ITV hosted the first televised debate of this general election campaign on Tuesday, seeing Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer go head to head prior to the launch of their manifestos.
The first thing that needs to be said is that debates such as these are not aimed towards people like me or you, dear reader, who follow politics as a past-time or outside of large democratic events. I did not learn anything new from this debate; no new policies were announced, and no great revelations took place. This was about presentation, not substance, as I expect all following debates will be.
That being said, the debate I watched was a not a measured exchange of meaningful ideas, but felt more like two men who hate the showmanship side of politics corralled into an arena, forced to communicate their main election messages in nothing but soundbites. 45 seconds is not enough time for anyone to convey exactly how they would fix the social care system, or approach the climate crisis, or address the wars in Gaza or Ukraine, and it shouldn’t be either. Any plan that be fully conveyed in 45 seconds is not one that should be voted for.
At the end, I did not feel enlightened, just more frustrated. With both of them. I’ve already said I don’t think Starmer enjoys this type of politics, mainly because he is not good at it. Don’t get me wrong, I reckon Sunak hates it just as much, but he does appear less awkward than Starmer under this type of pressure.
Every politician has to dodge questions they can’t answer, and there are some who have mastered the art. Keir Starmer is not one of them. It is so obvious when he avoids giving direct answers, but unlike Sunak, he doesn’t tell blatant lies when answering questions.
This was an opportunity for both leaders to set out their main attack lines against the other for the coming weeks, and boy did they. Starmer’s was clear; after 14 years of Tory chaos, we’re worse off, and it’s time for a change. A positive message that resonates with people disaffected with the Conservatives, i.e., most people. Sunak’s message in this debate was even clearer; Labour will increase taxes for working families, on average, by £2,000.
Here is the lie I was referring to before. Labour do not plan to raise any of the main rates of tax on working people; no rises in income tax, national insurance, or VAT (except for on private schools). Neither do the Tories, evidenced when each was asked to raise their hands when asked if they would, and both kept still.
It is not true that Labour will increase your tax by £2,000. This figure (£2,094 to be exact) was reached by Conservative special advisors in the Treasury, but was attributed by Tory Ministers, including the PM, as coming from independent Treasury civil servants. The Treasury itself had publicly issued a letter stating that this figure should not be attributed to them, but Sunak used it anyway.
Even more confusingly, it took Starmer until 50 minutes into the debate to call this claim out as bullshit, after Sunak had referenced it at least a dozen times. He was clearly not prepared for this line of attack, but why? If the letter from the Treasury was known to him, as it should have been, he should have been armed with a quick putdown. This is the type of messaging failure Labour and Keir cannot afford in this campaign, but one would hope this early oversight will not be replicated down the line.
I’ve seen reactions from a wide range of people after this debate, and have spoken with Conservative supporters, Labour supporters, and those undecided. They all might as well have been watching completely different broadcasts. Conservatives favoured Sunak, Labourites favoured Starmer, and floaters felt neither came off any better. The exit poll immediately after the debate demonstrated this quite clearly, with 51% for Sunak and 49% for Starmer. Effectively, a draw. I, as a Labour member and supporter, obviously felt that Starmer came out on top, but I realise that I am biased in this opinion.
Clear dividing lines were drawn between the leaders in this debate, such as whether they would use private healthcare to get a relative off the waiting lists, a clear no from Starmer, and a yes from Sunak. Tax as well was a point of difference; it’s true that neither will raise rates of income tax, VAT, or national insurance, but Starmer was clear about extending the windfall tax on oil and gas giants, and on closing loopholes in the non-dom regime ban.
However, the similarities between the two were also evident here. As above, neither will raise rates of the three main taxes, and neither have ruled out further cuts to the budgets of unprotected departments. Bother were asked for a yes or no answer, and neither gave one. Starmer was a bit more tactful here, saying “no, we’re not going back to austerity”, which did elicit a cringe from yours truly, despite it being a sentiment I resonate with.
