The pundit’s verdict on the leadership debate seems generally to be that neither candidate excelled themselves, and that there was no victor.  

It has always been clear that Boris tells better jokes and is cleverer with words than Jeremy.  Personally I find Jeremy’s speeches marked by rhetorical flourishes which are full of good intention but less than inspiring;  his PMQs performances are neither incisive nor witty. 

But then PMQs is a forum stacked in favour of the PM with the PM always having the last word. In the ITV election debate, by contrast, Jeremy showed fluency in argument which was certainly a match for Boris who seemed heavily reliant on slogans and to have trouble drawing his comments to a conclusion, with Julie Etchingham frequently having to call him to order.

Boris’s “killer” point was that, in the event of Labour winning the election and negotiating a “credible new deal” with the EU,  Jerermy declines to commit himself in the second EU referendum Labour will organise, to support either the leave or remain option.  

Following the debate, this  weakness in Jeremy’s position has been widely commented on and I notice that Nicola Sturgeon has, for her own reasons, chosen to amplify it. 

Jeremy’s ambivalence to the EU was clear at the time of the first referendum.  He is from that tradition in the Labour Party – led by his hero Tony Benn, who never wished to be in the EU in the first place.  As someone who voted to remain in the first referendum, I was less than pleased by this positioning. 

However, at this particular juncture,  Jeremy’s refusal to commit seems rather more credible.  The country is clearly divided over Brexit, and what Jeremy is telling us is that he can live with either leave or remain and will abide by the decision of the people. 

There are I think moments when a leader should stand on principle.  There are however other moments when they should listen and be led; this is such a moment.