Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer took turns answering questions from Sky News and a live audience, with a snap poll suggesting the Labour leader performed better on the night.
But what did we learn from their responses about the key issues facing the country?
Here’s a look at the key points from the Sky News leaders’ event in Grimsby.
Image: The Sky News leaders’ event was held in Grimsby
NHS waiting lists
With the NHS England waiting list up to about 7.5 million cases, there was some angry shouting from the audience when Mr Sunak brought up the industrial action taken up by staff in the health service.
“We’ve not made as much progress on cutting waiting lists as I would have liked,” he said.
“That was something that I was keen to do, and it has proved more difficult for a number of reasons, obviously recovering from a pandemic is not easy.”
He faced groans and boos when he said: “I think everyone knows the impact the industrial action has had, that’s why we haven’t made as much [progress].”
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:18
Sunak booed as he arrives at Sky News event
Sir Keir said the government could not afford to meet junior doctors’ pay-rise demands but said Labour would “get the room and settle this dispute”.
Tory tax burden
Mr Sunak repeated his promise of “tax cuts for people at every stage for people at every stage of their life”.
Facing questions about the tax burden potentially being higher than it is now under a future Conservative government, Mr Sunak said: “What our manifesto announced is the tax cuts for people at every stage of their life – for people in work, for people that are setting up small businesses, that are self-employed, for those young people who want to buy their first home, for pensioners and for families.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:32
Did Sunak’s claims add up?
D-Day fallout
“It hasn’t been an easy 18 months in general,” Mr Sunak admitted, when asked about what has gone so wrong for his party.
“I’m going to keep fighting hard until last day of this election,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:24
Sunak ‘deeply sad’ over D-Day
But Mr Sunak’s decision to leave D-Day commemorations early sparked widespread backlash against the prime minister.
“I was incredibly sad to have caused people hurt and upset,” he said, adding he hopes people can forgive him.
National service
When an audience member asked why a young person today would believe the Tories have their best interests at heart, Mr Sunak said he is “incredibly excited” for his daughters to do national service.
“I think it will be transformative for our country,” he added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:56
Sunak on ‘transformative’ national service
Tough questions for Starmer on tax
Addressing his tax plans, Sir Keir insisted “working people shouldn’t pay more tax” and repeated “no tax rises for working people”.
This includes income tax, VAT and National Insurance, but rises in fuel duty, for example, would impact working people, Rigby pointed out.
To help balance the scales, increasing capital gains tax could raise £14bn a year, Rigby said, but Sir Keir revealed “that is not in our manifesto”.
He said he’d be happy to pay more tax himself, despite being in the top 3% for amount of tax paid – after earning £128,000 and paying £44,000 in income tax last year.
“Yes, of course,” he said, reminding the audience his father was a toolmaker – with the often-repeated line causing some laughter in the audience – and his family “couldn’t make ends meet”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:51
Starmer accused of being a ‘political robot’
VAT on private schools
Challenged on his plans for a VAT tax on private school education, Sir Keir told an audience member the party is removing a tax break – rather than adding a new tax.
“The position at the moment is there’s a tax break, so you pay VAT on other services, but you don’t pay for private schools,” he said.
“Now I understand why that’s been in place, but it’s a tax break that we are removing. It’s not an introduction of a new tax.”
Two-child benefit cap
Sir Keir confirmed there is no plan in his party’s manifesto to cut a two-child benefit cap, admitting it was a “difficult” decision.
“I can’t do something – I know the benefits of it and we will have a strategy for it – but I think people are fed up of politicians who before the election say we’ll do everything,” he said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:20
Starmer challenged on ‘trust’
Small boat crossings and immigration
On small boats, Rigby confronted Mr Sunak about small boat crossings. More than 10,000 migrants have arrived in the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats in 2024 – a new record for this stage in the year.
Part of the Tory strategy to cut the number of crossings is the controversial Rwanda policy, which Mr Sunak again vowed would take off in July if he wins the election.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:17
Sunak: Immigration ‘too high’
Asked why, if he is so confident flights would take off in July, he didn’t prove this before calling an election, Mr Sunak said “it was the right moment” to go to the polls.
Meanwhile, Rigby outlined how net migration in the past three years stands at 1.9 million people – against 836,000 before Brexit.
With the figure more than doubling since leaving the European Union, Mr Sunak admitted “it’s too high”.
“I’m sure people feel frustrated about that,” he said. “The numbers are too high.”
Starmer distances from Corbyn
Questioned on trust, Sir Keir defended changing previous stances he held, including Labour policies.
He said the “country comes first, party second” and looked back at previous decisions to ask himself if they’re best for the nation, rather than Labour.
Reminded on his claim in the last election that Jeremy Corbyn would make a “great prime minister”, the Labour leader refused to answer directly if he believed that.
Instead, he repeated he was “certain” the party would lose the election in 2019.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:02
‘I was certain we would lose’
What we didn’t know about the leaders
Asked what he fears most about becoming prime minister, the Labour leader said he’s worried about the impact it will have on his family, including his children aged 16 and 13.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
‘The only fear I have is for my family’
Rigby asked Mr Sunak to tell the audience one thing they might not know about him.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Sunak reveals ‘appalling diet’
He said he had an “appalling diet” due to his sweet tooth. Haribo and Twix are apparently his favourites.
