Cries, howls, and heavy thudding noises would seemingly befit the strategic workings of England’s football squad preparing for their forthcoming Euro 2024 encounter. Instead, it is the uproarious backdrop to the climactic UK general election debate between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, leading up to the Thursday, July 4th voting day (BBC One, 8.15pm).
Election discourses are often correlated with the flamboyance of the US presidential contest in the public’s perception, or the profound quietude that overcame the Irish setting when Leo Varadkar was probed about experimenting with cannabis in 2020. This British verbal exchange strikes a balance between American showiness and Irish chatter, with the prospect of its derailment by pro-Palestine activists vocalizing outside the Nottingham Trent University venue looming.
The activists’ vocal expression is more akin to an oddly Lovecraftian foghorn. It’s unclear what their protest is centred around, but the hostile mumbling is unnerving and potentially headache-inducing. However, mediator Mishal Husain aptly notes that free demonstrations are integral to democracy.
Yet another democratic cornerstone is the monotone rhetoric of politicians, with seemingly life-or-death zeal (at least for their professional futures). Both Sunak and Starmer lack the eloquence to ignite, and their engagement lacks the cinematic flair of US presidential debates – exemplified by the forthcoming showdown between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on Thursday.
A potential red-herring during the UK election debate was the vivid and geometrically-rich stage decor, punctuated by a grand staircase on either side. It bears a resemblance to an adapted set from the retro ITV Blockbusters game show replicating Doctor Who’s Tardis. However, instead of having Time Lords at the helm, it was commandeered by a pair somewhat echoing the awkward charmlessness of two Daleks caught in a portaloo.
The current UK Prime Minister, Sunak, is well-known for his ostentatious behaviour, with an obvious objective of inciting fear among the electorate who are contemplating supporting the Labour Party, as suggested by many opinion polls. He is always ready with his sharp criticisms, especially when addressing the migrant crisis, accusing Starmer’s Labour Party of having a lenient approach towards illegal immigration. He even goes ahead to highlight that the human traffickers will require larger vessels if Labour emerges triumphant.
On the other hand, Starmer lacks the smoothness of Sunak, often going red-faced when discussing topics he is fervent about. He criticises Sunak for distorting the tax policies of Labour and overemphasises his experience as the head of the British public prosecutor’s office. However, Starmer doesn’t hold back when Sunak repeatedly interrupts him, commenting that if the Prime Minister was more attentive, he wouldn’t be so disconnected from the public sentiment.
Since the Irish public largely consume British media, they have a reasonable understanding of both Sunak and Starmer’s political ideologies. Interestingly, the debate takes turns that an Irish counterpart wouldn’t. The dialogue dedicates more time to the reform of social welfare than dealing with housing shortages; the success of Sunak’s plan of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is proudly discussed, leaving infrastructure out of the conversation.
The issue of homelessness is completely overlooked, while the subject of housing unaffordability and its toll on several generations is treated as an afterthought, introduced late in the debate. In an unusual turn of events, an individual questions the leadership capabilities of the two politicians for “this great nation”. This phrase wouldn’t resonate well in an Irish setting; the speaker might be ridiculed all the way to the RTÉ parking area, assuming it hasn’t been privatised.
In general, the debate is devoid of intense emotions. The two politicians often talk over each other. Sunak’s hand gestures add emphasis to his points, while Starmer exhibits disbelief whenever Sunak speaks. However, the entire debate is tedious, offering very little substance to the neutral observer, despite the major political turmoil that has plagued the UK since the Brexit referendum in 2016.