Question Time Leaders Special

[TheShellBeach]

On now BBC1

Ebay.
I sold it to her.

Starmer is evasive on the detail for most things -employment, doctors, house building, energy, water etc. because he isn't in power. He doesn't have his hand on the books, on the true reality behind the figures they were given by the civil service to prepare their manifesto. If he doesn't want to make promises that will come back to haunt him he has to be cautious until they can see the full picture. He does already know there's no money to spare.

Yes he is not a stupid man is he. Public spending nearly 100 of GDP. I too would be light in detail. It will be the detail that determines what is possible once in power. The country has been absolutely shattered by the Conservatives

Tim Harford writes in the FT today that as well as the obvious signals of neglect of essential infrastructure, the quality of statistics is badly affected. The ONS is facing a 5% budget cut this year and is struggling to produce accurate estimates on all sorts. The two examples quoted are employment rates, and robbery and rape trends. His point being, that when the UK government is spending almost £18,000 for each person in the country without reliable statistics, then the money is being spent with eyes shut.

Given how dodgy the Teesside freeport is, if I were Sunak I'd keep well away from it. Still, good to know the Conservatives are admitting complicity.

Starmer's biggest problem is he can't answer any question directly. He has to waffle for five minutes about the background to why it's an issue and what the options/questions are before eventually getting around to what he will do. I fall asleep before he gets to the crux of the matter. If he gave up all the lengthy answers he might win more people over, and would have had time for more questions.

I think that's where legal training can be a disadvantage. It's a fairly standard approach in legal argument - set out what the issue is, set out the background facts, set out the law, apply the law to the facts, wind up with the result which you want to achieve out of that process. He probably does need to cut to the last stage much more quickly, secure in the knowledge that he can back it up if challenged.

I wonder if one the shit hits the fan or reality kicks in. He would resign because of his family. He said he is already worried about that. Mmmmm and then the fun begins again.

I'd just love it if he thought "What the hell" and went all out for honesty. Imagine how refreshing it would be if he said "You know what, the Rwanda plan was always bollocks thought up by those maniacs Patel and Braverman, we've always known it didn't have a hope in hell but it kept the right wing nutters in the party onside. Of course we would have to be mad to get out of the ECHR. Brexit was also utterly stupid, Johnson was a lazy, lying, corrupt waste of space, Truss was barking mad, and while I'm here, I hereby renounce the sheer folly of the national service plan. Vote for us or not, I don't care, I'm off to California."

I really don't understand why you say Starmer won't answer questions. I've been finding it quite refreshing listening to him precisely because he does answer them. Sure, sometimes it's along the lines that he can't say, e.g. with regard to the issue of an immigration cap, but that's a perfectly honest and justifiable answer.

'my factory'

@Scruffily Because if you listen to him, when's he put in a position where he doesn't want to say something, he won't just be honest. He'll just keep trotting out one key message that his SPADs have presumably given him. Fiona Bruce challenged him several times to answer the audience member's actual question, not something else - and he rarely did.

When he did, it was clearly on a subject where he felt comfortable saying more.
I know Farage is hated on here but if you listen to him, he pretty much always answers journalists directly even if he tells them he doesn't agree with their line of questioning. Regardless of what you think of his views, that's refreshing and almost unparalleled in politics today.

‘ThisOldThang’, Starmer’s dad was self employed. He might have called it ‘his factory’ but it was a rented workshop and he was the only worker! See this quote from ‘Labour Heartlands, a site critical of Starmer.

‘Starmer’s father, in reality, operated the Oxted Tool Co. His own independent toolmaking enterprise until the 1990s. By all accounts, he was a proficient self-employed tradesman, devoid of superiors or overseers, operating from a rented workshop on an industrial estate rather than a conventional factory setting.’

Similar can be read elsewhere.

Farage doesn’t seriously attempt to answer questions. I have never seen him do a serious interview on his policies in any detail. He is literally someone who lives for a 10 second clip, for 10 second minds.

Really? That's your evidence? Keir saying my factory - wouldn't that mean he owns it, not his dad?

When I was a class teacher I used to talk about my school. I didn't own it - it's where I worked!

That's his dad's words, not Keir's.

My point still stands.

I realise it's a very side issue and probably not of interest to most on here but anyway. I tried googling but couldn't find out what happened to the donkey sanctuary donkeys when Keir sold the land. I'll just have to tell myself they got happily rehomed.

I was quite impressed by KS this time, I think he addressed the questions well and tried to get his point across regarding the funding of the Labour Party pledges. One thing that infuriates me about Fiona Bruce as a presenter is her insistence on a panel member answering something which really amounts to nothing, she was really going for it with Ed Davey and the question regarding whether the LD policies were effectively pointless because he was never going to win. Time and time she went back to that, then ended up having to cut other q&a short due to time constraints. What on earth was the benefit of Ed Davey saying yes or no to that question? To her credit, she was better at keeping things on track than she usually is on QT, but there were loads of examples of her trying to force a point which really didn't seem necessary (such as the set limit for immigration directed to KS which she didn't want to let go of). It just seems like she wants to "win" an argument. It's a frustrating watch. I did prefer this style of debate to the last few though, it works better when the individual leaders have sole stage to answer the questions, rather than the relentless backbiting and over talking we have seen in the previous ones.

I also think he had some strong answers to points that she tried to zing him on, so yes he was convincing.