Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailIndependent readers have been sharing their views following the first televised debate of the general election on Tuesday — and their opinions don’t quite stack up with a prominent poll that pitched Rishi Sunak as a narrow frontrunner.We asked for your hot takes following ITV’s showdown between Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak and we were inundated with responses.At the time of writing, a poll on our Twitter/X, had the Labour leader earmarked as the victor, with almost 55 per cent of those who took part backing him. Around 35 per cent said they weren’t convinced by either, leaving the current prime minister with just a ten per cent share of the vote.This pattern was also reflected in an exclusive poll sent to members of The Independent’s free WhatsApp Channel, which you can join here.So what’s the story behind these numbers? Many readers felt Mr Sunak was petulant and repetitive, often interrupting Sir Keir and failing to provide clear solutions, relying instead on dubious scare tactics about tax increases. Meanwhile, our community perceived the Labour leader as more credible and sensible, but not particularly inspiring or forceful in rebutting Mr Sunak’s claims. More broadly, the debate drew criticism for its format, moderation, and content. Many felt it lacked substance and missed addressing critical issues like the NHS, education, and immigration.One thing most readers could agree with unanimously was the moderation by journalist Julie Etchingham, who was widely criticised for not controlling the candidates effectively. Here’s what you had to say:‘Wasted time’Neither reassured me they have the answers or plans in place to address the critical issues that are ruining our country (state of the NHS, education system, illegal immigration, defence ).I was appalled the last question was regarding football, even if it was an attempt at finishing on a lighthearted note, I would like to remind both these leaders and ITV this election is about finding a leader for ‘Britain’ not ‘England’. Speechless they wasted time on this question and completely disregarded the other nations.Inquisitive‘Repeating the same old lies’All Sunak did was keep repeating the same old lies and talking over Starmer. Etchingham was a terrible host who let Suank get away with it too often, but I am confident most people will see through him.Chris Bovey‘Sensible, if not the most inspiring’All Sunak did was keep interrupting and came up with no clear solutions to the problems that his party, as Starmer pointed out, has caused over the past 14 years. Starmer offered a sensible solution going forward, if not the most inspiring. His biggest pull was the idea of 5 more years of Tory incompetence. That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement, but a wins a win. Starmer is credible; Sunak is petulant.BennCain‘Clear winner’Starmer was the clear winner – poised and Prime Ministerial, Sunak came across as entitled, petulant and out of touch.null‘The debate was a sham’I’ve voted Labour all my adult life, but would rather pluck out both of my eyes than vote for Starmer’s Labour! The debate was a sham and didn’t change my mind. Sunak is desperate and delusional, while Starmer is an outright liar who changes his responses to any given question depending on how the wind is blowing!I’m voting for Reform UK. I want to see PR replace the unfair and lack of representation we get from FPTP.Oh, and ITV’s idea of a debate is laughable: no time for actual debate between the candidates; poor refereeing; worst election debate I’ve watched since they became a feature of UK elections!NicC‘Sunak a bit desperate’I think a poor format. It didn’t flow and 45 seconds maybe too short. But maybe any longer and the grandstanding would not stop. I think most of the public have already made up their minds. Sunak seemed a bit desperate.punda‘Gimmicks’The most instructive part of the process was the revelation of how the Conservatives rig the figures to discredit Labour by putting their unfavourable interpretation of what Labour allegedly proposes so as to provide worst case scenario, getting Treasury experts to analyse them and then come up with how much it will cost the UK taxpayers. This seems to be the origin of the £2000 tax increase that Labour will bring about according to the Conservatives. Sunak plugged this so much that each time he repeated it the less credibility it seemed to have. Starmer pointed out the flawed methodology behind these inflated claims and how a PR company employed by the Tories actually produced a report showing how disastrous their policies would be. It was also interesting how Sunak never spoke about the record of