The similarities we see here arise from the truly extraordinary situation the UK finds itself in coming up to this election. Both of these men are technocrats, in their jobs not because of their campaigning skills or popularity, but because of their ability, perceived or otherwise, to do the job effectively. They both recognise the horrific state the public funds are in (although one of them directly contributed to that situation). They know taxes are at their highest point since after WW2, and the working public cannot reasonably be expected to pay any more, especially as the cost of living remains unsustainably high. The differences arise because Starmer will give a little more of the burden to a few broad shoulders like oil and gas giants and private schools, whereas Sunak would likely resort to more cuts and little else.
Among other things discussed in this debate were education, climate, migration, Gaza, energy, and foreign policy. In short, nothing new was learnt on any of these, and the positions taken by both were entirely predictable. On the surface, Starmer got more claps than Sunak, and Sunak was laughed at twice by the audience, a humiliation Starmer was not subjected to. Sunak was also groaned at by the audience for his persistent mentioning of the fictional £2,000 tax rises, signalling that even if taxes were still to be raised by the incoming government, as long as it resulted in better public services, people wouldn’t be resistant.
Sunak’s closing statement was aimed squarely at pensioners and older voters, evident of the Conservatives reverting to their base in desperation. Starmer’s didn’t seemed to be aimed at any demographic, and posed the question; do you really want 5 more years of this lot? Throughout the debate, this was his central message; living standards are worse now than at the beginning of this Parliament, a phenomenon unique to this Conservative Government.
Starmer was solid in his arguments, if not a little light on detail, something common in Labour’s overall campaign. He showed a hint of anger with Sunak when the Prime Minister couldn’t say Starmer was not a threat to national security, a truly ridiculous moment which demonstrated the Tories’ gradual shift rightwards into more Trumpian-style politics. I fear this trend will only continue, and more rapidly, depending on how large their defeat at this election will be.
Sunak gave comparatively more detail than Starmer in his arguments, but was by far the more annoying of the two in his style. He shouted more, interrupted more, still unable to shake his image of a petulant little rich boy unable to get his way for once. He seemed desperate to get his messages across, particularly the lie about taxes. The Tories need this to stick, it’s one of the few chances they have, but I expect after Starmer’s failure to nip it in the bud in the debate, Labour will be mounting a significant effort to out this claim for the falsehood that it is.
However, there was one topic still at the forefront of the nation’s mind which was not addressed by either leader, nor was it included in any of the questions asked; Brexit. Both main parties are trying their utmost to avoid it; the Tories because of their abject failure to deliver any of the benefits we were promised during the 2016 campaign, and Labour because of the votes they fear they will lose in the leave-voting red wall if they speak out against it.
Brexit was front and centre of the 2019 General Election campaigns, and I believe it was won and lost on the issue. Jeremy Corbyn and Labour did not deliver a clear message due to internal disagreements (Corbyn being a Brexiteer leading a staunchly remain party), whilst Boris Johnson and the Tories boiled their policy down to three words; Get Brexit Done. Like now, the winning party of that election was delivering a message of hope. We can only hope that Keir Starmer and his Labour Party aren’t as false in their promises as Boris Johnson as his Conservatives were.
But unlike Johnson, I do not feel Sunak or Starmer connecting with the people on a personal basis. Both of them seem awkward, cold. Neither are the type of bloke you could natter over a pint with, of the type that Johnson was perceived as. Perhaps it was the style of debate, the requisite of delivering their messages in soundbites only, the brevity of time given for the colossal issues and myriad crises the UK must work through in the coming decade.
Whatever the reason, a chum you could bump into in the boozer is not what we need in Downing Street, just as it wasn’t what we needed in 2019. We need confident, pragmatic, and effective leadership, the type Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives have clearly demonstrated they are incapable of delivering. This debate did not make the decision between Labour and Tory any clearer; it’s already as clear as day.
stay safe
/e