Unlike in Riyadh tonight, last night we were not treated to a heavy weight contest worthy of the name.

On a BBC stage in Maidenhead we saw a fairly good-natured debate between the two possible prime ministers (a choice that many voters aren’t particularly thrilled about according to the opinion polls). But there was nothing to set the pulses racing and certainly no knock-out blow – despite what the party spinners might have you believe.

Since the final bell last night we’ve heard the two camps out there interpreting the events in support of their guy, telling us what we really heard, what they really meant and how they battered the other chap.

We heard the grizzled Barry Gardiner from the red corner arguing with the too-slick promoter, Matt Hancock from team Johnson, both pushing the lines that were repeated during the night: The election is about ending austerity and stopping the privatisation of the NHS by big US pharma companies vs the election is about getting Brexit done so we can get on with the other things that have been stuck in the quagmire.

The whole thing is fairly disingenuous but it’s just what’s done.

What we’re not really hearing is the truth: It really doesn’t matter who edged it. What matters is that, in the immortal words of Theresa May, ‘nothing has changed’.

Like Joshua tonight, Corbyn needed a knock-out – or at least a clear points victory. For Joshua it’s about reasserting himself as the true champion, but for Corbyn it’s the less lofty prize of just making himself competitive in a contest that appears to be heading in one direction – towards a Tory majority.

Given the two contenders in this fight, I think this decision will be much tougher than picking the guy you’re going to be cheering on tonight.

Johnson’s strategy was clearly don’t screw up, deliver the lines, keep it focused on Brexit, keep the campaign on track – and this appears to have worked.

There was no ‘gotcha’ moment on either side. It was a rehashing of the key messaging that have been trotted out over the last few weeks.

The format of the debate and the fact that the questions came from the public as opposed to a pro like Andrew Neil, for instance, meant that there wasn’t a forensic examination of their respective manifestos or personal record, which could have created a big moment.

The lack of this moment meant that the coverage of the debate was balanced and didn’t have a negative focus for either leader. The news clips and newspaper front pages didn’t have something to focus on apart from printing the top lines.

This matters because most people wouldn’t have watched the debate and those that did, I would guess, would have already made up their minds. Many of the voters – the ones that are actually going to decide the result of this election – probably had other things to do on a Friday night, and will likely not be rushing to catch up on iPlayer.

The coverage matters if there’s something that is going to cut through to these voters. There wasn’t and so most people wouldn’t have noticed that last night even happened, let alone have changed their mind about how they’re going to vote.

So the polls won’t shift widely one way or another and no one will be able to claim a change in the momentum of the campaign. The campaign will continue in the same direction and we’ll no doubt continue to hear the same things over the next few days.

Come Thursday people will have to decide who they want to win. Given the two contenders in this fight, I think this decision will be much tougher than picking the guy you’re going to be cheering on tonight.

Source: Read Full Article