the Conservatives over the past 14 years and kept talking about bold steps into the future. This sort of projection is nothing more than a device to steer peoples’ attention away from the shambles, chaos, lack of direction and weak leadership of recent times by focusing on an abstract formless future that does not exist and if the gimmicks fostered by Sunak and his office ever came to pass would cost the country millions of unfunded expenses at a time when serious issues need to be addressed such as: the catastrophic collapse of the NHS; the overcrowding, understaffed chaotic disintegration affecting the public education system; and the wasted resources that have been ploughed into dealing with both legal and illegal immigration that seem to have made matters worse. A second-rate gimmick like the Rwanda flights, which deals with a marginal but visible and in the scheme of things inconsequential issue, shows how totally out of touch the government has been.Steben68‘No real facts’The debate would have made much more sense after the parties published their manifestos. As was just a series of accusations and evasions without real facts. Not, of course, that you can necessarily even trust the manifestos, but would have helped.Langley‘More punchy’Julie Etchingham could not control Sunak’s ranting and gave him far more talk time.Starmer came over well but has to learn to be more punchy with his replies.Hana4‘More Atlee than Blair’Told us little except in their management styles. Sunak likes to shout people down, interrupt and endlessly repeat until he’s called out. Except he never is in the Westminster bubble. Starmer was surprisingly docile, listening and considering before responding. It took him 30 minutes to realise he had to close Sunak down on the tax increase nonsense. He’s more Atlee than Blair. Sunak is Thatcher without the wit or charm.Pendent‘Poor format’A poor format and a poor moderator, Mr Sunak was rude and overbearing. Mr Starmer was too polite and therefore was not able to get his point across, at least, until the end. I can’t see that anyone learnt anything new, or had their minds changed. There must be a better way of doing this!Mebo2‘Career politicians’Just awful, all around, by a couple of career politicians.Considering the catastrophic state of our country, the British people deserve so much more from these two morons.Lordyme‘Scrappy terrier’I am a Labour supporter but to use a boxing analogy, think Sunak was the candidate most on the front foot throughout. I am not in the least bit persuaded by what Sunak said but he was admittedly like a scrappy terrier in the relentless prosecution of his phoney £2000 Labour tax increase. I expected Keir Starmer as a barrister to swiftly neutralise this claim but instead he looked flustered by it or even embarrassed. Starmer should have been able to skewer Sunak on each point but instead Sunak ‘did it’ to him. The interviewer did seem to permit more interruptions from Sunak but at the end of the day, of course, it was for each man to make his own luck. The above is not to say that Keir Starmer did badly — and there were many good points that also raised an audience laugh at Sunak’s expense — but as a spectacle Sunak clearly won as his pugnacious style slightly compensated for anything truthful or of substance he had to say. Henceforth I hope Keir Starmer ups his game. sjnon3‘All people will remember is that £2k figure’There was nothing in it in terms of what was said – the YouGov result of 51:49 is saying it was a draw. The difference is in the margin of error.But all people will remember is that £2000 figure, even though it is based on Conservative claims about Labour policies, not the actual policies. So in that sense Sunak won.DMcG3Substance vs. sound bitesStarmer won the debate in terms of credibility and substance. Sunak was just sound bites plugging what he thought was the most effective weapon — threat of higher taxes with Labour.Starmer wanted to challenge the fictitious £2000 from the start but Etchingham insisted they save it till later. Tories have form on this tax-scaring tactic. What people should be asking is how are the Tories going to cut taxes and fulfil their promises which require extra public money. If there is more to come Sunak cannot keep up that rhetoric without it being called out.No quick fixes on health, education, cost of living and immigration from either of them but the Tories are only now promising what should have been done when they had the chance. Starmer definitely scored a point about the national service gimmick which is hard to refute.There was a clear difference in approach to climate change. All Sunak could do was to try and bribe the electorate with short-term lower cost of not