Channel Four Debate: Verdict

So I watched the Channel 4 leadership debate. Looking at things from an unbiased perspective I'd have to say that Rory Stewart was the clear winner. It was a great performance and he's clearly running a superbly engaging campaign. My spidey senses are tingling though. The more I look the more I come to the opinion that he's a vehicle for remain. "No deal" off the table and a "citizen's assembly" will mean we're going nowhere if he can't get a large chunk of MPs to come round to the May deal. I really hope I'm wrong, but delay and obfuscation are what I would expect if Rory does win it.

Then again, perhaps I should give him more credit. He has been quite excellent in this campaign.

(Raab and Rory)

Of the other candidates Dominic Raab was the best. Hard to tell how he will have went down with Tory members, but he was the one I instinctively felt the most rapport for. Also he has David Davis supporting him, who I like. So that's another feather in his cap. The suggestion that he would prorogue parliament to get a "no deal" through obviously went down very badly. It just looks so undemocratic. However, I sympathise with this view.

Technically it's doable, but the problem is that parliament has been given a say on any Brexit deal, so it would look very undemocratic to take that back. This perception alone would cause a huge crisis, and people would not accept such an action.

Normally a prime minister has a degree of executive power. For instance, last year Theresa May took the decision to bomb Syria without going to parliament. Something in my opinion much more serious.

Normally it would be perfectly natural for a prime minister to sign deals and agreements without having a vote in parliament. Imagine if we were trying to agree a future trade deal with the US and every dotted i and crossed t had to be ratified by a vote in parliament. A PM having to say "hang on, I'll have to go back and check" at the end of every negotiation with any foreign body or country. It would just be silly.

Plus, the whole point of having a referendum is to go to the people, and not to parliament. So really the government should simply be executing the public wish without parliament being directly involved. However, now it's been handed to parliament we can't just take it back sadly.

I can totally understand why Theresa May decided to involve parliament. It was a huge decision and she wanted to bring everyone together in an attempt to unite the country. So she wanted cross party responsibility. Plus she probably didn't count on so many politicians going back on their word and trying to outright thwart any attempts to leave. So it's a very unfortunate situation.

The only real option now if parliament can't agree a deal is a general election it seems.

So, returning to the debate I have sympathy for the Raab desire to just ignore parliament. However, proroguing would cause chaos. It would also hand the "democratic" high ground to people on the remain side of the argument. Perhaps losing many undecided voters in the process.

Of the other three candidates in the debate I have little to say. None are my cup of tea, though Gove does look like someone very able when it comes to the actual implementation and getting things done aspect. He's very energetic. Hunt is probably the candidate I'd least like to see win, and Javid just looked like he wouldn't be massively bothered if he lost.

I know I keep banging the same drum here, but I really would've loved to have seen Leadsom in the mix. She ticked all the boxes. Leave, tick. Likeable, tick, Attention to detail, tick. The others seem to have just one, or at best two of these traits.

Just a case of waiting to see how Boris bounders in now. The next debate is Tuesday night on the BBC. Interesting stuff.