A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year and Marr's style is more sly digs and he isn't that persistent.
Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 min grillings, I mean interviews.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
Changing skills in the political class I guess. It's just too risky for them to do it normally, so they never learn properly. A shame.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
I think Ed has made a mistake here. People's last impression of Cameron will be how he answers the, presumably, easier questions from the audience (I am not watching this so it could in theory be a bloodbath). People's last impression of Ed Miliband will be how he answers Paxman's more searching questions.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
Changing skills in the political class I guess. It's just too risky for them to do it normally, so they never learn properly. A shame.
Old people vote, but I always wondered how relatively likely they were to switch (or change their turnout levels). Maybe focussing on them is actually inefficient strategy.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
And Marr is completely useless.
I wouldn't say he is useless, but he isn't persistent, he isn't aggressive and I would say he isn't always that well prepped (even before the stroke). What he seems to do instead is insert sly digs, and as long as you rise above that, normally ok.
From the Guardian (not really noted for being a Tory newspaper)
"Paxman interviews Cameron - Snap verdict: What a class act. Paxman, of course. Not just because the questions were aggressive, but because they were pointed, clever, witty (and aggressive). It was Cameron’s most uncomfortable 20 minutes in an interview for ages. His concession that he could not live on a zero hours contract is already being used against him by Labour, but overall he held up reasonably well, and even managed a lighthearted comment at the end."
Will the next question be, who is his favourite Spice Girl? What the hell are these questions?Don't they call this a "dolly" in cricket?
Maybe that was part of the agreement with the broadcasters - Look, Dave, Ed, we'll let Paxo loose, but we'll lob some soft balls for you to hit from the audience too.
Oh give over. Who the F gives a F what you think, when you have never posted anything but tedious pro-Labour bilge?
Why do you fecking bother? Really. What a waste of a life.
If you're not being paid to type, a penny a letter, do something else.
Same goes for Tory cheerleaders, of course.
Oh dear - I was getting quite excited there until the last sentence. But then again i am watching BBC programme on Pakistan Railways and its border with India. Fascinating stuff. As I'm sure you already know. I have to travel the world vicariously.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
And Marr is completely useless.
I wouldn't say he is useless, but he isn't persistent, he isn't aggressive and I would say he isn't always that well prepped (even before the stroke). What he seems to do instead is insert sly digs, and as long as you rise above that, normally ok.
Andrew Neil is much better. Neil actually takes an interest in his subject. Marr is just a personality who wants to be on TV.
Will the next question be, who is his favourite Spice Girl? What the hell are these questions?Don't they call this a "dolly" in cricket?
I Know,saving them for Ed ;-)
This is embarrasing. I expect the next one to be "Dave, what is your favourite colour and was that colour in a worse state before the coalition took over, by the way I think you look dashing tonight".
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
Changing skills in the political class I guess. It's just too risky for them to do it normally, so they never learn properly. A shame.
A thought has just occured to me. None of the politicians do many of these tough interviews anymore. They simply won't be match fit the way Blair for all his faults was. As for all the preparation they've done - it's a bit like England practising penalties. You can't replicate the match situation.
That is a good point...when was Cameron, Miliband, etc last on QT or Newsnight. The only one they do these days is Marr couple of times a year. Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 mins interviews.
And Marr is completely useless.
I wouldn't say he is useless, but he isn't persistent, he isn't aggressive and I would say he isn't always that well prepped (even before the stroke). What he seems to do instead is insert sly digs, and as long as you rise above that, normally ok.
Andrew Neil is much better. Neil actually takes an interest in his subject. Marr is just a personality who wants to be on TV.
Agreed. I like Neil, because he knows his stuff and he also has a variety of techniques to make those he interviews uncomfortable. Paxman is Mr Aggrro, Cameron was stupid not to think that is how he would be.
Neil sometimes goes aggro and others he does the nicely nicely matey matey...zinger question...approach.
I predict people will say Cameron improves in this section before slagging off Ed for the remainder of the show
I say it exactly how I think it is. I think most pb'ers are the same. Cameron is getting much better now.
He wasn't with Paxman earlier and was starting to get agitated and defensive.
Not many people are as verbally aggessive as Paxman.
Cameron is handling the audience well. The Clegasm like noting of the questioners name is there, but he should look at the camera rather than the questioner. Remember where the audience are.
I think Ed has made a mistake here. People's last impression of Cameron will be how he answers the, presumably, easier questions from the audience (I am not watching this so it could in theory be a bloodbath). People's last impression of Ed Miliband will be how he answers Paxman's more searching questions.
I'm in two minds - typically. I think more people are likely to have seen the very start, and thus the bit Cameron did worse in, and are not as likely to stick around for all the rest. But maybe some more people will tune in and catch the end, when (and we cannot be sure) Ed might do worse.
Cameron seems more comfortable and passionate now. More natural. Better.
Complete schmoozer. It's why I don't like him.
You prefer people who are objectionable and unable to lead? Such a lot of bilge. Schmoozer is another way of saying 'communicator'.
You could - and I expect many do - argue that Farage is a schmoozer. But at least he believes in something. Someone on here pointed out that Cameron admitted to not particularly liking being PM in the Lansdale piece. I want politicians who actually want to do something because they believe in it. I just don't get what Cameron believes in - apart from being PM.
Cameron has a sincerity deficit, millionaire talking about not leaving debts for one's children.
What's the point? It's fairly obvious you'd sacrifice your first born for Ed, if he asked you. At least try and have a semblance of balance, this is just plain embarrassing.
The only thing that struck me as possibly significant is that Cameron admitted to not being able to live on a zero hours contract.
Rubbish. He said that they suit some people. And they do. Get in the real world - without zero hours there would be fewer jobs, lower economic growth, more reliance on a state that can not afford to spend as much as it does.
