate.

[Crabcakes]

Viewership was 4 million - half that of 2019.

I have very strong suspicion this is because practically everyone has already made their mind up based on 14 years rather than a few 45-second soundbites.

[Abernathy]

Interesting take on matters that came up on O'Brien earlier - a recently retired lawyer called in to opine that she thought that Starmer actually knew that Sunak's £2000 of extra taxes lie was indeed a massive lie, and actually had had sight of James Bowler's letter in advance of the "debate", but in essence gave Sunak enough rope during the debate by not refuting it immediately (though importantly he did refute it near the end of proceedings). What this does is allow Labour/Starmer to assert- correctly and accurately - that Sunak is a proven (as evidenced by James Bowler's letter) liar.

Starmer has done this before. You will recall a PMQs session about 4 years ago in which Boris Johnson, in response to Starmer's questioning, stood at the despatch box and blatantly lied about an aspect of "Partygate". Starmer recognised the lie, and merely said "I think we will just leave that there." before moving on. Starmer knew that Johnson's lie would be recorded in Hansard, and would ultimately be a key element in bringing about Johnson's downfall. This is rather similar.

Whether this is the killer final nail in Sunak's coffin or not remains to be seen, and I'm really not sure whether it will be or not. It is at least a very interesting take. I don't think it'll move the dial much on Labour's lead.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Rope a dope?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Nice sighting of Penny Mordaunt. But why is she doing this? Oliver Dowden is the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Bones McCoy]

Interesting take on matters that came up on O'Brien earlier - a recently retired lawyer called in to opine that she thought that Starmer actually knew that Sunak's £2000 of extra taxes lie was indeed a massive lie, and actually had had sight of James Bowler's letter in advance of the "debate", but in essence gave Sunak enough rope during the debate by not refuting it immediately (though importantly he did refute it near the end of proceedings). What this does is allow Labour/Starmer to assert- correctly and accurately - that Sunak is a proven (as evidenced by James Bowler's letter) liar.

Starmer has done this before. You will recall a PMQs session about 4 years ago in which Boris Johnson, in response to Starmer's questioning, stood at the despatch box and blatantly lied about an aspect of "Partygate". Starmer recognised the lie, and merely said "I think we will just leave that there." before moving on. Starmer knew that Johnson's lie would be recorded in Hansard, and would ultimately be a key element in bringing about Johnson's downfall. This is rather similar.

Whether this is the killer final nail in Sunak's coffin or not remains to be seen, and I'm really not sure whether it will be or not. It is at least a very interesting take. I don't think it'll move the dial much on Labour's lead.

I sometimes think we overestimate the power of debating tricks.
Especially when 80%+ of the press are cheerleading for the other team.

Having said that, there's grist for the Labour campaign mill.
Done right, millions of "Sunak caught with pants of fire" messages can flood the etherwaves for 4 weeks.

As ever, it's not a three word slogan.
Can it cut through the barrage of Farage and "yeah but Corbyn"?

[Bones McCoy]

Nice sighting of Penny Mordaunt. But why is she doing this? Oliver Dowden is the Deputy Prime Minister.

Dowden starts melting if he comes with a mile of Rayner.

[Andy McDandy]

And why Fargle? Why not send their deputy (whoever it is that day)?

But yeah. Mordaunt has more charisma and gravitas than Oliver "Garden gnome ordered off Temu" Dowden, so no surprises there. I'd also suspect the Tories made her appearance a condition of them taking part. Labour would agree, as the alternative would be every other party going after Rayner.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Does Mordaunt do better? I've certainly seen more youtube videos with "Penny DESTROYS" than "Oliver DESTROYS".

Not sure I'd like to be representing Labour in that. The Green, SNP and Plaid people will just gang up.