July 29, 2022 - 9:50am
Last night’s official Conservative Party leadership hustings in Leeds amply demonstrated the superiority of the model over the US-style TV debates we have been subject to so far.
But tuning in, it seemed as though CCHQ wasn’t convinced about this. Fully the first 45 minutes of the event was taken up by an interminable string of introductions, endorsement speeches, and videos from the candidates. (Those tuning in to the livestream were treated to shots of the bored-looking audience as these last were played to the auditorium — another media-management triumph for the Party.)
Yet the format did have one big drawback. Because the two candidates did not appear side-by-side, they were not asked the same questions. This makes it tricky for Conservative members to do a direct comparison on the issues. Which is, ultimately, their entire job.
Take education, a vital issue which the Tories are prone to neglect. Last night, we learned that Sunak is in favour of allowing more grammar schools. This is potentially a very interesting development.
But due to the format, we got zero details. Does he merely intend to allow existing grammar schools to expand, which was the policy explored by Theresa May? Or does he actually want new grammars to open for the first time since the Sixties? For Truss’ part, we do not know her answer because she was never asked.
It’s the same story with the Northern Ireland Protocol. Yes, both candidates have committed to supporting the Bill currently going through Parliament. Sunak said that it “will fix” the problems with the sea border.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYes, there’s a great deal we don’t know about the candidates. We can hear what they say on these staged occasions, but we cannot see how they run a department, how they respond to events, routine and unexpected, how they relate to colleagues and others. For this, and for everything else relevant to how the candidates might perform as prime minister, we have to rely on the judgement of those who know them better than we ever can.
And their political thinking, anyway, may count for little. Look at Johnson. He was down, as a journalist, for his laissez-faire approach to issues, but when PM he was faced with circumstances (the pandemic) which forced him to be the most prescriptive PM ever.
The rest of the world, not least India, but crucially including the US and the EU will see Rishi as the single most highly qualified, high acheiving country leader anywhere on the globe, who is immune from corruption, due to his wealth- what more do we want?!!!!!
I’ve never seen a British PM that was corrupt or accused of corruption. Possibly Lloyd George but that was over a century ago.
clinging on to jobs in politics because the money is needed is corruption… and what about the 1960s award of road building to a Transport minister who was closing railways , Ernest Marples and his business Marples Ridgeway? … and who fled to Israel to avoid prosecution? All covered up by then PM. What about advisory jobs to MPs and ministers from vested interests?
I shall read up on the Marples case, sounds interesting.
But the misdemeanours of Tony Blair (holiday on a yacht) or Boris (borrowing some money to pay for No10 renovations, eating some non-work related cake ) would hardly count as corruption in most countries. Didn’t two recent French presidents get done for corruption? And the mysterious wealth of some US Members of Congress is notorious.
History does not support you, but you have to go back to the nineteenth century (and further) for clear examples.
Sorry I meant recent, say post-war PMs. Yes there was a lot of corruption if you go back. In the eighteenth century the main way to succeed in life was through the perks of official office.
Recent? Ah! but I can almost recall Pitt the younger.
“This makes it tricky for Conservative members to do a direct comparison on the issues. Which is, ultimately, their entire job.”
Wrong. This process is an extended job interview, not a policy development process. A commitment to delivering the 2019 manifesto is all that is required on that front.
At least this article is a serious piece of journalism, and touches on a problem i referred to in commenting on the “Tory Clown Show” nonsense – the poverty of the questioning of politicians and the inability of questioners to allow them to either finish their answers or elucidate sufficiently to provide a meaningful insight. Or, perhaps to prove themselves lacking in it!
There are going to be 11 more of these???
“ There is still a lot that we don’t know about the two candidates”. Apart from the fact they are both more of the same old political status quo. What a chance the conservative MPs have thrown away!