The Alevel Politics Guide to...the Leaders Debate

Yesterday evenings leaders debate has a treasure trove of points and evidence that you can integrate into your Alevel politics revision, and essays. Below I've summarised everything you need to know, from an a level politics perspective

When I first tuned into the debate, ten minutes late as I had fallen down a tiktok rabbit hole only minutes before, the first question that I saw asked was regarding the NHS. The audience member asked how long, honestly, it would take to fix the NHS. I was looking for some straight answers, a timeline. A timeline that was not given

Starmer emphasised that the NHS is in a terrible state due to tory rule over the past 14 years. Well, talk about stating the obvious. He did not answer the question. He said Labour would work to undo the damage, but did not provide a timeframe, apart from throwing a few apples at Sunak as he spoke.

Sunak stated he knew that the NHS was not in a good state, and made a major fumble when he admitted just how high the waiting list figures are to see a doctor. Then fumbled even more when he said that he had brought it down from where it was-where it was because, and mind my break of the political fourth wall here, his parties incompetency. The entire room burst out into laughter, before Sunak tries to recover his point by blaming the problems the NHS is facing on industrial action. The entire room reels.

If Sunak loses the election, this can be a really really good peice of evidence to use when talking about party leaders and determining election outcomes. This is a bad fumble to make during a debate, and his attempted recovery made it all the worse. The fact that a leader would be laughed at by an entire audience (and no doubt the public watching at home) is not a good spell for him. If he loses, this is a perfect bit of evidence you have!

After Sunaks failed recovery utilising the industrial action excuse, he continued to try and beat the dead horse by asking Starmer what he would do about the strikes.

Starmer responded that it was evidence the strikes would continue unless negotiation is had with the unions. He argued that as long as the unions are ignored, the longer the strikes will continue. He argued that he would try and negotiate a deal with the union. He denied that he would give them their asking price, but would find a settlement

For a question on the Labour party, this is great. Engagement with the unions is a classic Old Labour move. Further, Sunak's disdain for the union fits in well with the Neoliberal approach of the thatcherite governments. Both here provided you with evidence for a policy question for either party.

Next we pivot to education

Sunak says there is record investment in the education sector (i think most teaching staff would heavily disagree) and that he wants to further reform the system

Starmer argued that like the NHS, the education system has been completely run to the ground. Especially as, there aren't enough teaching staff. He believes it is a priority that every child deserves a proper education, particularly in the subjects of Maths, Science and English. He said that he would invest in the education system by hiring 6,000 teachers or more. With what money? By charging VAT on private education. Did you know currently most private schools have a tax free status? Not to mention, many people within them (take it from a girl who knows) do not pay taxes at all. He argued whilst it was a difficult decision to make, having to raise tax on these people, every child deserves a proper education. And it was a risk he was willing to take to achieve that.

Sunak rebuffed this argument stating that he believes that those that have worked to be able to send their kids to private school shouldn't be punished for that. He argued that Starmers taxes on private schools are a slippery slope. He'll start on them and then introduce them everywhere else in the country.

Again we are seeing elements of New and Old Labour here. New Labour had ambitious plans for the education system, very much focused around reformed. But there are traditional elements of Old Labour mixed in, an opposition to privatised education and introduction of taxes. Sunak again here is displaying typical Neoliberal ideals: low taxes and the concept of "meritocracy". Those that have worked hard deserve to be where they are (this does not consider aristocracy or generational wealth but thats a conversation for another day).

On immigration, the candidates were asked by the audience "why should we trust you?"

Sunak argued that he massively reduced immigration levels and has a clear plan on how to deal with illegal migration. He said he was going to introduce a legal cap on immigration, and also has the Rwanda plan ready to go, which he said is a deterrent for illegal migrants. He said he would be more than willing to leave the ECHR if necessary.

Starmer said the migration figures were high because of the tory government. He argued that despite all his promises Sunak has not stopped the boats and has failed to follow through on a number of his promises. He said that he wants to focus instead on dealing with the immigration gangs that facilitate the trafficking of people across the channel. He said this is possible because he has helped take down the likes of terrorist groups before. He wouldn't go for "expensive gimmick" schemes such as the Rwanda plan. He also said its important to create safe routes for the most dire of circumstances, such as Ukraine and Afghanistan. He would facilitate offshore processing if it complied with international law.

Next, Gaza

Starmer stated what is happening in Gaza is catastrophic and a ceasefire is needed immediately, as well as the removal of hostages. He stated aid needs to be sent to gaza immediatley, and he would support the creation of a 2 state solution.

Sunak argued that Israel has a right to defend itself, and that he would comply with the US approach towards policy within that area. He instead said in the face of this conflict he would be looking more at increasing defence spending.

High defence=Very Neoconservative ideal!

When asked about climate change the leaders responded

Sunak there is a goal to reach net 0, but he felt that the british people were being unfairly expected to fulfill climate quotas when the UK is actually not a big polluter. He said we needed to secure energy to save money.

Starmer argues that renewable energy is the way to go. Not only does it separate from reliance on russian oil, but it also will create jobs and help us achieve clean power by 2030. As a rebuttal to Sunak's argument that it would be too expensive, we have to look at renewable energy as a long term investment. It is expensive to insulate your house, or to get solar panels. But after getting them fitted, that initial cost, the price of your energy will rapidly decline. Bills will be cut in half. This is Starmers argument, that the plan will not be expensive, and actually save money, in the long run. He wants a rationalised Great British energy plan.

Nationalised energy is a very very old labour idea. Again Sunak takes a neoliberal perspective, anti-tax raises and focus on tradition, or the "way things always have been"

And finally, a topic that concerns all of us right now, the future for young people.

Starmer says there needs to be a focus on further education oppotunities, whether that be university, apprenticeships or anything of the like. He said there needs to be secure jobs for young people, and that there will be built affordable housing for young people, so they do not have to wait until they are in their late 30s to buy a house. He said they will build 1.5 million new houses, in areas with amenities such as schools, GP surgeries, etc.

Sunak said that young people will have greater financial security by further cutting taxes (but whos been determining these high taxes he wants to lower these past 14 years....oh...wait...) and then of course, the national service scheme, which, led to again, a burst out of laughter for young people.

Again we've got a thatcherite perspective for Sunak, both on the lowering of taxes but also the neoconservative focus on tradition and patriotism with the national service plan. But again, the laughter from the audience does not bode well for a leader, and again will form an excellent point indeed should he lose the election and an election question comes up.

Well there you have it. A largey underwhelming performance by both leaders. I think if you took a shot everytime Starmer blamed something on the tory party, or everytime Sunak mentioned taxes or the furlow scheme, you'd be in the hospital getting your stomach pumped. They gave us nothing, but some good examples for next years exams, so make sure you make note of these, after you've had a cry about the dire state of our country....just me...ok.