doing changes without addressing the longer-term issue. Starmer did at least offer the sensible plan of increasing renewables and phasing out fossil which would make energy cheaper in the longer term.InterestedObserver‘Starmer edged it’Sunak was petulant, repetitive and refused to accept any responsibility for the 14 years of Tory rule, all the fault of Covid, the war in Russia and the previous Labour government. Then out popped his favourite what-aboutism, the Welsh Labour Government.In fact, his responses were so predictable that I was disappointed Starmer didn’t shoot them down with more authority. When I could hear Starmer he seemed to speak more sense than Sunak’s headline-grabbing policies which he didn’t provide plans for implementingBut what I really hated was Sunak continually interrupting and talking over Starmer.So, what conclusions did I draw?Starmer edged it but mainly due to the own goals of Sunak’s performance.That the moderator needs to hold their feet to the fire to answer the questionsIf Sunak can’t be trusted to not interrupt then his microphone should be turned off when Starmer is speakingHughdathunkit‘Weak’Starmer came across weak and needed to call out Sunak’s unfounded claims to lower taxes and ask what further spending cuts would pay for that.Frank‘I don’t think the debates are going to matter much’I didn’t watch. Listening to politicians talking or arguing just makes me angry. I don’t think the debates are going to matter much. It’s pretty simple; the Conservatives have had fourteen years and it’s been dreadful. We’d be mad to award them another five.Longmemory23‘The PM was overbearing’Sir Keir for me won the debate on the important issues and was polite enough to be likeable. The PM was overbearing, rude and decided that, without asking, that he was the saviour of the UK… not so much. I refuse to vote Tory any more, my Labour candidate has substance and will now vote for Labour for the first time.bystander1‘Petulant’Sunak more incisive but really came across as petulant. He clearly had no connection with the audience. Starmer too wordy and didn’t rebut the 2k tax assertion early and hard enough but he had more natural empathy. Moby‘Both were embarrassing’Etchingham was awful and she challenged both equally for talking across each other when frankly it was only Sunak who was doing it.Both were embarrassing, but when Keir speaks, it strikes fear within me. We will have a dystopian future with Keir as PM. Rishi clearly won the debate. However, it’s time to get them both out. We need someone with drive, the ability to see where the greatest flaws lie and a vision for the future.JLo‘Starmer is the safer pair of hands’Sunak was rude and his tactic was seemingly to block Starmer saying too much, as he constantly interrupted. His main attack was on what Starmer had done as a barrister which wasn’t the issue here. Starmer didn’t attack Sunak enough about the 14 years of disaster the country has suffered at the hands of the various Tory leaders – each one worse than the previous one. Another point he missed was just how sad it is that there isn’t anyone in the Tory ranks more capable than Cameron to run around the world as Foreign Secretary.Tax cuts seemingly all Sunak had on offer. Starmer should have asked him what else he was going to cut to pay for them, or isn’t there anything more to cut as most public services have already disappeared or are struggling to survive — like the NHS. He could also have asked Sunak to list where the 40 new hospitals are that the Tories promised and had in their manifesto.Sunak was the more vociferous and often, downright rude, but between the lines, I believe that Starmer is the safer pair of hands. You don’t need to be a media star to be a good PM!Ambigirls‘Doubt any will change their vote’People with preconceived views over how they wanted the debate to be perceived will likely argue for their candidate, but I doubt any will be changing their vote. Because Sunak is heavily losing in the polls anyway, on aggregate, he loses here too. I’m not sure aggressively attacking and interrupting with parroted half-truths is the best tactic in any case.AName‘Other parties should have been present’Didn’t watch it as I am not keen on US-style presidential 1 to 1 debates. We live in something of a democracy and I think the other parties’ should have been present so ITV got my thumbs down. I went to the pub with a mate instead. Both of us plan to vote Labour or Lib Dem to try and remove our respective incumbent and incompetent Tory MPs.KernowSome of the comments have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.All you have to do is sign up, submit your question and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More
