The world is changing fast and to keep up you need local knowledge with global context.
EDINBURGH: Prime Minister Theresa May has been accused of running scared by skipping a televised debate with political opponents ahead of next week’s election. But May was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t join the debate, argues political expert Tom Quinn of the University of Essex. The gap between May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is believed to be narrowing as May has done a u-turn on a proposed ‘dementia’ tax and Corbyn promises a major spending spree to benefit lower income earners and younger voters at the expense of higher income earners and corporations. The format of this type of debate does not play to May’s strengths, so it is probably just as well she stayed at home rather than risking alienating voters in a heated discussion that might not have gone her way, is the message from Quinn. – Jackie Cameron
By Tom Quinn*
Jeremy Corbyn’s late decision to participate in the BBC’s election debate injected some interest and potential excitement into an event that had risked being ignored.
With the polls narrowing in Labour’s favour and with the party leader having performed well in the campaign so far, he hoped to maintain the momentum and increase pressure on the Conservatives. Despite speculation throughout the day about the intentions of Theresa May, the prime minister stuck with her original decision to stay away and send the home secretary, Amber Rudd, to represent the Conservatives in her place. Corbyn and Rudd also faced the representatives of the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and Plaid Cymru in the debate.
The six questions put to the politicians by the invited audience were fairly predictable, covering living conditions, Brexit and immigration, public finances, national security, climate change and leadership. There were no real surprises, with Corbyn and other left-leaning politicians – Caroline Lucas of the Greens, Angus Robertson of the SNP and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, as well as Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats – repeatedly condemning the government for its cuts to welfare and public services.
Paul Nuttall of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) came under frequent attack from other leaders, while making his party’s stock points on Brexit, the necessity of immigration controls, and terrorism.
Rudd generally found herself in the position of defending the government’s record, although she also launched a number of attacks on Corbyn, particularly over what she called his “fantasy economics” and his votes against anti-terror laws. Corbyn came under occasional attack from Nuttall on terrorism. Pressed by the moderator, Mishal Husain, Corbyn also stumbled in defining what he meant by a “fair” immigration system.
— Tim Farron (@timfarron) May 31, 2017
Corbyn didn’t make the most of his late entry into the debate, although he didn’t make any obvious gaffes either. Of the smaller parties’ leaders, Lucas performed best, setting out a clear liberal-progressive vision of a fairer society, based on freedom of movement, opposition to Trident, and combating climate change. But it will probably have little effect, as the Greens are leaking votes to Labour, which now appears to be attracting the bulk of the anti-Conservative vote in England and Wales.
Was May right not to turn up? She received inevitable and trenchant criticism from the other leaders, particularly from Farron at the end, although not so much from Corbyn. That was perhaps surprising given the fanfare that surrounded Corbyn’s late decision to take part. He might have been expected to make more of May’s weakness in staying away.
Does anyone seriously want to risk Theresa May negotiating Brexit when she's too frightened to even take part in a leaders debate???
— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) May 31, 2017
In reality, May was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. By not taking part, she was accused of running scared from the voters. But if she had turned up, she could have been accused of dancing to Corbyn’s tune, being seen to follow his lead in participating rather than following her own judgement. It would have been mocked as another u-turn.
As it was, the format of the debate would not have played to May’s strengths. She would have been angrily assailed by the other leaders and found herself having to shout to make herself heard or completely drowned out. She doesn’t have the type of combativeness in debate that Rudd possesses and used to some effect here. All in all, despite some embarrassing barbs about her non-appearance, May was probably better off sticking with her original decision.
- Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government, University of Essex. This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography
Listen to the story of Cyril Ramaphosa's rise to presidential power, narrated by our very own Alec Hogg.