Therese Raphael is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe. Read more opinion LISTEN TO ARTICLE 4:49 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email

Photographer: Jonathan Hordle Photographer: Jonathan Hordle

Neither Boris Johnson nor Jeremy Corbyn did enough in Tuesday’s debate to change the minds of many voters ahead of the Dec. 12 election. But the contest at least showed, better than any parliamentary sparring, the differences in policy vision and personal style between two men who’ve remade their parties around a central animating idea.

The debate was historic in the most prosaic sense. Americans have been televising presidential debates for decades. Britain has had its own version only since 2010, and this was the first one featuring just the leaders of Labour and the Conservatives, the two major parties. Ever since the first head-to-heads, when a relatively unknown Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg broke through, there has been nervousness among front-runners. Theresa May’s decision in 2017 to skip the debates altogether backfired badly; voters, it turns out, want to see the full job interview. Mindful of that and confident of his message, May’s successor Johnson signed up for two.

Most people make up their minds on who to support long before the televised contest, and many waverers don’t tune in. A recent YouGov poll showed 62% of those likely to change their minds said they probably wouldn’t watch the debates. Still, there’s something about a leadership debate in front of millions that provides a sense of the candidates beyond what’s offered by set-piece speeches and hospital visits.

Corbyn demonstrated some flashes of agility, and the earnestness for which he’s known. He produced a redacted document to hammer home the point that Johnson’s post-Brexit trade deal with the U.S. would compromise Britain’s cheaper drug pricing. He tried to humanize his arguments, speaking of a friend who died of breast cancer when he was talking about investing in the National Health Service, and about Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, when asked for his views on Epstein’s royal friend, Prince Andrew. When put on the spot to say what Christmas present he would give to Johnson, Corbyn answered with A Christmas Carol (that his rival might ponder Scrooge), while Johnson stumbled.

Johnson’s game was ugly but reasonably effective, even if it became monotonous as the hour wore on. To every question, he had one answer: He’ll “get Brexit done.” Corbyn’s plan, he added each time, would lead to two referendums – one on Brexit, another on Scottish independence — a charge that seems to carry weight with voters such is the exhaustion with Brexit. Corbyn had no answer when Johnson pressed him on how he’d campaign in a second Brexit referendum. With so many leave-voting constituencies up for grabs, Corbyn couldn’t possibly commit himself to backing remain.

Johnson tried to bully his way into extra time on every question, forcing the moderator to intervene. That served to reinforce his image as a politician who cares little for rules, and sometimes not much for decency. Yet to his supporters he will have appeared energetic and largely in control. Meanwhile, Corbyn stood still, glasses askew; it was hard to picture him at a NATO summit or G-7 meeting. A snap YouGov poll poll had the party leaders neck-and-neck overall on the night, but Johnson was seen as more “prime ministerial” by 54% to 29%.

Looking the part is the least of Corbyn’s problems. He often speaks as if Britain is a third-world country ruled by kleptocrats. It’s true that the U.K. has under-invested in infrastructure and some public services. Britain has too much poverty, but it’s also a rich country with a large, aspirational middle class. Corbyn’s statement that “we are a society of billionaires and the very poor” makes it sound like Venezuela. Many voters won’t recognize themselves in that description and will wonder what Corbyn will do for them — or to them.

Not that they trust Johnson much. When he was asked whether “truth mattered,” his answer — “I think it does” — provoked mocking laughter from the audience. Johnson repeatedly claimed that his Brexit deal didn’t create any border friction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., which it does. He claimed that a great trade deal would be done by the end of next year, a problematic promise, to put it mildly. His defense of “truth” was ironic considering that the Conservative Party rebranded its Twitter feed “FactCheck UK” during the debate.

There are smaller parties in this election too, who might play a role if Johnson is denied a majority. Yet their absence from Tuesday’s debate underscored what a presidential-style campaign this has become.

It’s not impossible that the next few weeks could see shifts. Corbyn’s hope will be that, along with the release of Labour’s manifesto on Thursday, the debates will inject Labour’s campaign with some needed momentum. It’s a tall order given the wide polling gap. Johnson’s job is to avoid any major stumbles and hope that his appeal to Leave voters makes up for all the lost Tory remainers.

Debates don’t decide elections, but they do let voters see the candidates side by side. This one showed two very different men, each in thrall to a central idea (a quick, hard Brexit for the Conservatives, state socialism for Labour) that will carry a hefty economic cost. For many Brits, it’s an unhappy choice.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.