Sir Keir Starmer’s been on the other side of the world for most of the week – at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, his 40th foreign trip in 16 months.
Back home, his government’s credibility has continued its painful unravelling.
Five days on from David Lammy’s disastrous stand-in performance at PMQS, the justice secretary’s ministerial colleagues are still struggling to explain why he repeatedly failed to answer questions on whether another migrant criminal had been released from prison by mistake.
Image: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer at the Remembrance Sunday service at the Cenotaph in London. Pic: PA
Yes, Conservative MP James Cartlidge got the question wrong, as Brahim Kaddour-Cherif was an illegal migrant, not an asylum seeker.
But Mr Cartlidge argued that because the deputy prime minister failed to divulge the information he did have, he failed to act with full transparency and should be investigated by the PM’s ethics advisor for a possible breach of the ministerial code.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
10:17
Lammy not sharing facts is ‘shocking’
She told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips she doesn’t accept that he was being evasive, insisting Mr Lammy had been carefully weighing his words to ensure that “when we do speak about matters of such significance to the public… we do so with care and make sure the full facts are presented”.
At that time, rather extraordinarily, we’re told the justice secretary did not have the full facts of the case, even though the Metropolitan Police had been informed the day before (six days after Kaddour-Cherif was accidentally freed).
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:14
In full: Moment sex offender arrested
The combination of wrongly-freed prisoners and illegal migrants is a conjunction of two of the most toxic issues in British politics – the overflowing prison system and the dysfunctional asylum system.
Both are vast, chaotic problems the government is struggling to get a grip on, as the Conservatives also found, to their cost.
But ministers’ ongoing failure to bring both issues under control has only been highlighted by Mr Lammy’s sloppy handling of the situation.
Football regulator donations row
Ms Nandy has herself been at the heart of another government controversy this week – over the appointment of the new football regulator, David Kogan.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:20
‘I didn’t want to mislead MPs on prisoner release’
An independent investigation found she “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare that Mr Kogan had previously donated £2,900 to her Labour leadership campaign – and also criticised her department for not highlighting his status as a Labour donor who had previously given £33,410 to the party.
The culture secretary has apologised and explained she had been unaware of the donations.
She also pointed out that Mr Kogan was a candidate originally put forward by the Conservatives. But again, it’s messy.
It’s yet another story which chips away at the government’s promises to clear up politics and act with full transparency and accountability.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
Political fallout analysed
Budget blues?
The ultimate breach of trust looks set to come with the budget on 26 November, however.
In an extraordinary early morning speech this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled that she’s likely to raise taxes in two and a half weeks – and thus breach the core promise of the Labour Party manifesto.
The rationale for her dire warnings on Tuesday was to start explaining why she will probably have to do so – getting in her excuses early about the languishing state of the economy as a result of Brexit, Donald Trump’s tariffs and her inheritance from the Conservatives.
The Tories claim Ms Reeves could sort out the finances by cutting welfare spending – something ministers dramatically failed to do when their efforts at reform were scuttled by angry backbenchers.
Governments breach their manifesto commitments all the time.
But if the chancellor goes ahead and puts up income tax, as expected (even if that’s offset, for some, by a corresponding cut to national insurance), it will be a shock – and the first such increase in 50 years.
The new deputy leader of the party, Lucy Powell, pointedly warned the government this week about the risks of breaching trust in politics by breaking manifesto promises.
Lisa Nandy didn’t shoot her comments down when Sir Trevor asked for her response, arguing instead that while “we take our promises very, very seriously”, they [Labour] “were also elected on a promise to change this country”, with a particular focus on fixing the NHS.
The impossibility of doing both – protecting taxes while also increasing government spending in such a challenging economic climate – highlights the folly of making such restrictive promises.
United States President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that most Americans will receive a $2,000 “dividend” from the tariff revenue and criticized the opposition to his sweeping tariff policies.
“A dividend of at least $2000 a person, not including high-income people, will be paid to everyone,” Trump said on Truth Social.
The US Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about the legality of the tariffs, with the overwhelming majority of prediction market traders betting against a court approval.
Kalshi traders place the odds of the Supreme Court approving the policy at just 23%, while Polymarket traders have the odds at 21%. Trump asked:
“The president of the United States is allowed, and fully approved by Congress, to stop all trade with a foreign country, which is far more onerous than a tariff, and license a foreign country, but is not allowed to put a simple tariff on a foreign country, even for purposes of national security?”
Investors and market analysts celebrated the announcement as economic stimulus that will boost cryptocurrency and other asset prices as portions of the stimulus flow into the markets, but also warned of the long-term negative effects of the proposed dividend.
While a portion of the stimulus will flow into markets and raise asset prices, Kobeissi Letter warned that the ultimate long-term effect of any economic stimulus will be fiat currency inflation and the loss of purchasing power.
