If I’m honest, I find watching TV debates very stressful. I’m not entirely sure why. I think it is because I do not like watching two grown men disagree with each other. I also feel for them both. You are so exposed, standing in front both a live studio audience and millions of people watching from home.
The first leader debate of the 2024 election lasted for around 45 minutes. It was moderated by ITV’s Julie Etchingham. The format was tight. Covering hugely complex policy areas like tax, the NHS and immigration, each candidate had just 45 seconds to respond to a question from the audience. Then some time was allowed for a response to each other.
But the strictness of the timing meant this felt overly constricted. I suppose this is how TV works and it was designed for the soundbite, for the ‘zinger’ as they’re known in TV debate world. Yet it also meant answers could not be fully developed and I was left wanting more information.
For example, on the NHS, the issue of waiting lists was raised. In response, both men spent most of the time talking about their personal connection to the NHS, rather than precisely what they would do to bring the waiting lists down. We ended up with platitudes from both men, rather than a substantive answer to a very serious issue.
This led to another problem. The format inevitably created an adversarial tone. Both men were exasperated by the other. In Mr Sunak’s case, it came across as a bit of a sneer and he certainly did not sound especially empathetic when engaging with the audience members who asked questions. In Mr Starmer’s case, a few times the camera caught his reaction and he looked slightly out of his depth and at other points genuinely angry.
This then manifested itself in the way both men talked over each other, with Mr Sunak especially guilty. In any walk of life, this is unedifying. When you want to listen to what the two party leaders are saying, it is especially unhelpful. Julie Etchingham had the challenge of keeping order and by and large she did a good job. It wasn’t her fault the format was so poor.
It would have been far better if each candidate individually had been able to take questions from the audience and also from the moderator. Better still, why don’t they do a sit down, one-to-one interview with someone like Andrew Neil? This would allow them to develop their thinking in a more substantive way and it would allow us as voters to get a far sharper sense of what they are about and what they want to do. The BBC’s Nick Robinson has invited the party leaders to be interviewed individually in a panorama special and I very much hope they all agree. That sort of format can be far more helpful in understanding both their policies and their characters.
After all, the issues up for debate are of huge important. Immigration, NHS, education, climate change, taxation…. These are not inconsequential matters! They deserve more than a soundbite and more than a quick 45 second response.
From a Christian perspective, we recognise that all of these policy areas are ultimately about people. They are about the woman who’s cancer care is at risk because of the pressure the NHS is under, they are about the immigrant who has come here in desperation because of war and conflict back home and longs for safety and security. They are about those living below the poverty line who have been hit hardest by the cost of living crisis. They are about ensuring we have the defence capability to respond to threats to our nation.
But you did not get the sense that the two leaders were approaching each policy area with a laser-focus on people. Rehearsed policy lines are no substitute for demonstrating that you really care about the impact policies have on people made in God’s own image.
One key flashpoint was the accusation about Labour putting taxes up to the tune of £2,000 for every working family. Mr Sunak made this point repeatedly and it stuck. He even claimed ‘independent Treasury civil servants’ had costed Labour’s spending commitments and that is where the figure came from, although this has been heavily disputed and Sunak has faced accusations that he is a liar.
The key point here is to do with integrity. The pressure of an election campaign and being 20 points behind in most polls, plus the fact Reform now have Nigel Farage as leader and standing to be an MP puts a huge strain on Sunak. He needs a game changer. The temptation is to put a certain spin on things in order to land political points in hope of moving the dial.
To be clear: Sunak is not the only one doing this. Labour have questions to answer over where exactly the money will come from to fund all their commitments and whether there will be stealth tax rises in the immediate aftermath of the election, should they win. All political parties employ spin to present policies in a certain light.
But as Christians, honesty and integrity are not just nice to have’s. They are an essential part of what we should look for in our leaders. Character is as important, perhaps even more important, than the polices you are advocating. In fact I think you could say that one thing the debate did was show us that both main parties are not being entirely honest.
So, what next? Well, there are more debates to come, including one involving seven party leaders and senior figures 7 June. Then the leaders of the four biggest parties will debate on 20 June and on 26 June, Starmer and Sunak go head to head again. On 12 June, Starmer and Sunak will also hold a debate hosted by Sky News from Grimsby.
One final thought. It would have been excellent if each leader had been asked to say one positive thing about the other. I know it can come across as forced and ‘gimmicky’, but it can also be revealing. Credit to Starmer who was the first to move towards Sunak to shake his hand after the debate. Such gestures matter. They show that over and above the political disagreements, both men are seeking to serve and do what they think is best for the country.
To my mind, we could do with more of such gestures, especially in the heat of an election campaign.
