The first TV debate of this election occurred this evening on ITV at 9pm. It was hosted by Julie Etchingham and the programme aired for an hour, including key questions that covered the major issues during this general election: the economy, health, immigration, young people, the environment and international issues. The leaders set out their stalls and attacked the other for their records or ideas. Who was the winner? The people who designed the moving graphics at the back.
Let us firstly look at Rishi Sunak. Sunak was on the ball and actually argued quite well. He was quite aggressive but wasn’t as much as he could be. He was awarded a few small ripples of applause for things he said. He was clearly briefed beforehand; attack Starmer for his vague policies. In this sense he actually did quite well. He raised the spectre of Labour tax rises, accused Starmer of not only being vague but of not making promises and thus showing what Labour would do or be allowed to do without being attacked for breaking promises. Sunak struggled to give some detail himself, especially on taxation and budget balancing, but he debated well. Sunak was not really attacked that much by Starmer and when Starmer did go for Sunak he kept his cool quite a bit, even offering a few little quips though these were few and far between. Sunak addressed the audience well and did not seem too ruffled, bar a bit in the middle of the programme where he, and in fairness Starmer too, talked over him and the host. Sunak started off from a low base and came back to score a draw here; not bad. Not great though. Sunak’s final speech was alright, but he did focus a lot on ‘we’re better than them’. He sounded corporate, and polished.
Kir Starmer had the most to lose and though he set out a few little stalls he was ruffled throughout practically the whole programme. He spent most of the time on the defence and when the switch in his brain flicked to ‘attack is the best form of defence’ it didn’t look good. In fact, Starmer did more to attack the Prime Minister than he did unveiling Labour policies, which was a big disappointment. In fairness, it is a vote winner when you are facing one of the most unpopular incumbents in a century. Starmer was briefed to attack Sunak, commit to little and try to be inspiring. He attacked Sunak a bit too much, committed to little and actually he spoke well, but he was not inspiring. Starmer is not a leader of a movement, he is the leader of the opposition that is going to take power because he’s the only other alternative. Pursuing the ‘Ming vase’ approach by not saying anything, not rocking the boat, he did this well. Kir Starmer was trying to be likeable and in a way he couldn’t do that and attack Sunak’s policies. In a way Starmer slipped for a fair amount into Prime Ministers’ Questions-style. His final speech in this programme was limp and pathetic.
The audience was well-managed, well-behaved and asked their questions well. The programme was well produced. The host, however, struggled. Ms Etchingham was stern and in many instances had to step in to stop the two leaders talking over each other. She was fair but on a few occasions Sunak was asking for clarification from Starmer and the host came in to move the conversation on which was disappointing. They were well managed but the host was constrained by the hour-time limit and she knew she had to get through the questions which were quite numerous and wide-ranging. She stopped the interesting debate about taxes and Labour’s quiet response to the question of whether they’d raise taxes. She promised that they would get back on the subject of taxes but that didn’t seem to materialise. There were a couple of bits that really didn’t work. “Raise your hand if you wouldn’t do this” is what she said then rattled a few statements. Though neither of them raised their hands for anything it did seem a bit silly. The final question from England football manager Gareth Southgate about what makes a good leader seemed an odd choice. In the end, this was a well-produced show.
Was this a good programme for voters? The answer is probably not. Sunak raised his personal profile perhaps a few notches but didn’t land any blows that might show him in a good light but he did cause Starmer to struggle. Starmer did what he has been doing for a while, attacking the Prime Minister’s record, but didn’t answer the questions on what the Labour policy on so many things was. Many people will watch this and learn very little about Labour’s plans, other than they will not make the same mistakes as the Tories. Starmer committed to little, and even showed a little virtue signalling with the question on whether he would use private healthcare if a loved one was waiting for life-saving treatment; he said no whilst Sunak said yes (perhaps the only major difference between the two in that debate). Starmer did commit to never leaving the European Court of Human Rights, though Sunak did everything but not say that. Voters will at least have some clarity on that. The voters will have learned that Sunak is better at debating and Starmer has no political baggage weighing him down after that.
What was missing? Other than the other parties in the election, there was no discussion on a number/cap on net immigration. There was no commitment to net-zero targets. There was no discussion about possible tax rises. Perhaps this means that we can take information from this. So here are the policies that were not ruled out, therefore up for speculation:
Sunak will not leave the ECHR.
Starmer will not put a cap on migration, neither will Sunak.
Starmer intends to tax pensioners to raise funds for the public purse.
Starmer in principle agrees with a safe third country for illegal migrants.
Sunak has committed to tax decreases but not to non-dom scrapping entirely.
Neither Sunak nor Starmer see the young and the minuscule young-person home ownership problem as even close to a priority.
This is not confirmed but in not saying something, perhaps that means that we learn something else.
Who won? A score bore draw, which is sort of a win for Sunak. Starmer will be disappointed, but he is hamstrung by the Labour tactic. Sunak will regret that he did not have more time.
In the end this programme showed us only a couple of things; Labour are committing to not committing to anything and Sunak is doing his utmost to still appeal to centrists as well as voters on the right, which probably means he is becoming more unappealing for voters who are becoming more and more polarised. There were no knockouts, no bits that could be clipped and shared for election material, and both of the leaders showed perhaps as big a glimpse into the real issue in British politics; the disconnect between ordinary people and the sanitised, elitist, political class who struggle to break through to cross-sections of voters, as this programme would inspire middle class Londoners, but i bet the rest of the UK switched over to the paint-drying channel.
On to the next one…
This article first appeared on the TDL Times. For more information, articles and more please visit www.thetdltimes.com.
Comments