The proposed economic stimulus checks will add to the national debt and result in higher inflation over time. Source: The Kobeissi Letter
“If you don’t put the $2,000 in assets, it is going to be inflated away or just service some interest on debt and sent to banks,” Bitcoin analyst, author, and advocate Simon Dixon said.
“Stocks and Bitcoin only know to go higher in response to stimulus,” investor and market analyst Anthony Pompliano said in response to Trump’s announcement.
Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology
A new consensus is forming across the Web3 world. For years, privacy was treated as a compliance problem, liability for developers and at best, a niche concern. Now it is becoming clear that privacy is actually what digital freedom is built on.
The Ethereum Foundation’s announcement of the Privacy Cluster — a cross-team effort focused on private reads and writes, confidential identities and zero-knowledge proofs — is a sign of a philosophical redefinition of what trust, consensus and truth mean in the digital age and a more profound realization that privacy must be built into infrastructure.
Regulators should pay attention. Privacy-preserving designs are no longer just experimental; they are now a standard approach. They are becoming the way forward for decentralized systems. The question is whether law and regulation will adopt this shift or remain stuck in an outdated logic that equates visibility with safety.
From shared observation to shared verification
For a long time, digital governance has been built on a logic of visibility. Systems were trustworthy because they could be observed by regulators, auditors or the public. This “shared observation” model is behind everything from financial reporting to blockchain explorers. Transparency was the means of ensuring integrity.
In cryptographic systems, however, a more powerful paradigm is emerging: shared verification. Instead of every actor seeing everything, zero-knowledge proofs and privacy-preserving designs enable verifying that a rule was followed without revealing the underlying data. Truth becomes something you can prove, not something you must expose.
This shift might seem technical, but it has profound consequences. It means we no longer need to pick between privacy and accountability. Both can coexist, embedded directly into the systems we rely on. Regulators, too, must adapt to this logic rather than battle against it.
Privacy as infrastructure
The industry is realizing the same thing: Privacy is not a niche. It’s infrastructure. Without it, the Web3 openness becomes its weakness, and transparency collapses into surveillance.
Emerging architectures across ecosystems demonstrate that privacy and modularity are finally converging. Ethereum’s Privacy Cluster focuses on confidential computation and selective disclosure at the smart-contract level.
Others are going deeper, integrating privacy into the network consensus itself: sender-unlinkable messaging, validator anonymity, private proof-of-stake and self-healing data persistence. These designs are rebuilding the digital stack from the ground up, aligning privacy, verifiability and decentralization as mutually reinforcing properties.
This is not an incremental improvement. It is a new way of thinking about freedom in the digital network age.
Policy is lagging behind the technology
Current regulatory approaches still reflect the logic of shared observation. Privacy-preserving technologies are scrutinized or restricted, while visibility is mistaken for safety and compliance. Developers of privacy protocols face regulatory pressure, and policymakers continue to think that encryption is an obstacle to observability.
This perspective is outdated and dangerous. In a world where everyone is being watched, and where data is harvested on an unprecedented scale, bought, sold, leaked and exploited, the absence of privacy is the actual systemic risk. It undermines trust, puts people at risk and makes democracies weaker. By contrast, privacy-preserving designs make integrity provable and enable accountability without exposure.
Lawmakers must begin to view privacy as an ally, not an adversary — a tool for enforcing fundamental rights and restoring confidence in digital environments.
Stewardship, not just scrutiny
The next phase of digital regulation must move from scrutiny to support. Legal and policy frameworks should protect privacy-preserving open source systems as critical public goods. Stewardship stance is a duty, not a policy choice.
It means providing legal clarity for developers and distinguishing between acts and architecture. Laws should punish misconduct, not the existence of technologies that enable privacy. The right to maintain private digital communication, association and economic exchange must be treated as a fundamental right, enforced by both law and infrastructure.
Such an approach would demonstrate regulatory maturity, recognizing that resilient democracies and legitimate governance rely on privacy-preserving infrastructure.
The architecture of freedom
The Ethereum Foundation’s privacy initiative and other new privacy-first network designs share the idea that freedom in the digital age is an architectural principle. It cannot depend solely on promises of good governance or oversight; it must be built into protocols that shape our lives.
These new systems, private rollups, state-separated architectures and sovereign zones represent the practical synthesis of privacy and modularity. They enable communities to build independently while remaining verifiably connected, thereby combining autonomy with accountability.
Policymakers should view this as an opportunity to support the direct embedding of fundamental rights into the technical foundation of the internet. Privacy-by-design should be embraced as legality-by-design, a way to enforce fundamental rights through code, not just through constitutions, charters and conventions.
The blockchain industry is redefining what “consensus” and “truth” mean, replacing shared observation with shared verification, visibility with verifiability, and surveillance with sovereignty. As this new dawn for privacy takes shape, regulators face a choice: Limit it under the old frameworks of control, or support it as the foundation of digital freedom and a more resilient digital order.
The tech is getting ready. The laws need to catch up.
Opinion by: Agata Ferreira, assistant professor at the Warsaw University of Technology.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.