Yes. I think your little exchange there shows how pointless these interviews/debates are. Any answer is twisted by an opponent. If you are a supporter its inevitable that you would make allowances or take the point. If you are a DK then the nature of the format will not be enlightening. I am happily watching a programme which is informing me on BBC4
Very brief this, both Paxo and Q&A. Needed more time to get these guys sweating (even with softball questions, the more there are the greater the chance they gaffe)
Cameron's saving grace of his 20 minutes with Paxman is that the GE isn't for another 6 weeks and despite not doing very well, there wasn't anything new in terms of attacks. Labour / Guardian / BBC axis have been banging on about food banks and zero hour contracts for the past 5 years.
The only thing that struck me as possibly significant is that Cameron admitted to not being able to live on a zero hours contract.
Rubbish. He said that they suit some people. And they do. Get in the real world - without zero hours there would be fewer jobs, lower economic growth, more reliance on a state that can not afford to spend as much as it does.
Yes. I think your little exchange there shows how pointless these interviews/debates are. Any answer is twisted by an opponent. I
Yes, but by that logic it shows how all political discourse is pointless. We should just have them all sit in offices all day and then put leaflets through our letterboxes and not interact with each other or the media at all, as their opponents will always just twist whatever they say.
Look at his answer on the NHS servises, he is just blabbering from start to finish not answering the question, and that is on all audience questions so far.
The only thing that struck me as possibly significant is that Cameron admitted to not being able to live on a zero hours contract.
Rubbish. He said that they suit some people. And they do. Get in the real world - without zero hours there would be fewer jobs, lower economic growth, more reliance on a state that can not afford to spend as much as it does.
Yes. I think your little exchange there shows how pointless these interviews/debates are. Any answer is twisted by an opponent. If you are a supporter its inevitable that you would make allowances or take the point. If you are a DK then the nature of the format will not be enlightening. I am happily watching a programme which is informing me on BBC4
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that zero hours contracts are the worst thing in the World or anything - I was just pointing out something that could be used against him in the coming hours/days.
Look at his answer on the NHS servises, he is just blabbering from start to finish not answering the question, and that is on all audience questions so far.
In otherwords doing a Nixon. Blabber on endlessly and avoid tricky questions.
Cameron's saving grace of his 20 minutes with Paxman is that the GE isn't for another 6 weeks and despite not doing very well, there wasn't anything new in terms of attacks. Labour / Guardian / BBC axis have been banging on about food banks and zero hour contracts for the past 5 years.
I really don't agree. Zero hours and food banks have not resonated with Midlands marginal voters. Can't see why it's going to change anything now...
Cameron's saving grace of his 20 minutes with Paxman is that the GE isn't for another 6 weeks and despite not doing very well, there wasn't anything new in terms of attacks. Labour / Guardian / BBC axis have been banging on about food banks and zero hour contracts for the past 5 years.
I really don't agree. Zero hours and food banks have not resonated with Midlands marginal voters. Can't see why it's going to change anything now...
Errhhh that is what I am saying. Those attacks aren't new and Cameron has been attacked repeatedly about them. It used to be every single PMQ's that a Labour MP would ask a question on food banks and if Cameron had stopped beating his wife.
There is actually other things, NHS reogranization is one, but the Coalitions core purpose deficit reduction that Paxman could have shredded Cameron on, that don't normally get as bigger screening.
Most of the public thing the Coalition has cut debt...and the half truths about deficit. I would have shredded Cameron on that, as economic componence is the key stone of the Coalition.
So, what will be the proportion of 'These interviews will swing this election' nutter comments, and the 'These interviews will have no impact and everyone was saying they would swing everything (even though most people were not)' nutter comments, I wonder?
What was interesting was that he neither got nor took any real opportunities to criticise his opponents. It was what would he do. What's the betting Ed doesn't really want to do that?
Oh god. Can he stop talking about the strong economy, all the bloody time. Is that it? Is that all we're going to get. Strong economy. Strong economy. Strong economy and yes did I forget to say the strong economy.
Comments
Hardly. It was hard, but hardly disaster status.
Remember when politicians used to regularly do 30 min grillings, I mean interviews.
Now the play-off against the audience
He wasn't with Paxman earlier and was starting to get agitated and defensive.
"Paxman interviews Cameron - Snap verdict: What a class act. Paxman, of course. Not just because the questions were aggressive, but because they were pointed, clever, witty (and aggressive). It was Cameron’s most uncomfortable 20 minutes in an interview for ages. His concession that he could not live on a zero hours contract is already being used against him by Labour, but overall he held up reasonably well, and even managed a lighthearted comment at the end."
I have to travel the world vicariously.
Neil sometimes goes aggro and others he does the nicely nicely matey matey...zinger question...approach.
Cameron is handling the audience well. The Clegasm like noting of the questioners name is there, but he should look at the camera rather than the questioner. Remember where the audience are.
He shorta drifts out of focus.
It sounds like they did the grilling first, then added the cheese.
#youredoingitwrong
PS. Cameron's answer makes him sound dangerously like a eurosceptic. Pushing my buttons as a shaky Con/UKIP waverer
I am happily watching a programme which is informing me on BBC4
Do you ever criticise Labour or Miliband? Or are you a tedious unthinking partisan?
What price Ed does the same?
Have you ever had three shreaded wheat FFS!!!!
There is actually other things, NHS reogranization is one, but the Coalitions core purpose deficit reduction that Paxman could have shredded Cameron on, that don't normally get as bigger screening.
Most of the public thing the Coalition has cut debt...and the half truths about deficit. I would have shredded Cameron on that, as economic componence is the key stone of the Coalition.
26/03/2015 21:41
Audience questions after Paxman is like when Spurs bring on Soldado for Harry Kane.