General Election - 4th July 2024

[Brewster's millions]

I wonder if you might be a touch biased?

I agree Starmer was wobbly and I just don't think this kind of debate suits him. If he was in court, Sunak would be in prison for contempt by now, and even in Parliament, the speaker wouldn't let him talk over everyone constantly.

Yet, in that first debate, which was pretty similar, the public said Starmer won by a lot in most polls, with YouGov almost even. Tonight, you think he was dreadful, and falling apart, but again YouGov have it as pretty even.

Perhaps most people are a bit more thoughtful, and aren't as easily swayed by who shouts the loudest.

Sunak attempting to talk over Starmer probably is counterproductive because it risks turning people off the debate, and obviously Sunak needs people to be engaged if he’s to make an impact.

But I still think Starmer was really very poor tonight and when he’s challenged on certain issues he genuinely struggles. Again, the fact that he tried to fall back on this working class stuff and Sunak’s wealth tells you how much he was struggling. I would rather that sort of stuff was left out of politics.

As for the style of debate, I don’t see that as a relevant point. It is what it is and personally I place some value on being able to think on your feet.

 

[Vic]

I’m not interested in the betting odds, because I’ve watched it with my own eyes and it’s very clear that Starmer was absolutely dreadful tonight.

I'm not sure if you're an optimist or need an optometrist.

 

[blueparrot]

I didn’t watch this one, feel that I’ve seen enough from both of them.

All I can say is thank god we didn’t do TV debates back in Attlee’s day.

Don’t think many people watch them, and those that do already know what their vote will be. Thats why opinion polls barely shift after them.

 

[bluenova]

Sunak attempting to talk over Starmer probably is counterproductive because it risks turning people off the debate, and obviously Sunak needs people to be engaged if he’s to make an impact.

But I still think Starmer was really very poor tonight and when he’s challenged on certain issues he genuinely struggles. Again, the fact that he tried to fall back on this working class stuff and Sunak’s wealth tells you how much he was struggling. I would rather that sort of stuff was left out of politics.

As for the style of debate, I don’t see that as a relevant point. It is what it is and personally I place some value on being able to think on your feet.

And through that struggle, the public thought Starmer came across as more trustworthy, likeable, in touch, and Prime Ministerial. That last one was the only one that was even close, and unsurprisingly the actual PM usually does well in those polls.

 

[west didsblue]

Being able to blatantly lie with a straight face certainly helps in these debates.

 

[Kinkybyname]

I wonder if you might be a touch biased?

I agree Starmer was wobbly and I just don't think this kind of debate suits him. If he was in court, Sunak would be in prison for contempt by now, and even in Parliament, the speaker wouldn't let him talk over everyone constantly.

Yet, in that first debate, which was pretty similar, the public said Starmer won by a lot in most polls, with YouGov almost even. Tonight, you think he was dreadful, and falling apart, but again YouGov have it as pretty even.

Perhaps most people are a bit more thoughtful, and aren't as easily swayed by who shouts the loudest.

ah - in the court of public opinion, City are bang to rights

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

ah - in the court of public opinion, City are bang to rights

An election is a courting of public opinion, unlike a closed tribunal.

 

[bluenova]

ah - in the court of public opinion, City are bang to rights

That's ignorance though. These are people who actually watched an event and are commenting :)

 

[HelloCity]

Classic BBC

 

[Kinkybyname]

An election is a courting of public opinion, unlike a closed tribunal.

this is true, my comment was merely a comment on YouGov summary