I am normally reluctant to think about politics later in the evening. I start the day with it. I try to close without it, but I made an exception for last night's TV debate between Rishi Sunak and Kier Starmer. I almost wish that I had not.
I am aware from this morning's newspapers that an opinion pole taken after the debate suggest that Sunak won, but with a margin of 51% to 49%, meaning that the difference is insignificant.
In my opinion it would be better to describe the result as a dull score draw in which neither side showed any flare, with negative tactics prevailing throughout.
That said, given how far Sunak is behind in the polls, this outcome will be seized upon by his supporters and overall I think it fair to say that the evening exposed just how weak Starmer's position is.
Sunak might have talked nonsense about the NHS, taxation, migration, housing and much more. But then, nothing more was expected of him. After all, after 14 dismal years in office, the Tories have nothing to brag about. Starmer was right, eventually, to note that Sunak sounded much more like an opposition leader, talking only about what might happen in the future, than a Prime Minister seeking to defend his record. But, like everything else that Starmer did, it took him a long time to make the point, and in many cases he simply failed to deliver what was very obviously necessary.
Sunak must, for example, have not believed his luck when on the first couple of occasions that he raised the entirely false allegation that Labour has plans to increase taxation by £2,000 per household Starmer failed to respond in any effective way. Worse, and given the low level of economic competence on display, Starmer also failed to challenge Sunak in response on his ‘unfunded' plan to abolish national insurance until long after he should have done. As a consequence, in this critical area, Starmer looked way out of his depth.
The same was also true when it came to Sunak's allegation that Starmer would tax pensioners. Rather than simply dismiss this claim, which Starmer could've done - by saying that Labour would reintroduce the higher personal allowance for all old age pensioners, for example - he handed the whole issue on a plate to Sunak.
Elsewhere, Starmer was equality unconvincing. He had no solution for the junior doctor's paid dispute, and he will need one.
He was also unconvincing on migration, not that Sunak was any better. In fact Sunak seemed to have nothing to say at all of any consequence.
But, to continue the footballing metaphor, when neither leader revealed any ability to think constructively on their feet, let alone in front of the goalmouth, all that was noticed was their niggling, and rather grubby defence of their small-minded positions.
In the circumstances, Starmer came off worse because opinion polls suggested more might have bern expected of him when Sunak has already very obviously been written off by the public. Against that expectation, and given that he should have been well aware of the terms of the debate, Starmer failed.
One final point. Neither party leader seemed able to make a point in 45 seconds. Both, arrogantly, tried to claim more time. Each spoke over the other. They deliberately ignored instructions from the chair. They both appeared quite unable to accept the rules of this exchange. The result was that they both looked like ill-prepared, petulant and unprepossessing failures.
It was not a good night for politics.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The saddest part to me was the lack of politeness displayed to the chair and each other.
I know it’s an old fashioned notion but if you act politely when under pressure then you probably are the sort of person you can rely on to guide you. What we saw was people who expect others to listen to them and do as their told; since they know everything so do not need listen to others. The lies of the prime minister were disgusting.
Agreed
As I recall, showing courtesy was one of the keystones of Mr Corbyn’s approach. He was mocked for it: not macho and alpha enough for “grown up” politics, I suppose.
Thank you, IMH.
My father, godfather, grandfathers and their brothers and cousins, all from a former colony, served God, King / Queen and Country in wars. I thought of joining thirty years ago, as Options For Change kicked in.
Due to the job that I do, I come across people in government and media, the types who often mocked Corbyn as you write. Most are chicken hawks full of bluster and very different to my family who did the fighting, so they did not have to. They often idolise Thatcher, which is cue for me to point out that she preferred to work in her father’s corner shop rather than serve God, King and Country as a land girl, forces auxiliary etc., and unlike my immigrant family.
Politeness has no place in modern politics, fought as it is between arrogant ex public school boys on one side, and ‘party men’ (under Starmer it is ‘men’ too) on the other. The Tories treat the public with utter disdain, and disinterest if they were capable of being honest, nu Labour treat party members with the same level of contempt which doubtless will translate into the wider populace should they win. The braying and cat calling of Westminster is what these idiots think is acceptable and passes for ‘debate’ rather than actually grappling with the nations challenges like grown ups. The current govt has dragged politics deep into the mire, Starmer and co look unlikely to improve it..
Sunak – Starmer – no difference – people or parties.
“a dull score draw in which neither side showed any flare”……….and neither prepared to admit that money ain’t the problem, the problem is the people – i.e. them & their parties.
“the low level of economic competence on display” – but the point was entertainment – politics as gladiatorial combat – in this case two dullards armed with fluffy toys.
In any case, the aim was not to inform the electorate – can’t have that – they might start asking impossible to answer questions.
“they both looked like ill-prepared, petulant and unprepossessing failures”……….erm that’s the point isn’t it? that UK politics has sunk to this.
The country increasingly malfunctioning & we get two dullards – offering the political equivalent of cold semolina pudding @ school – now eat up children you know its good for you – style of.
Like watching Sooty and Sweep without any guiding hands from Harry Corbett, I gather. On their own, lifeless puppets.
