Money operates as a medium of exchange by negating the need for a double coincidence of wants. In a barter economy, if I have chickens and want to purchase a 30-goal-a-season striker, I am reliant on at least one football club being in need of (let's face it, several billion) chickens. A monetary medium resolves this issue, by satisfying both parties. Incidentally, this goes some way to explaining why the 2010 UK general election was the first to feature television debates.
You see, at the start of most election campaigns, there is one party in the lead and another behind. Today, Keir Starmer fits the role of the front runner, and as a consequence he wants as few debates as feasible (that is, something close to but not zero to avoid accusations he is running scared). Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak trails by 20 points, so he would ideally like as many debates as possible.
But in 2010, the stars aligned. Labour under Gordon Brown was consistently 5-10 points behind in the polls, and needed something to change. David Cameron's Conservatives enjoyed that modest lead but had yet to seal the deal with the electorate. And Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats were just pleased to be invited. Hence, three debates.
That Sunak has asked for an unprecedented (and let's face it, unlikely) six debates should not be taken as an indication that the prime minister is an especially accomplished debater. During the 2022 Conservative leadership contest, the then-chancellor took on Liz Truss in a debate moderated by the BBC's Sophie Raworth. It was proper hide behind the sofa stuff. Sunak, again behind in the polls, was tetchy, repeatedly talked over Truss and generally came across as obnoxious. This, despite the fact that he was ultimately right in warning that Truss's tax plans were, erm, ill-advised.
This morning, Starmer acknowledged that there would be debates. Labour sources have indicated he would be prepared to take part in the two debates with the largest audiences, that is BBC and ITV. But the real issue for Sunak isn't the number of debates. It isn't even that he is miles behind in the polls, though I can see that being problematic should those numbers be reflected in the votes.
It is that Sunak heads a party seeking a fifth successive term in office, one that has overseen falling living standards, the Truss 'mini-Budget' and literal boozy parties in Downing Street while the country was in lockdown. The prime minister is not responsible for all of these things, but nor is he six Aaron Sorkin debate zingers away from a surprise victory.
