Lots of folk speculating about who wins and loses the Conservative leadership debate so I'll be controversial and say nobody, because all candidates are being forced by herd mentality towards roughly the same ground of tax cuts, culture war, and government revival.
Not just five candidates, but a Famous Five version of the UK in which there are gentle mysteries to be solved but otherwise all is good.
Unleas someone wants to actually let reality intrude.
First responses from all are a no score draw. No candidate I've heard even close to the goal. And they all look like they'd rather be somewhere else.
They all sound unenthusiastic as well as looking it. No voice modulation, no enthusiastic body language, they could all be autons.
Making Keir Starmer look charismatic.
Advert break the highlight of the debate so far.
Oh sorry, my lack of enthusiasm for the unenthusiastic should have been tagged #C4LeaderDebate.
Ooh, Tom Tugendhat almost seems to break out in some enthusiasm but thinks better of it.
Truss the most robotic, but Sunak not much ahead on it.
All so deadening.
Tugendhat growing into it, Mordaunt and Badenoch OK, Sunak and Truss really not doing it for me.
Had to take a break, but scoring Mordaunt the best of the likely last three, even if that isn't that good. You can see why their colleagues aren't sure about a Truss Sunak last two. Of the outsiders, Tugendhat has a better story.
Tugendhat is a bit smug and sarky, even when he has a story. Truss is the former football manager I knew who turned every question into an opportunity to tell you how he was a genius. Sunak now trying to emote but it doesn't come naturally.
Have little idea what Mordaunt just said about energy. Presume it made sense to her.
The twitter poll thinks Sunak is growing into this and I probably agree. Or perhaps Mordaunt is shrinking. Truss is awful, Badenoch has some ideas without building them, Tugendhat is OK but increasingly in a different place.
Occurs to me after over an hour I still haven't heard anything that suggests any candidate would particularly do anything different, which is pretty underwhelming.
Sunak warmed up and in the end for me the most impressive. Truss unbelievably bad. The others had their moments, but all pretty flat.
TL tending to agree Sunak won and Truss lost. Though without great excitement. Night all, time to play some very loud music and drown it all out...
Hypothetically - the UK could lose from barriers to the nearest market, but have better domestic policies as to outweigh the impact.
Problems, there is little in recent UK economic performance to suggest we can succeed, and denial of economic fundamentals suggests the opposite.
If you want to credibly claim that the UK can do better economically outside the EU, you have to first accept there is a cost, possibly a relatively substantial one.
If you do not, it is likely we are into bogus theory territory, in which cases losses are likely to grow.
This week's @BorderlexEditor column gets a chance to answer a big Brexit question, who gets the better trade deal, the EU or UK, using the FTAs we agreed with New Zealand. It is the EU, but not by much, which is probably a disappointment all round. borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new…
@BorderlexEditor Because fundamentally modern Free Trade Agreements contain a lot of rules but only a small amount of new market access, it is actually really hard for there to be a decisive 'winner' between countries, however much the UK government thinks otherwise. There's a lot of similarities
For sure, the EU will protect its agriculture more than the UK, and insist on tougher environmental clauses. But huge amounts of FTA text will be the same. And what one agrees, the other may well aspire to - which could mean better results for both borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new…
Live now. Nice to hear of a world in which everything in wonderful in UK trade policy. Not sure how much resemblance there is to reality, but that to be fair has been the case for successive Secretaries of State since 2016.
Questioned about the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill damaging the prospects of a UK-US FTA, the Secretary of State launches into a convoluted and wholly unconvincing explanation of UK government plans, without answering the question. Think AMT was a fan of Sir Humphrey...
Such a flurry of warm words on UK Trade Policy from the Secretary of State, so little meaning to them particularly about what the UK economy actually needs.
It was already self-evident before this leadership contest that the Conservative Party, in general, does not understand the EU, international relations, trade policy, trade wars, relative economic size, and a lot more besides. Not just what they say, they just don't get it.
Burnt deep into the Conservative Party psyche seem to be the contradictory impulses that we have no influence over an overly-powerful EU, and that if we stand firm and tall we have every power over the EU just from being British.
And both are wrong.
So it seems reasonable to suggest that it wasn't just Johnson, that UK policy towards the EU under a new Conservative PM will still be threats that the government has to walk away from under EU, US and business pressure.
Marginally serious thoughts on leadership race follow...
Realise this isn't the accepted line, but just not sure what Sunak did as Chancellor to be considered so highly. The current state of the economy doesn't exactly speak to his success.
I'm also struck by people who have worked alongside them just how many intensely dislike Liz Truss or simply describe her as 'weird', and how many have respect for Penny Mordaunt. Such personal factors aren't always obvious, but might make a difference.
Tom Tugendhat meanwhile appears to have some policy thoughts but feel the need to cover those up because that's never been an attribute the Conservatives have looked for in a leader, while I can't discern any original thoughts whatsoever from Badenoch despite the claims.