Thank you, Mike and for yesterday’s shout out.
With regard to preparation, my retired Whitehall friend says Starmer thinks Gray, Blair and Mandelson have prepared him for office, but none has a real grasp of the tsunami of different things coming in the next few years, hence “winning this election is like winning a pageant on the Titanic”.
Gray’s son Liam Conlon is a Labour candidate.
It was hard not to burst out laughing at the last line.
It brings new meaning to the phrase “keep it in the family” & or – did they never wonder how this would look? Probably not.
Apologies for posting twice. Gray’s son might be in for a surprise. Swathes of Tories are moving to Lib-Dem – looks a quasi racing certainty that Hunt will lose his seat to a Lib-Dem. & I know another seat in the same area will go lib-dem & it is very close to Beckenhem and Penge where matey is standing. Lib-dems could do very well indeed. They are a mixed bag, but given the LINO trajectory they could cause problems. Would be nice if LINO had a majority of say 10ish. Enough for what remains of MPs that are recognisably Labour to cause endless pain.
Some in the PLP think ten is what they will get
On immigration Sunak repeatedly said “I have a plan, Labour doesn’t “. Starmer never challenged the fact that despite the Rwanda plan having a maximum of 300 deportations, over 10,000 small boats have crossed the channel already in 2024
On tax Starmer failed to push home the fact that we are at our highest level since 1946
Brexit was not mentioned once despite being the biggest failure of the century
The economy has tanked, people are poorer, we have no say in International Affairs, the NHS, which most of us depend on is crumbling, we have sewage in our rivers and yet 51% of people asked thought Sunak “won”
We are doomed
Here’s another issue that won’t get seriously debated in this general election – central bank independence. Bill Mitchell nails it in this post:-
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=61777
The useless Neoliberals Starmer and Sunak will of course do their level best to pretend it isn’t an issue and such independence is vital to the economy!
Glad I missed it.
Thank you, Richard.
Further to my recent comment about Starmer, relayed from a retired civil servant friend and picked up by Mike Parr, more Whitehall observations about Starmer have emerged: “Shallow, power hungry, often vindictive and managerialist. He’s going to be out of his depth very quickly.”
Many of the older, wiser heads, literally and functionally, worry what comes next and have done especially since Brexit, but from 2008 onwards, which they still see playing out.
I see an analogy with Macron’s paving the way for the far right. The Le Pen family business is on course for 2027.
It was not a great night for TV either. The format of the leaders debate itself feels dull and as past its sell by date….as FPTP. With just 45 seconds to answer questions this pair sounded more like senior managers seeking to out-competing each other than party leaders presenting their credentials to be our next Prime Minister. Frustration could be seen across faces in the audience. This won’t get he votes out.
Think about the last few years of this tory government. We have had the charismatic leader in Johnson and look what happened. The man couldn’t lie straight in bed. Then the do ball Truss. Look what people have to put up with now. People are struggling big style. Sunak doesn’t give a jot about ordinary people. This has gone on for hundreds of years. The only time they engage with people is when they want your vote. So come on, give Starmer a chance. Sunak last night was a disgrace. He ended running the debate by not letting Starmer speak.
I did not watch it, and probably will not watch it.
I did not like the fact that the “head to head” debate even happened. It is the media simply reinforcing the system notion that this is your choice, the old two party monopoly on power. Doesn’t seem to matter that opinion polls have the Tories around the 20% mark. I find it pathetic.
It is a little like all the news media that Farage is getting. Front page headlines on the BBC for the last two days. Have the Greens been given any time yet? At the most recent local council election, they won an extra 74 seats. Reform got 2. The BBC think that Farage is headline worthy. Says it all really.
I’m not bothering with the pantomime that elections in the UK have become. The Tories have been campaigning for most of the last six months. Governing the country is at a standstill. I’ve mostly turned off. Unfortunately, there is another month of this to come.
Seems like Starmer and his advisers did not war-game the ‘debate’ in advance, rehearsing responses to Sunak’s attacks (none of which would have been surprising, btw), which means they are a bit useless. If they did war-game it, then they and Starmer are REALLY useless.
Agreed
I agree the debate was dispiriting. Sunak came over as inauthentic, with attack lines that sounds as if they were someone else’s words memorised, and Starmer as stiff. It was extraordinary the way Starmer behaved like a rabbit in the headlights when presented with Sunak’s fictitious £2000 claim instead of calling it out right away.
He also failed to respond to the pensioner tax issue when it would have been quite easy to: it is clear that planning to tax the state pension in the first place was a Conservative decision, a predictable consequence of Jeremy Hunt extending the freezing of thresholds when pensions rise with inflation. If Starmer had pointed it out, the reversing of the tax wouldn’t have looked like an actual policy (it reminds me of Major in 1997 trying to claim credit for reversing the Poll Tax when the electorate knew perfectly well which party had introduced it).
Frustratingly many of the questions were quite good, but impossible to answer in 45 seconds with frequent interruptions. I hope future debates find a better format, and a stronger chairman.
The answer to all the shouting and talking over and grabbing time.
Give them one microphone only and it switches off after ……let’s say….one minute.