SUNAK V STARMER – Communication Lessons from the UK Election First Debate

Reading the headlines about the first UK election debate, we see all the usual comments about the ‘bad-tempered’ jostling, attacks ‘getting personal’ and claims of ‘punches’ landing or missing.

Who won? Hmmm. Well – despite the claims of Michael Gove in Sunak’s spin team – neither leader was left ‘on the canvass’ at the end.

I’ve got my own view about who may have edged the contest on points.

But beyond anyone’s subjective conclusions, what lessons can we learn about communication more generally?

1.        In a studio you don’t need to shout. The mics are very close, so projection isn’t an issue. At times both men got quite preachy and shouty. They were more effective when speaking softly and calmly.

2.        Try also to speak naturally. The pre-prepared stuff is fine, and I guess it gets you that clip on social media. But often to the detriment of looking and sounding like a human being. Overall, audiences form stronger impressions on whether a speaker kind-of seems normal. That means listening to questions and being in-the-moment.

3.        Personalise. But, again, this must seem natural. Starmer telling the audience again and again that his dad was a toolmaker, and Sunak that his parents were doctors and pharmacists. Yeah, we get it. Quite interesting. But find new/different ways of showing character. Both have already used these lines way too often. And they’re sounding very un-human now.

4.        Get specific. Here, Sunak definitely had the edge. He was able to talk about specific policies and actions (whether you agree with them or not), whereas Starmer seemed to be doing everything possible to be vague about what will happen when – as likely – Labour wins the election. Understandable, he has more to lose. But dull as anything.

5.        Angle to the future. Yes, we know that recent years have been tough. And, for Sunak there’s a rocky record to defend. But neither managed to nail the ‘hope’ message at all in my view. How will the world be better if they won on July 4th? Neither seemed to be able to paint a pretty picture, or any picture at all really.

6.        Talk to the audience’s worries. Both did this reasonably effectively. As politicians, they know that voters care most about tax and the state of public services (especially the health service in the UK). Here, with different emphasis, the candidates were well prepared, and addressed the pain points head on.

7.        Show a lighter side. My goodness, we seem to be in flat, serious times. Very few comedy shows on TV. And no jokes in elections. This was a grim, needling affair. Couldn’t someone show a bit of humour? I know the issues are serious, but are we allowed no fun at all?

8.        Attack false claims from your opponent about your policies. Sunak scored multiple times with a (heavily disputed) assertion that Starmer will raise everyone’s taxes by £2,000. But the Labour leader left his goal undefended. The second Sunak delivered that line, Starmer should have pounced on it. Took him 45 minutes to rebut properly.

9.        At the end, don’t just read out your pre-prepared statement. Reflect on the actual debate. Come up with something fresh and in-the-moment. There’s something very odd (and almost insulting) when speakers have been in free-flow but then return to a clunky script. Be bold, take a risk.

10.  Tell stories. Neither leader is a gifted storyteller. And, by stories, I don’t mean the ‘my dad was a toolmaker stuff’. But short anecdotes and examples that make the policy arguments more human. Talk about individuals and families. Make it real, concrete and relatable. Lots of improvement needed here from both men.

11.  Play the ball, not the man (more). Yes, a few personal attacks on your opponent are probably inevitable. But how we would cherish a politician who ignored most of that, and just spoke with honesty and genuine emotion! Someone who listened to questions, and really tried to arrive at thoughtful answers. Too much to ask? Probably.

12.  Nothing they can do about this one, but (as a middle-aged man who sometimes wears a suit), how dull it can seem for two middle-aged men in suits to be talking at – and over – each other for 70 mins. This debate just didn’t reflect the vibrant country they both aspire to lead.

Will it make any difference? Maybe not. I remember being in the arena for the Manchester debate in 2010, when Nick Clegg appeared to have a sensational evening. He burst through, launching a wave of ‘Clegg-Mania’. The spike in opinion polls, however, turned out to be an illusion. The Lib Dems ended up losing seats in the election.

But these debates remain a source of fascination, particularly for students of the art of communication.

I quite enjoyed it. Bring on the next one.

Mike

If you like these articles and would like to talk about improving the media and communication skills of your leaders, then please message me or get in contract via my website www.sergeantconsulting.com