Party leaders’ performance on ITV debate was little short of embarrassing

Watching the ITV leaders’ debate it soon became clear why Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn were wise not to take part, as the whole spectacle was just short of embarrassing to watch.

For example, most of the debate was about the populist massive spending programmes of the various minor parties, who had very little idea how to pay for it other than to soak the top 5 per cent of the taxpayers who already provide nearly 50 per cent of the tax revenues.

Also as expected, Nicola Sturgeon lectured the audience about how wonderful things were in Scotland and how better off we were with public spending compared to RUK (true) giving examples of how, unlike Theresa May, she would protect free school lunches and so on.

As there was no one on the panel who could challenge her (especially Ruth Davidson) about the true state of affairs in Scotland, the First Minister appeared to be having it all her own way.

That was until she was reminded by a panellist that the English taxpayers financed the extra spending of around £1,700 per capita (£8.5 billion) per year of public spending in Scotland and should be ended. In response, the Plaid Cymru leader said it would be a disaster if the Barnett formula ceased whilst Ms Sturgeon was heard muttering that Scots “also paid taxes”.

However, what was really interesting was the expression on the faces in the audience who were clearly clueless about the true cost of the Barnett formula to them and must have been left wondering why the two nationalist movements had the gall to complain about England and the Union at every opportunity whilst taking their money to finance a raft of freebies unavailable to them.

Fortunately, the momentum is now with the Unionist parties in Scotland (especially the Conservatives) and all the unnecessary divisiveness and makebelieve fictions by the SNP movement will be a thing of the past – hopefully before RUK wakes up.

IAN LAKIN Milltimber, Aberdeen I really must protest at the poor quality of the ITV leaders’ debate.

Was there any need for those studio lights to be quite so bright? I wonder why no one fainted? Am I right in thinking the leaders and the audience present were under those lights for two hours?

Juliet Etchingham was supposed to facilitate the debate. She continually talked over the leaders when they were saying something important but utterly and entirely failed to keep order or intervene to stop the proceedings whenever one leader talked over another. The problem for Theresa May appearing on the programme wouldn’t have been Jeremy Corbyn, it would be the physical comparison with the other, much younger leaders and Juliet Etchingham.

Would you want to go on TV for two hours under those lights and try to convince the country you were fit and well enough to run the country or take Britain through the Brexit negotiations if you were the Prime Minister?

NIGEL BODDY Fife Road, Darlington