The Andrew Neil interviews prove it has to be Hunt

Jeremy has a plan to get Brexit done whereas Boris hopes his career can outlast the Brexit deadline.

The Andrew Neil interviews put the leadership candidates under the highest level of scrutiny they have had to face in the leadership race, with every comment they have previously stated held to account.

The interview confirmed what we already knew, with Hunt showing the skill and professionalism he brought to the role of foreign secretary. Hunt reaffirmed his commitment to both keeping the union together and delivering his Brexit plan.

Hunt has a pragmatic approach to being PM, showing flexibility as if Britain is on the verge of a deal, which is acknowledged as the safest and most orderly way to leave the EU, an extension would be allowed. Whereas Boris’ campaign has been solely based upon leaving the EU on 31st October, yet he has not committed to resigning if he failed to do this.

This reaffirms that for Boris it’s do or die for the country and not for his career.

Neil pointed out that, ‘The theme of your campaign is that you won’t answer the question Boris.’ We deserve better than a PM who will only answer the questions of his choosing.

The candidates can be compared in many ways, in particular as they both held the role of foreign secretary. Boris’s mishandling of the Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe case became emblematic of his approach to politics as he still dismisses his remarks about, ‘journalism’ to have had ‘no effect.’ He shows a disregard for the consequences of his words and that British citizens can’t rely on him in times of danger.

Whereas Jeremy’s business negotiating background has helped with the protracted dispute to get a peace process in Yemen. Jeremy has been accused of being a technocrat but perhaps this is what the country needs as he answered Neil’s questions without hesitation and was knowledgeable on his policies.

But when Boris was quizzed on GATT Article 24 Paragraph 5B he was painfully unware of paragraph 5C existing, admitting he didn’t know what 5C entailed. This shows that Boris lacks a credible Brexit plan and only knows what he has been briefed about by his team.

This abysmal lack of knowledge of what he is proposing shows how he has failed under the minimal scrutiny he has allowed himself to be under after refusing to take part in a televised debate before ballot papers went out.

In terms of policies and approaches the two contrast greatly. One of Jeremy’s policies is to reduce the tax burden for low income families by changing National Insurance regulations whereas Boris’s first policy proposal was a tax cut for the better off. This reinforces what the Conservative Party would stand for under each candidate: under Jeremy it would be for all working people, under Boris for the rich.

Jeremy has policies post-Brexit such as wiping student debt for those who start businesses (and meet certain requirements for this!) and incentivising the employment of veterans. They differ in their approaches as Neil brought up how Hunt unequivocally backed the UK’s ambassador to the US in the ITV debate whereas Boris failed to show his support. A future PM should back our diplomats and Jeremy showed no hesitation in showing his support.

Whichever candidate you are supporting in the leadership race the consensus seems to be that they should be able to unite the party. This is another reason it #HasToBeHunt – as has been trending on Twitter recently – as Boris is seen as the most divisive candidate.

Boris pointed out Jeremy used to support remain. We are told to accept the vote and unite so let’s not divide us back to our 2016 starting point! Jeremy has a plan to get Brexit done whereas Boris hopes his career can outlast the Brexit deadline. That’s why it #HasToBeHunt.