Who won the BBC general election TV debate? Our writers give their verdicts

How did Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer – the two men who could be prime minister at the end of next week – fare in their final face-to-face clash of the campaign? Our commentators Tim Stanley and Tom Harris give their verdicts.

They both agree the debate was a resounding victory for Sunak – but it will make no difference.

If a man from outer space watched this debate, he’d assume Rishi Sunak is winning the election by a mile. Keir Starmer was at his worst, ticking off his CV – toolmaker, peacemaker, prosecutor – culminating in stopping a bomb plot, as if he’s also James Bond.

There’s no wit there; zero poetry. A question to the effect of “why are you two so rubbish?” would have produced a joke out of Boris or a hymn to class struggle from Kinnock, but both men proved the point by falling back into grey platitudes.

That said, Rishi with nothing to lose was sparkling: he sounded like an effective Leader of the Opposition. You’ve no plan, he hammered; on borders, he effectively exposed the nonsense of promising to enforce a system that contains no deterrent. His six-week long strategy of raising fears about Labour tax rises is paying off, for he’s snookered Starmer into refusing to deny that he’d target pensions – and the vision of Britain becoming Nottingham City is nightmarish. Especially given the idiots protesting outside (I thought there was a crossed-wire in my TV).

The standout moment was when Keir attacked Rishi for backing Liz Truss – something I’m sure Liz would struggle to remember – and host Mishal Husain pointed out that he knows a thing or two about falling in behind one’s leader. Zing. In this format, Starmer’s discipline looks wooden; his caution appears weak. And at times he almost seemed overpowered. Again, the Martian would think it was Labour that is heading for an historic defeat.

There are certain elements of TV debates that are not necessary: live studio audiences, for example. Or portentous musical anthems and flashy backdrops.

Or, in the case of tonight’s BBC leaders’ debate, questions.

Mishal Husain went through the motions of asking Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak the kind of questions that the audience at home might have expected. But neither the Labour leader nor the prime minister felt any need to address them. Why should they, after all? They’re important men with important messages to get across and they were in no mood to be diverted from doing so by a mere TV presenter doing her job.

The debate kicked off, naturally enough, with a question about the betting scandal, something that has impacted on both the Conservative and Labour campaigns in the last day or two. But there was little point in asking specific questions of the prime minister, who barely addressed the issue before heading off boldly on a tangent that included attacking Starmer for not being trustworthy or transparent.

Then Starmer was asked if any other of his candidates – aside from the unfortunate Kevin Craig in Suffolk who bet against himself and who has now been suspended – might have done the same thing. We’re still waiting for the answer. He might as well have said “Yeah, sure, whatever,” before taking his own tangent to have a go at Sunak.

There was a clever bit of choreography, intentional or not, when the next two audience members asked different but related questions. Mary reckoned the government was too soft on welfare claimants, and the leaders duly flexed their muscles to prove they were on the side of honest, hard-working people. But then Beverley announced she was disabled and on benefits and felt targeted by heartless politicians. The screeching handbrake turns of both men could be heard even over the demented bawling of some permanently angry students demonstrating outside. There was a lot of “I feel your pain” sort of empathising.

But not for the first time, Sunak came out on top. What is it about this wiry little fighter that the worst straits his party gets into, he ups the ante and goes for Starmer’s jugular at every opportunity? None of it has done him or his party any good, of course, at least so far. But Sunak performed like someone who’d eaten at least three shredded wheat this morning. He constantly challenged his rival over his nebulous plans and scored palpable hits when he challenged Starmer over what he would do with failed asylum seekers if he didn’t want to send them on a long package holiday to Rwanda, as well as on Starmer’s refusal to amend the Equality Act to protect female-only spaces.

It helped Sunak’s cause that Starmer, perhaps feeling over-confident after too much examination of the polls, attacked the PM for supporting Liz Truss after she defeated him in the leadership election two years ago. It took Husain to intervene to point out that Starmer himself also supported a party leader he claims he did not support – Jeremy Corbyn.

This debate, like all the previous ones and whichever ones remain to be held, is unlikely to change anything. But it left the impression that Rishi Sunak perhaps deserves a better party to lead. In different circumstances his pugilistic, combative approach would earn him more support.

But in his desire to deliver a knock-out punch, the prime minister yet again missed a golden opportunity, and one that could easily have been anticipated. Starmer, adopting his favourite, pompous tone, told the congregation – sorry, audience – that he would always put country before party. “So were you putting the country before party by trying to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister?” Rishi Sunak did not ask.