Hello and with me I've got our managing editor, Jacob Jarvis.

Hello, Jerv.

Hi, mate.

So this time, the debate, where we all watch the first face-off

between Rishi Sienak and Kiea Starmer on I TV last night.

Moderator Julie Etchingham had a hell of a time keeping them

in line. The exchanges were techie and unedifying. So what did we think? Will the debate move the dial

when Labour were 23 points ahead before on anyway and is there really any value to debates like this?

First up, Jove, what did you think?

I would agree with you that it was quite unedifying. It's really shallow, isn't it?

It just feels like the most shallow style of politics in a way people are trying to demonstrate a level of showmanship and get their personality across in certain ways and I don't think it's even a very good format for that.

I don't think it really shows who you are whether you're good at debating necessarily. and that to me also goes into the whole

the reason why we have loads of leaders who are private school educated sort of people

because they're obviously good at debating being good at debating doesn't mean you're correct or you're right or you're making correct points.

It's a skill.

But the big thing here is, this isn't a debate.

A debate is structured where you get to make points at length, get rebutted and then

remake them. This is 45 second answers. That's a tweet. That's not a debate. So what you end up with is an hour of these two just barking their talking points at each other and inadvertently I think revealing the least attractive sides of them, particularly Sunak, who just seemed petulant,

Tetchy, you know, every, the worst boss everybody has ever had in their lives.

Insisted on talking over the moderator, which really wasn't a good look at all, I don't think.

And, you know, at the end of it, I just thought I'd tweeted it for, oh what now this shows people who love politics

how people who hate politics feel yeah I would agree but the unfortunate thing I

...