The first leadership debate of 2019: audience ridicule, reading off notes and Corbyn's non-answer on Brexit

Corbyn has always been a slightly stilted public performer — that wonky appearance, the strange breaks. In his sentences. The sudden jumps in mood, from sympathetic GP to incandescent geography teacher. The lopsided glasses. But when it came to the first leadership debate, could he land any blows on Johnson? After all, as Peter Kellner wrote on Monday, the PM is more vulnerable than he thinks.

The set was really quite appalling, a neon retro nightmare of the sort Johnson might have come across in Annabel’s back in the eighties. Corbyn certainly looked the part, the glasses giving him a serious, almost haughty look. Johnson, in contrast, looked a little blanched.

Corbyn’s opening statement came first. “We will get Brexit sorted,” he promised, before complaining that “too many families are without a proper home…while tax cuts are handed to the super rich.” The Labour leader’s opening remarks were more impressive than his opponent’s in that Johnson seemed to be reading his off notes — Corbyn’s was delivered from memory. A small difference, but noticeable. Johnson also went on too long and the adjudicator, Julie Etchingham, had to shut him up. A brace of small victories for Corbyn.

Then it was straight into Brexit. “We will within three months negotiate a deal with the EU,” said Corbyn and put it to a public referendum within six. At the outset Corbyn looked the better prepared of the two.

But would Corbyn campaign for leave or remain? When asked — well, he fudged it. It was the weakest part of Corbyn’s performance and the moment when he looked in real trouble.

“There will be a genuine choice,” offered on Brexit said Corbyn, without letting on what his choice would actually be. Johnson struck: does that mean he will negotiate a deal and then campaign against it?

Again, Corbyn dodged, but in turn accused Johnson of being duplicitous about his Brexit timetable. Time for Johnson to burble. Once more, the adjudicator had to shut him up.

But even when asked a third time, Corbyn still couldn’t say how he would campaign during a second referendum. Instead he attacked on the NHS, suggesting that Johnson was planning a “secret deal” to sell it all off to US pharmaceutical conglomerates.

When Corbyn failed to answer the question a fourth time, alas, the crowd laughed at him. He got a bit angry at that. Not a good look.

“Is the union worth sacrificing for Brexit?” was the next question from the audience, to which Corbyn gave a long, boring rather rambling, entirely irrelevant answer about rights and consumer protections. Johnson accused Corbyn of doing a secret deal with the SNP, which would lead to a second Independence Referendum. Corbyn replied that no such deal existed or would be done.

Then came a question on integrity — dangerous territory for both candidates. “Trust is something that has to be earned,” said Corbyn. “Everybody you meet knows something you don’t know,” he said. He’s the listening candidate, he said, having gone round the country talking to everyone from CEOs to the homeless. But, asked the adjudicator, “do you have the integrity to lead?” “Poverty, inequality and division,” are the problems facing the country, said Corbyn. These were the issues on which his integrity were founded, he seemed to be saying. He was dodging the question.

“Does the truth matter in this election?” Asked the adjudicator. “I think it does,” said Johnson. The crowd laughed at him. Uh oh. Corbyn was beginning to nose ahead. But when the subject of anti-Semitism came up, Corbyn delivered an obviously pre-prepared response. “I understand the desperate history of the Jewish people in the 20th century,” he said, and promised to continue fighting anti-Semitism. Seeing as he has not been fighting nearly hard enough so far, that answer fell rather flat.

It was noticeable how Johnson started to blather especially hard when the debate turned to personal responsibility. Not his strongest suit. But going into the first ad break, both contestants had managed to avoid any prat-falls — both had, at points, been ridiculed by the audience, but equally so. At half time, it was all to play for.

The second half kicked off with a question on the NHS. A doctor asked, aside from pouring in more money, what would the candidates do to ensure the NHS continues to meet patient demand? It was an excellent question, that neither candidate answered. Corbyn told a story about a friend who recently died from secondary breast cancer, and who on her final day of treatment had to wait eight hours to be seen. Johnson then answered, calling the NHS “beautiful and brilliant”.

When Corbyn pledged to end the privstisation of the NHS, he got an especially big round of applause. It was good territory for Corbyn — but when the subject of the four-day working week came up, a Labour proposal, the audience laughed in his face. Johnson then got in a tangle about the number of hospitals he was proposing to build and it was his turn to be laughed at — the studio audience seemed to be enjoying themselves, even if the exchanges were mostly pretty turgid.

And then came the quick fire section. “Is the monarchy fit for purpose?” “Room for improvement,” said Corbyn. It was a good answer — certainly much better that Johnson’s “the monarchy is beyond reproach,” which is quite obviously nonsense. “Is Prince Andrew fit for purpose?” was the second question. “Before we discuss Prince Andrew, we should discuss the victims,” said Corbyn, meaning those of Jeffrey Epstein. Johnson concurred.

Which foreign leader do you most admire, was the next question? Johnson made a stupid joke about the EU 27. Corbyn’s answer: “The general Secretary of the UN,” he said, though again, everyone knows this is nonsense.

When they were asked what present they would give one another for Christmas, Corbyn opted for Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, a good answer, which drew a genuine laugh from the crowd. Johnson suggested a copy of his own Brexit deal, a smart-arse response, which drew a slightly chillier response.

The closing remarks were notable only in that Corbyn had memorised his words, while Johnson had to read his off a script. And then it was done. Neither candidate had made a mistake or embarrassed himself. What’s more, no one watching at home will have changed their mind on the basis of what they’d seen — which leaves the question of what the point of it was. Corbyn perhaps did a little better than might have been expected, but the thing was ultimately a draw.