Review: ‘The ITV format left little room for debate – but that benefits Labour’

There was once a sketch on The Day Today in which candidates were asked “So, the climate, yes or no? Just one word answers gentlemen, please”.

The first leaders’ debate sounded a bit like this at times. The format was dire and allowed neither party to develop an answer. On the rare occasions that we glimpse the outlines of a serious question, or perhaps even an intriguing disagreement between the two, the moderator Julie Etchingham stopped proceedings.

It wasn’t her fault. The format had been agreed by the two parties and it evidently didn’t work. That made it hard for anyone to make a big impression but, by the same token, it made it hard to either of the two candidates to make a major mistake.

Sunak desperately needed more time as it runs out

Lots of commentators were complaining in real time that the format allowed no real debate but not many pointed out that this was very much to the advantage of the Labour party. A format that ensures nothing happens undoubtedly favours the man who is 20 points ahead in the opinion polls.

The Tory strategists who negotiated that format did their leader no service, as he seemed to realize because almost all of his answers went on too long. The abiding impression Sunak left was a peevish man talking over the others. It was an aspect of the format – he desperately needed more time. Alas for Rishi Sunak, time is running out.

READ MORE: Who won the election debate? Most readers say Starmer but third say Sunak

Julie Etchingham opened with a point which was the most pertinent to be made all night: money is tight and the backdrop is awful. The opening statements were the usual bland encapsulations of the campaign themes although Sunak’s was the crisper of the two.

Starmer’s statement was vague and Sunak’s was precise but they did at least agree on the fact that both of them were about Keir Starmer.

‘It took Starmer a long time to respond on the £2,000’

There was not  a lot in this shouting match that will make a great deal of difference. Sunak really does have to stop talking over people. Starmer was much better at empathy, at making the audience think he might have a glimmer of understanding of what it feels to live their lives.

The Labour leader has become a lot better at detailing his own background to explain the values that inform his politics on issues of the day.

Sunak had his lines on his clear, bold plan and he kept repeating them. For the most part, Sunak tried to attack Labour on conventional lines, as if this were an election  from the mid 1980s. He had clearly identified defence and tax as Labour’s principal weaknesses.

It took Starmer a long time to respond to the direct accusation, constantly repeated by Sunak, that a Labour government would cost each household £2,000. It is a nonsense number but it lingered in the air too long. Expect to hear a lot more of it.

Starmer had the best question of the night for Sunak

In fact tax produced the only memorable moment of the debate when Etchingham asked the two candidates to raise their hand at a tax they were prepared to raise. The absence of movement was an effective theatrical display of the basic dishonesty on display in this election campaign.

The best question of the night came from Keir Starmer himself. Why, if the plan was all set to work, did Sunak call this election? Why, if illegal immigrants were just about to go to Rwanda, did he rush into a campaign? It’s a very good question to which Sunak has no answer.

He returned instead to repetitive slogans about a retirement tax and an egregious commitment to leave the European Court on Human Rights if that were what was needed to make the Rwandan scheme viable. The only really serious moment in the debate was when Starmer, to his credit, declared that Britain will not disapply international law under his premiership.

Don’t expect much to happen in the next debate

And that, really, was that. “It’s been a pretty serious evening” said Julie Etchingham before she began the “and finally” question about the Euros. Sadly, she was wrong. It hadn’t been anything of the sort.

The broadcasters can now go back to their preposterous 24 rolling Nigel Farage coverage – I am reminded of Peter Cook’s 24 hours Live from the Launderette – and the rest of us can await the next debate with less than keen anticipation that anything will really happen.

This article was first published on the author’s Substack, Look, Stranger.

Read more of our 2024 general election coverage here.

If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this or any other topic involving Labour or about the election, on record or strictly anonymously, contact us at [email protected]. 

Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for a briefing everything Labour, every weekday morning. 

If you can help sustain our work too through a monthly donation, become one of our supporters here.

And if you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or content, email [email protected].