Host Mishal Husein quickly set the scene for last night’s BBC leaders’ debate. “One by one the questioners will stand up,” she told us before the event. “We want to cover as many topics as possible”. Haud me back. It’s time for some jeopardy to be injected into this tired format.
I’d be in favour of an in-show VAR team. An expectant murmur would sweep over the television audience as Ms Mishal was invited to have a look at actual NHS waiting times. The offender would be told to sit the next question out.
Strict time limits on each response would be imposed. Any that strayed beyond the designated curb would have minutes deducted from their next reply.
There would be a ban on “thank you very much for your question”. We all know what they’re really thinking when they say this to the questioner: “You’re a sanctimonious wee weapon: what in the name of Friar Tuck would you know?”
The first question last night was about the lack of integrity in politics. This followed revelations that, knowing they’re about to get hammered, the Tories are determined to make some money out of it.
Sir Keir: “Thank you very much for the question.” Where’s Just Stop Oil when you need them?
Neither of them said what needed to be said: that all serving politicians should be banned from betting on politics for the duration of their political careers.
Sir Keir ticked off his pre-prepared list. It included 40,000 extra NHS appointments. I make another bet: this won’t happen.
Then, Little England emerged. “Why can’t we close our borders,” asked one audience member. It was an early reminder that while this is a UK election, it’s really only about England and Wales.
“If Keir Starmer gets his way,” said Mr Sunak, “all those illegal migrants will be out on our streets.
“Do not surrender our borders to the Labour Party.”
Nigel Farage wasn’t here, but he’d have been proud of that one. Depressingly, his responses on the migrants got his biggest cheer. It’s his strongest ground and Sir Keir knew it, he was all over the place on it.
“What will you do with them,” asked Mr Sunak. “I’ll process them,” replied Sir Keir. Mr Farage would have liked that one too. By the end, we got to see something curious and depressing: a Labour leader attacking his Tory counterpart for being too liberal on immigration. In that moment the mask hadn’t just slipped but left his face completely.
READ MORE: Inside the TV debate spin room and who the surprise winner was
READ MORE: JK Rowling hits out at Starmer over women's right defence
On tax, pensions and the triple lock plus, Sir Keir got rattled as his opponent had him on toast. Mr Sunak kept jabbing away about Labour raising taxes: “It’s in their DNA”. By the end, the Labour leader was reduced to calling Mr Sunak a liar after his closing statement.
On protecting female-only spaces, Mr Sunak again exposed his opponent. The Tories are clear on this: biological sex matters. Sir Keir thinks he can make it easier for men to get a gender-recognition certificate and protect women’s spaces. How he’ll manage that feat, he couldn’t say.
Then he gas-lighted women for daring to raise the issue. People needed to be treated “with dignity and respect”. As ever, it was all about the men. Once more, he sought to make political capital from a young person’s death. It was tawdry fare from the Labour leader.
Mr Sunak is good at these. He’s more fluent, has better recall of detail and is better on policy. He won’t win the election and after his ‘migrants on your streets’ dog-whistle; thank God. But he ran rings around the Labour leader.
On and on it went as viewers in Scotland waited in vain for anything that might affect us. This debate though, was for English voters only.
“Are you two really the best we’ve got to be the next Prime Minister of our great country,” asked one chap to warm applause. For once, Sir Keir ceased with his oily “thank you for your question” kid-on.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel