"If Ed had won the ICM poll by the same margin would the BBC have said there was a clear winner ?"
Everything I've heard so far sounds typically BBC. Very neutral and non committal. If anyone can read any bias into anything so far then they're looking for it.
The only commentator who I've heard passing a personal opinion is Jon Piennar who is always fair and he said 'unlike most others I actually thought Ed shaded it'
Can't believe that anyone impartial could think Miliband won the debates last night. He was poor at answering the questions, Cameron was well prepared and briefed even on the difficult territory of zero hour contracts. The media are desperate for the election to be a close race between the two of them, they were desperate for Cameron to slip up (he didn't) and hoping that Miliband would exceed expectations (which it was impossible not to do, and he managed it).
Indeed. Which is why every poll I've seen (ICM, YouGov, and several voodoo polls - Newsnight, Telegraph online) gave the win to Cam....
Which again supports the thesis that CCHQ was wrong to sabotage the debates, lazily accepting the conventional view that they boost LOTO, rather than the more obvious reality that they would enable DC to press home his advantage over EM.
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I don't know what they see in the Gollum of British Politics.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
@ScottyNational: Battle for No. 10:Our readers' survey shows Alex Salmond overwhelming won the Leaders questions show last night. Patrick Harvie came second.
Through my Tory-tinted spectacles I had Dave winning by a country mile last night. I thought Ed was awful, and want him as PM even less now. I was genuinely shocked to hear Allegra Stratton call it as a solid win for Ed on Newsnight afterwards. Undoubtedly the unbiased truth is rather closer to the ICM polling.
I now want to see much more of Ed on TV - it seems to me that more performances like last night and he won't get any votes at all. I'm sure that his supporters want to see more of him for entirely the opposite reason.
The BBC does seem to be letting bias creep in, but that view is probably just my Tory-tinted spectacles again mostly. I think they'd be better off in avoiding judgement calls as to who won or lost by their journalists - better to interview a non BBC person and ask for that.
Labour will make important gains in London in the general election, according to a special Guardian/ICM telephone poll which shows the party winning several seats in the capital.
The party is set to advance by 5 percentage points from its previous general election performance to reach 42% – and is a full 10 points ahead of the Tories, who fall back 3 points from their 2010 result to land at 32%.
On a uniform swing, these numbers would deliver eight gains for Labour, mostly in the west of the city – where Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing Central and Acton, and Harrow East would all be picked up from the Tories.
I can believe it. London is a very different city, now.
I blame all the immigrants.
Bloody foreigners - coming over here, and paying our taxes :-)
It's worse that that - coming over here, doing the work we would not do and then paying their taxes :-)
Are you admitting to being a layabout who doesn't want to work and prefers to spend all day on the internet ?
Or are you saying your business doesn't pay a living wage ?
Or maybe you're making a racist comment that British people (many of whom near you are the children or grandchildren of earlier immigrants) are fundamentally idle ?
First-generation immigrants, in any country and of any race, are less idle than their offspring. They are, after all, a self-selected highly motivated group whose energy is diluted, over the generations, by intermarriage with the locals. Ask the Normans and Saxons! (Or even the Jews, who thwarted the process by ghettoization.)
A welfare state helps to dilute the energy as well. That's not a criticism of a welfare state but the absence of one does impose a Darwinian necessity towards hard work and self reliance.
Intermarriage with locals only dilutes the energy of the immigrants if they are more successful than the local communities generally.
In the case of Jews, Chinese or East African Asians that would apply but it doesn't to Muslims in northern mill towns or to the new ghettos of Eastern European Roma forming in South Yorkshire.
Labour will make important gains in London in the general election, according to a special Guardian/ICM telephone poll which shows the party winning several seats in the capital.
The party is set to advance by 5 percentage points from its previous general election performance to reach 42% – and is a full 10 points ahead of the Tories, who fall back 3 points from their 2010 result to land at 32%.
On a uniform swing, these numbers would deliver eight gains for Labour, mostly in the west of the city – where Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing Central and Acton, and Harrow East would all be picked up from the Tories.
I can believe it. London is a very different city, now.
Indeed - Labour used to do much better in London (50% of the vote in 97). I blame all the immigrants.
Long-term London is trending heavily to Labour. We both know the Tories have a problem in attracting votes from immigrants, except in Harrow which bucks the trend.
Labour are better organised in London tha anywhere else in the country this time around. They have attracted a large number of new members a lot of whom are activists on the street. I was chatting to one of their party organisers a couple of days ago about Southwark where they are going all out to unseat Simon Hughes. He described the campaigning as being like "the battle of Stalingrad" with both sides going house to house eking out every single vote. That will be one to watch for on May 8th
Hughesie like Clegg is a figure of hate for Labour supporters, can't see what is so offensive about either myself. Both Hughes and Clegg should hold on, Hughes for the goodwill he has built up over time and Clegg because Labour won't get the backing they need to treble their vote in West Sheffield.
Amazing how much hatred for individuals Labour can whip up. The level of hostility whipped up for say Burnham or Miliband from Conservative activists and supporters doesn't carry the same venom. Not sure whether that helps Labour overall or not.
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I admired your restraint in your description of David Davis yesterday, I would have used stronger language.
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I don't know what they see in the Gollum of British Politics.
Oh, that's easy. They far prefer their Labour Speaker to Cameron.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
A look at the Glenrothes West (Fife) by election indicates that the total first preferences at the 2012 council elections were:
Labour 1532 (2 candidates)
SNP 1280 (2 candidates)
This council elects 3 members and the SNP candidate for GE 2015, Peter Grant, sits for this area, being elected in third place in 2012 (Labour won the first 2 places).
The result may therefore be of considerable significance re the 2015 GE prospects
For convenience:
The result yesterday was:
Council by election result of 26 March 2015 is another straw in the wind:
Glenrothes West (Fife) vote result:
SNP – 2539 LAB – 1643 CON – 202 UKIP – 146 LDEM – 61
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I admired your restraint in your description of David Davis yesterday, I would have used stronger language.
That was Hansard not me
David Davis is a selfish tosser with as bad an attitude to defeat as Ted Heath.
I’m still amazed at Dave’s extraordinary comment that the rise in foodbank use is because Job Centres now tell people about them!
Part of the rise is the delay in getting benefits when people do sign on or their work c
Miliband is not wrong on analysis, just incapable of solutions.
There have been a couple of years when benefit increases were limited to 1%. I don't know how they compare to average wages over the course of the Parliament though. Something to dig up from the ONS data at some point.
The glaring omission from your post is any mention of benefit sanctions. People are having their benefits stopped for a variety of piddling bureaucratic reasons, or catch-22 situations where they are set up to fail (such as having to choose between job interviews and job centre appointments). It is mean, vindictive and inhumane. The increase in benefit sanctions (which were introduced by Labour) is directly linked to the increased use of food banks.
I think there is a correlation with sanctions. As soon as someone is sanctioned they are given an automatic referral form for a food bank. However i disagree with the catch 22 thing. It is largely an urban myth.
The whole "my daughter was in hospital/at doctors/i had an interview" are all rubbish, that isnt to say there wont be the odd one in which has been incorrectly or vindictively carried out.
What happens is you have a set of tasks you must carry out. Apply for work, attend the job centre etc. If you cannot make the appointment you must tell them.
This is what is happening in almost all these cases, is that people just dont turn up. And then seven days later they get not benefits.
The entire of welfare reform from IDS, a great social reformer, is about aligning benefits and work. When you are in work you have certain things you must do. You must be on time, you must turn up, you must make an effort.
If for some reason you are late, you must let your employer know, and you do it very rarely. If you cant turn in for work, you must let your employer know as soon as possible. You cant just not turn up.
Sanction, sanction, sanction. They've been one of the greatest tools in getting people into work. In getting some to understand that benefits isnt an easy life. It is there to get you on your feet.
Because a sanction can have such a great impact on the life of the person being sanctioned it is essential that oversight and a set criteria is used and kept to.
If youve been sanctioned. Tough. Turn up on time, like the rest of us.
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
DavidL the Dundee Tory.
Ironic given that serial rebel Winston Churchill was once the local MP.
A pity we didn't have PB in the 1930s, it would have been interesting to read what party loyalists said about Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper etc.
Labour will make important gains in London in the general election, according to a special Guardian/ICM telephone poll which shows the party winning several seats in the capital.
The party is set to advance by 5 percentage points from its previous general election performance to reach 42% – and is a full 10 points ahead of the Tories, who fall back 3 points from their 2010 result to land at 32%.
On a uniform swing, these numbers would deliver eight gains for Labour, mostly in the west of the city – where Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing Central and Acton, and Harrow East would all be picked up from the Tories.
I can believe it. London is a very different city, now.
Indeed - Labour used to do much better in London (50% of the vote in 97). I blame all the immigrants.
Long-term London is trending heavily to Labour. We both know the Tories have a problem in attracting votes from immigrants, except in Harrow which bucks the trend.
Labour are better organised in London tha anywhere else in the country this time around. They have attracted a large number of new members a lot of whom are activists on the street. I was chatting to one of their party organisers a couple of days ago about Southwark where they are going all out to unseat Simon Hughes. He described the campaigning as being like "the battle of Stalingrad" with both sides going house to house eking out every single vote. That will be one to watch for on May 8th
Hughesie like Clegg is a figure of hate for Labour supporters, can't see what is so offensive about either myself. Both Hughes and Clegg should hold on, Hughes for the goodwill he has built up over time and Clegg because Labour won't get the backing they need to treble their vote in West Sheffield.
Amazing how much hatred for individuals Labour can whip up. The level of hostility whipped up for say Burnham or Miliband from Conservative activists and supporters doesn't carry the same venom. Not sure whether that helps Labour overall or not.
Labour are nasty vile spiteful. (and thats after my first cup of coffee in the morning)
A look at the Glenrothes West (Fife) by election indicates that the total first preferences at the 2012 council elections were:
Labour 1532 (2 candidates)
SNP 1280 (2 candidates)
This council elects 3 members and the SNP candidate for GE 2015, Peter Grant, sits for this area, being elected in third place in 2012 (Labour won the first 2 places).
The result may therefore be of considerable significance re the 2015 GE prospects
For convenience:
The result yesterday was:
Council by election result of 26 March 2015 is another straw in the wind:
Glenrothes West (Fife) vote result:
SNP – 2539 LAB – 1643 CON – 202 UKIP – 146 LDEM – 61
SNP gain from Labour
your figures for the 2012 council election in the ward are way out . The correct figures are
Did anyone notice a possible sleight of hand by Miliband last night, in his promise to control "the deficit". He talked about the £75 billion deficit (its not, it is £91 billion), it seems strange that he would want to downplay the government's inability to get it down quick enough.
It's because him and Balls have thought up a new wheeze, which the mainstream commentators seem to have let slide. The 'deficit' he is referring to is not the 'deficit' that we know, but something called the "current account deficit".
It might not be sleight of hand, maybe just using a simpler message to distinguish between capital spending and recurring spending. But I'm suspicious of the repeated use of "current account deficit".
I didn't notice the sleight of hand, but did think the £75bn wasn't right.
That said, IIRC, Labour has promised to balance the *current* budget but to increase capital budget spending, so presumably they have calculated that this positioning is favourable to them
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I don't know what they see in the Gollum of British Politics.
They see a chance to be crass thick and stupid. After all why change the habit of a lifetime?
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
I don't know what they see in the Gollum of British Politics.
Oh, that's easy. They far prefer their Labour Speaker to Cameron.
Despite my own political views, if it's a choice between Cameron and Bercow, it's no contest.
The Bercow Coat of Arms tells you everything you need to know about him.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
What Dave did come across as was uncaring about those who have problems. Need to find savings? Screw down benefits. Never mind that living costs, and those of finding a job are higher in some parts of the country than others.
Score draw, which is helpful to Miliband. But it's interesting to see the advantages and drawbacks of the interview format vs a debate.
On the positive side, it made the discussion overwhelmingly positive or at least focused on the interviewee - what would you do and what did you get wrong, rather than why is the other lot rubbish. The few attempts to attack the other side were swiftly squashed or passed over. On the whole, I think the casual viewer would have drawn a somewhat more positive view of both of them.
On the downside, neither of them got a real opportunity to develop a theme, since it was dictated entirely by the questions. DavidL would have liked to hear more from Miliband about what he wants to do, but he was asked very little about that - the questions were mostly about past record, relations with his brother, and so on. In the same way, Cameron was pressed on food banks, NHS failings, and so on other perceived problems. Purely from the viewpoint of information, I think a mix of the debate format with 10 minutes to speak freely would be what works best.
Score draw.
The ICM figures were 54-46 to Cameron.
Have you become a ScotNat now Nick ?
Classic BBC on R4 today from Norman Smith "Despite the post debate polls showing a win for Mr Cameron, it may be Mr Milibands team who are the happier this morning..."
The segment on spending was poison for Ed - he needs better answer fast.
Depends, his argument is effectively "we spent on the wrong things" - most interviewers will allow the politician to reframe the question, Paxman didn't and that was what got Ed in trouble
More telling was "I chose my party over my family". Not chose serving his country - but his party - ugh.
I am no Ed fan, not by a long chalk. But I actually thought he nailed it last night. He was easily the better of the two - animated and interested. Just goes to show how subjective all this is.
My view is that Cameron did fine - a little rocky on food banks, but he soon got into his paces, but it was largely rote.
I thought Kay Burley made a couple of very inappropriate interjections (e.g. when Miliband referred to 6 figure banker bonuses she corrected him to "7 figure" thereby amplifying his point).
Miliband had a terrible start with Paxman, and was all over the place on spending, but then fought back well and handled the personal stuff (slightly inappropriate questioning) well too.
Overall, I think the 54-46 split to Cameron is pretty reasonably, actually
Have to admit I watched very little of the debate last night.
In fact the only 2 parts I saw came as I was changing program on my sky box!
One of those moments saw Ed floundering re Scotland spending the bankers bonus.
My wife however did watch it all and she thought Miilliband had by far the worst of it with some utterly devastating comments from the audience.
Still, at least I have now ruled out the Lib Dems for my vote after yesterday so I think I will be going Blue this time. My wife who I would have said was near nailed on to vote for Sir Bob has now decided for different reasons (keep Ed out) to vote Blue too.
Will there be enough people like her as we get towards voting day to keep Ed away from the levers of power - who knows ....
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
Actually. It isnt. The DWP was forbidden from referring people to foodbanks. The Government was warned that allowing referrals would result in massive growth. Which is what we had. Though they call it signposting. First thing that happens if you go to a local council, the DWP, a doctors surgery, a church, is you get referred.
This didnt happen five years ago, not because the need didnt exist, it just wasnt fulfilled by foodbanks.
Through my Tory-tinted spectacles I had Dave winning by a country mile last night. I thought Ed was awful, and want him as PM even less now. I was genuinely shocked to hear Allegra Stratton call it as a solid win for Ed on Newsnight afterwards. Undoubtedly the unbiased truth is rather closer to the ICM polling.
I now want to see much more of Ed on TV - it seems to me that more performances like last night and he won't get any votes at all. I'm sure that his supporters want to see more of him for entirely the opposite reason.
The BBC does seem to be letting bias creep in, but that view is probably just my Tory-tinted spectacles again mostly. I think they'd be better off in avoiding judgement calls as to who won or lost by their journalists - better to interview a non BBC person and ask for that.
Conservative supporters tend to say their man won and Labour the same. Realistically in such staged, pre-prepared conditions the likely outcome was both would present themselves in a creditable manner and they did.
Personally I preferred Miliband last night, Cam was a little bit safe and overdid the stats. Paxo went in hard early in the interviews but he really gave Miliband the chance to project himself in a strong manner with the question on toughness.
No question for me on Miliband on toughness, or determination the real question how does he go about his re-distribution of wealth. He really took the opportunity to distance himself from New Labour but after four and a half years of leadership I still don't see a credible plan to move forward the nation and the Labour Party.
Personally I don't think he and his team have done enough in opposition to deserve the chance to govern. Miliband hasn't been a good choice as leader, Labour have others with more potential, Umunna looks very polished and I think he would choose a more sensible path forward.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
Actually. It isnt. The DWP was forbidden from referring people to foodbanks. The Government was warned that allowing referrals would result in massive growth. Which is what we had. Though they call it signposting. First thing that happens if you go to a local council, the DWP, a doctors surgery, a church, is you get referred.
This didnt happen five years ago, not because the need didnt exist, it just wasnt fulfilled by foodbanks.
People used to claim crisis loans from the DWP, but they have been abolished. You couldn't usually get one if you were sanctioned anyway, so food banks have risen to fill that gap.
Benefit sanctions, suspensions and disallowances have been part of the welfare system for many decades.
The only thing that has happened under this government, is that they are being properly applied insofar as staff don't turn a blind eye anywhere near as frequently as previously. It has always been the case that the unemployed could have their benefits stopped or reduced for failing to comply with their obligations when claiming.
Food bank usage has risen because of reforms to the welfare system, most notably access to crisis loans.
These payments were largely for alignments to benefit (which are now being called “delays” by those who don’t understand the system) which are effectively payday advances.
Formerly these payments would have covered an entire period in one go and on a single application. This means they would cover up to 13 days. Food banks however, only give out three days at a time.
This creates a multiplier effect on applications. It takes four food bank visits to do what one visit to the benefits office or jobcentre used to do.
The move from cash to food mirrors that implemented for asylum seekers by the Labour administration. It stems from concerns about misuse of the cash, i.e spending on cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.
Food bank donations are not repayable. The previous cash loan system required the recipient to incur a repayable debt.
Labour will make important gains in London in the general election, according to a special Guardian/ICM telephone poll which shows the party winning several seats in the capital.
The party is set to advance by 5 percentage points from its previous general election performance to reach 42% – and is a full 10 points ahead of the Tories, who fall back 3 points from their 2010 result to land at 32%.
On a uniform swing, these numbers would deliver eight gains for Labour, mostly in the west of the city – where Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing Central and Acton, and Harrow East would all be picked up from the Tories.
"This goes to the heart of the issue. Two generations ago, people voted on class lines and the parties' policies reflected this, e.g. the Tories' promise, in the 1950s, to build more Council houses than Labour. "
A look at the Glenrothes West (Fife) by election indicates that the total first preferences at the 2012 council elections were:
Labour 1532 (2 candidates)
SNP 1280 (2 candidates)
This council elects 3 members and the SNP candidate for GE 2015, Peter Grant, sits for this area, being elected in third place in 2012 (Labour won the first 2 places).
The result may therefore be of considerable significance re the 2015 GE prospects
For convenience:
The result yesterday was:
Council by election result of 26 March 2015 is another straw in the wind:
Glenrothes West (Fife) vote result:
SNP – 2539 LAB – 1643 CON – 202 UKIP – 146 LDEM – 61
SNP gain from Labour
your figures for the 2012 council election in the ward are way out . The correct figures are
Lab 2 candidates 2,132 SNP 3 candidates 2,230
and the figures for 2007 were
Lab 2 candidates 2,212 SNP 2 candidates 3,110
Mark you being our main LD psephologist what's your view on Southwark? Do you think Mr Hughes will hang on?
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
Actually. It isnt. The DWP was forbidden from referring people to foodbanks. The Government was warned that allowing referrals would result in massive growth. Which is what we had. Though they call it signposting. First thing that happens if you go to a local council, the DWP, a doctors surgery, a church, is you get referred.
This didnt happen five years ago, not because the need didnt exist, it just wasnt fulfilled by foodbanks.
I don't follow the logic. They didn't exist despite there being a need until the DWP told people they existed and then suddenly they appeared. Terry Pratchett would be proud.
Iain Valentine, director of giant pandas for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, said artificial insemination took place on Tian Tian in the early hours of Thursday.
The shortage of skilled workers to deliver construction projects in the capital is a “worry” for City Hall, one of London mayor Boris Johnson’s closest aides has admitted.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
What Dave did come across as was uncaring about those who have problems. Need to find savings? Screw down benefits. Never mind that living costs, and those of finding a job are higher in some parts of the country than others.
It seemed to me he was inching towards making it clear that a lot of the £12 billion in welfare cuts will come from working age benefit claimants and that a huge chunk of that will be hammering tax credits. Labour would do well to try and flush them out on this one as I image a fair amount of marginal seat voters in Midlands or North West say, get some tax credits.
I don't follow the logic. They didn't exist despite there being a need until the DWP told people they existed and then suddenly they appeared. Terry Pratchett would be proud.
They existed, but in small numbers.
Then a previous solution to a problem (crisis loans) was removed, and government agencies encouraged people to use food banks instead.
Food bank usage therefore went up. Consequently, good-minded people (and the churches have been very strong at this) thought there was a need and started organising more foodbanks.
Fundamentally all that has happened is that an element of welfare provision has moved from the state to the Big Society. But it's in a practical form (food), that is less open to abuse, and is a wasting asset in any event. So, all in all, a better use of resources.
But it's difficult to put that up against a cheap soundbite.
Iain Valentine, director of giant pandas for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, said artificial insemination took place on Tian Tian in the early hours of Thursday.
95 – 160 d Giant panda, Gestation period
He must have read the polls and want to make sure that there are still more pandas than Tory MPs after the election...
Did anyone notice a possible sleight of hand by Miliband last night, in his promise to control "the deficit". He talked about the £75 billion deficit (its not, it is £91 billion), it seems strange that he would want to downplay the government's inability to get it down quick enough.
It's because him and Balls have thought up a new wheeze, which the mainstream commentators seem to have let slide. The 'deficit' he is referring to is not the 'deficit' that we know, but something called the "current account deficit".
It might not be sleight of hand, maybe just using a simpler message to distinguish between capital spending and recurring spending. But I'm suspicious of the repeated use of "current account deficit".
I made this point last night when he said it. Paxo really should have nailed him on it because it would have been a lot more informative than calling him a north London geek.
Labour still think it is ok to borrow to invest, even when we are way more than half way through the economic cycle and it will all too soon be necessary for borrowing to increase again. Unless this is a very unusual economic cycle indeed (and it does have some unusual features such as a zero interest rate policy deep into the recovery) the economy will turn down again some time in the next Parliament turning all surplus and "paying down the debt" plans into a ball of chalk.
The question is what state will we be in when this happens? It really, really needs to be a much better state than this. As a deficit hawk I think the tories have not done enough on this and are storing up a world of pain for us all as a result. Irresponsible does not come close to what I think of Labour's plans.
My verdict on last night - Cameron OK, obvious PM material, did what he does, bit frustrating on how he answers (or evades) some questions which have obvious rebuttals he doesn't go for making him look shifty; Ed - outperformed expectations, nothing special, still looks odd and not a PM, but looked more solid and confident than I have ever seen him before.
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
Cameron came up with some rubbish about there being more food banks now because his government allowed Job Centres to tell people about their existence, whereas under Labour this was forbidden. Has to be one of the most disingenuous answers I've heard in a long time.
"What Dave did come across as was uncaring about those who have problems. Need to find savings? Screw down benefits. Never mind that living costs, and those of finding a job are higher in some parts of the country than others."
My expectation is that the food banks and 'Cammo's Broken Britain' (if I can borrow a Jeremy Bullmore line) will be a huge feature of Labour's campaign. In a way it encapsulates everything people believe and have always believed about the Tories. Expect in the last three weeks of the campaign Labour to throw the kitchen sink at it
A look at the Glenrothes West (Fife) by election indicates that the total first preferences at the 2012 council elections were:
Labour 1532 (2 candidates)
SNP 1280 (2 candidates)
This council elects 3 members and the SNP candidate for GE 2015, Peter Grant, sits for this area, being elected in third place in 2012 (Labour won the first 2 places).
The result may therefore be of considerable significance re the 2015 GE prospects
For convenience:
The result yesterday was:
Council by election result of 26 March 2015 is another straw in the wind:
Glenrothes West (Fife) vote result:
SNP – 2539 LAB – 1643 CON – 202 UKIP – 146 LDEM – 61
SNP gain from Labour
your figures for the 2012 council election in the ward are way out . The correct figures are
Lab 2 candidates 2,132 SNP 3 candidates 2,230
and the figures for 2007 were
Lab 2 candidates 2,212 SNP 2 candidates 3,110
Mark you being our main LD psephologist what's your view on Southwark? Do you think Mr Hughes will hang on?
I am still stunned over the Bercow matter and the ineptitude of Cameron and his people's handling of the Conservative MPs. Maybe it is better for the party (and in 5 years time the country) that he and Osborne are removed following loss of office than to stagger on in office losing touch with the party that they lead. Twould have been better that Major had lost in 92.
Er, you mean the 23 - and pretty well the entireity of the bad, mad and dispossessed - out of a Parliamentary party of 304? As DavidL commented yesterday it is the thought that a Tory Government might have to rely on this unlovely crew for 'support' were it to gain a majority, that fills many of us with a sense of deep foreboding.
and another 60+ who did not bother to vote. Having the Head of the 1922 against you because he did not think it was handled well is an example of how NOT to run a parliamentary party.
Food bank donations are not repayable. The previous cash loan system required the recipient to incur a repayable debt.
Both Labour and Conservatives have been turning the screw on social security for a long time (with widespread public support it has to be said). Early on under Blair crisis grants were abolished so that loans were the only option.
Miliband has made one or two commitments to turning back on this step-by-step paring back of the system - on the bedroom tax for example - but I would be surprised if there was actually a fundamental change of direction.
I’m still amazed at Dave’s extraordinary comment that the rise in foodbank use is because Job Centres now tell people about them!
He is from a different world. In many ways, almost like a royal. Not only has he not experienced poverty, he actually cannot imagine what it is like. For people like him, poverty is tackled by ticking gift tax box.
I think Puplstar has your handle on YouGov sub samples. The one you site from today has SNP 39 and Lab 30. (It also puts the Tories at 10 which seems a bit low even by Scottish Tory standards!). More importantly it follows the recent and as yet unexplained pattern of an extreme downrating of SNP/Plaid identifiers by 51to 32; in sharp contrast to the more modest downrating levels which had pertained in YouGov up until last week.
The lesson. Put not your faith in sub samples but in real polls like ICM last Monday, massive YouGovs like the super poll published on Tuesday or non downrated sub samples like the one published by Survation on Thursday. Interestingly on my calculations a real vote like the one in Glenrothes last night suggests a gap between Labour and SNP of roughly 20 per cent if reflected across the country.
Tory twitter really on the Beeb... CCHQ Press Office@CCHQPress·8 mins8 minutes ago BBC say 8-pt poll lead= "no clear winner" in #BattleForNumber10 but Hollande's 4-pt win in France="clear victory" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17975660 …
As a very luke warm supporter of the Conservatives, I have to say that the clear bias in the BBC against the Conservatives beggars belief. Just look at Norman Smith and Allegra Stratton calling it for Miliband.
I think Puplstar has your handle on YouGov sub samples. The one you site from today has SNP 39 and Lab 30. (It also puts the Tories at 10 which seems a bit low even by Scottish Tory standards!). More importantly it follows the recent and as yet unexplained pattern of an extreme downrating of SNP/Plaid identifiers by 51to 32; in sharp contrast to the more modest downrating levels which had pertained in YouGov up until last week.
The lesson. Put not your faith in sub samples but in real polls like ICM last Monday, massive YouGovs like the super poll published on Tuesday or non downrated sub samples like the one published by Survation on Thursday. Interestingly on my calculations a real vote like the one in Glenrothes last night suggests a gap between Labour and SNP of roughly 20 per cent if reflected across the country.
I do have a fair bit of skin in the game on the SNP though, so I hope I'm right !
"If Ed had won the ICM poll by the same margin would the BBC have said there was a clear winner ?"
Everything I've heard so far sounds typically BBC. Very neutral and non committal. If anyone can read any bias into anything so far then they're looking for it.
The only commentator who I've heard passing a personal opinion is Jon Piennar who is always fair and he said 'unlike most others I actually thought Ed shaded it'
Pienaar also said that only being 8 points behind Cameron in the poll was basically a win for Ed. Maybe if 8 points behind is "basically a win" then "just shaded it" might mean only ten points back?
That noise you can hear.. it is roars of laughter from The Kremlin and the White House...Obama cant remember the lads name and Putin just had another bear for breakfast
Iain Valentine, director of giant pandas for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, said artificial insemination took place on Tian Tian in the early hours of Thursday.
95 – 160 d Giant panda, Gestation period
He must have read the polls and want to make sure that there are still more pandas than Tory MPs after the election...
Of course, if you have two Tory MPs in Scotland you could then have a captive breeding programme, complete with MP-cam to watch them eating lots of expensive dinners of scarce delicacies.
Score draw, which is helpful to Miliband. But it's interesting to see the advantages and drawbacks of the interview format vs a debate.
On the positive side, it made the discussion overwhelmingly positive or at least focused on the interviewee - what would you do and what did you get wrong, rather than why is the other lot rubbish. The few attempts to attack the other side were swiftly squashed or passed over. On the whole, I think the casual viewer would have drawn a somewhat more positive view of both of them.
On the downside, neither of them got a real opportunity to develop a theme, since it was dictated entirely by the questions. DavidL would have liked to hear more from Miliband about what he wants to do, but he was asked very little about that - the questions were mostly about past record, relations with his brother, and so on. In the same way, Cameron was pressed on food banks, NHS failings, and so on other perceived problems. Purely from the viewpoint of information, I think a mix of the debate format with 10 minutes to speak freely would be what works best.
Score draw.
The ICM figures were 54-46 to Cameron.
Have you become a ScotNat now Nick ?
Classic BBC on R4 today from Norman Smith "Despite the post debate polls showing a win for Mr Cameron, it may be Mr Milibands team who are the happier this morning..."
The segment on spending was poison for Ed - he needs better answer fast.
Predictable lefty opinion from BBC's Norman Smith. As for Allegra on Newsnight, from the Guardian stable....news programme for Guardian readers.
"What Dave did come across as was uncaring about those who have problems. Need to find savings? Screw down benefits. Never mind that living costs, and those of finding a job are higher in some parts of the country than others."
My expectation is that the food banks and 'Cammo's Broken Britain' (if I can borrow a Jeremy Bullmore line) will be a huge feature of Labour's campaign. In a way it encapsulates everything people believe and have always believed about the Tories. Expect in the last three weeks of the campaign Labour to throw the kitchen sink at it
I'm not sure that Labour will win that battle, if the good people of UK are given anything more than a sound bite.
The Labour sound bite is warm, kind, lovely and fluffy. The Conservative is cruel, harsh and baby eating. On sound bites, Labour win. The easy choice always will!
However, there is a public perception that welfare needs to be controlled. The cap isn't unpopular, and reducing it isn't unpopular. The thrust of IDS reforms are popular, the concept of getting people off their backsides and active is popular. It is seen as a driver of increased employment rates. Preventing a life on welfare as a lifestyle choice is popular.
Conservatives will win on policy, actions and principles, Labour on sound bites. The more Labour focus on the issue the more difficult it will be for them as it develops beyond sound bites.
"If Ed had won the ICM poll by the same margin would the BBC have said there was a clear winner ?"
Everything I've heard so far sounds typically BBC. Very neutral and non committal. If anyone can read any bias into anything so far then they're looking for it.
The only commentator who I've heard passing a personal opinion is Jon Piennar who is always fair and he said 'unlike most others I actually thought Ed shaded it'
Pienaar also said that only being 8 points behind Cameron in the poll was basically a win for Ed. Maybe if 8 points behind is "basically a win" then "just shaded it" might mean only ten points back?
It's rather like in 1987, Labour kept saying they won the campaign, despite losing by 11%.
Time to smash the BBC. Make Norman Tebbit Director General. Reduce the license fee to a tenner a year and part privatise the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation
Having caught up with some of the debates, I was surprised just how poor David Cameron's tone was. He seemed underprepared. Ed Miliband definitely got a tougher grilling but did fine.
The fact that the polls found David Cameron to have won shows just how much people expect their expectations to be met.
None of it is likely to matter at all in the grand scheme of things.
Iain Valentine, director of giant pandas for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, said artificial insemination took place on Tian Tian in the early hours of Thursday.
Iain Valentine, director of giant pandas for the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, said artificial insemination took place on Tian Tian in the early hours of Thursday.
The choice of people in the spin room featuring on newsnight was interesting. If I was a Labour leader, I'd want Mandelson talking up my performance. Instead, Caroline Flint appeared. Revealing?
Not sure Mandelson would have been a good choice for Ed
That's a good figure for C4 and for politics, but in the scheme of things way below the figures for the 2010 leaders debates on BBC1 and ITV. (The first one on ITV got c8m I think)
To put it in context, Question Time gets c2.5-2.8m every single week.
Not commented in a while but debates have stimulated the mind.
The assumption on this site seems to be that the most seat markets are skewed by Tory leaning betters. Whilst this is probably true and it is certainly a contributor there are several key differences from the last election
1. David Cameron was fighting someone prime ministerial that is GB already had the job. Ed Miliband has to break through this disbelief barrier characterised by the audience laughter. This is possible and certainly the former German chancellor Helmut Kohl was respected in the job but ridiculed and portrayed as a giant potato before taking the job.
2. Ed Miliband is not a natural performer. We have been told a number of time over the last few weeks that Miliband has been practicing for a long time for the debates. Cameron has having Sunday lunch with James Landale at the weekend. It certainly didn't seem like Ed has prepared for a long time.
3. Ed will be taking part in th opposition debate where he an he alone represent the establishment and someone who has been in UK government, against 2 nationalist parties and one far right populist party and one far left party. He may be able to lead the left wingers against farage but is just as likely to come unstuck as he is fishing from the same pool as Snp. Plaid and greens.
Labour do still have an electoral advantage, but they will possibly racking up significant votes in Scotland for little return, so the efficiency of their vote could also have eroded.
They are also up against a split between centre right and right wing parties, but there are mps to the left of centre from LDs, SNP, Plaid, Greens, and respect who will all chip away their support.
Anyway perhaps as OGH points out frequently things don't look that great for Cameron at this time. If I had the disposable income to bet I would rather put my money on a conservative majority than Labour most seats, as I have met very very few people who like Miliband at all, in fact the Labour supporters I know hate Cameron. Miliband now has 6 weeks front and centre to emphasize to people that they want the more likeable Cameron (net leader ratings) as Prime Minister.
We can only hope for a b lack swan to make it interesting.
The choice of people in the spin room featuring on newsnight was interesting. If I was a Labour leader, I'd want Mandelson talking up my performance. Instead, Caroline Flint appeared. Revealing?
Not sure Mandelson would have been a good choice for Ed
Does this interpretation tell us anything about the state of mind in Ed's camp? Are they worried they won't have a job in Downing Street or HQ after the election?
That's a good figure for C4 and for politics, but in the scheme of things way below the figures for the 2010 leaders debates on BBC1 and ITV. (The first one on ITV got c8m I think)
To put it in context, Question Time gets c2.5-2.8m every single week.
Also depends what is meant by watched, does it mean sat through the whole programme, or watched the first 10 minutes got bored and watched something else.
I haven't actually yet watched the debate, but if Ed seemed slightly more 'pumped up' than usual it could well be because he was assaulted before the debate. He'd probably have a fair amount of adrenaline still flowing...
Could have improved his performance in actual fact.
Score draw, which is helpful to Miliband. But it's interesting to see the advantages and drawbacks of the interview format vs a debate.
On the positive side, it made the discussion overwhelmingly positive or at least focused on the interviewee - what would you do and what did you get wrong, rather than why is the other lot rubbish. The few attempts to attack the other side were swiftly squashed or passed over. On the whole, I think the casual viewer would have drawn a somewhat more positive view of both of them.
On the downside, neither of them got a real opportunity to develop a theme, since it was dictated entirely by the questions. DavidL would have liked to hear more from Miliband about what he wants to do, but he was asked very little about that - the questions were mostly about past record, relations with his brother, and so on. In the same way, Cameron was pressed on food banks, NHS failings, and so on other perceived problems. Purely from the viewpoint of information, I think a mix of the debate format with 10 minutes to speak freely would be what works best.
Score draw.
The ICM figures were 54-46 to Cameron.
Have you become a ScotNat now Nick ?
Classic BBC on R4 today from Norman Smith "Despite the post debate polls showing a win for Mr Cameron, it may be Mr Milibands team who are the happier this morning..."
The segment on spending was poison for Ed - he needs better answer fast.
Predictable lefty opinion from BBC's Norman Smith. As for Allegra on Newsnight, from the Guardian stable....news programme for Guardian readers.
I enjoyed Allegra Stratton's crestfallen expression, as she was forced to report the ICM poll calling it for Cameron, following her earlier glee at the "obvious" win for Miliband.
Thanks. i had switched over to Sky after that first comment from Allegra Guardianista.
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) 27/03/2015 08:37 Uh oh. Joey Essex to quiz Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage for ITV2 on #GE2015, reveals @WillPayneTV thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/s…
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) 27/03/2015 08:37 Uh oh. Joey Essex to quiz Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage for ITV2 on #GE2015, reveals @WillPayneTV thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/s…
Very dangerous for all the party leaders.
Never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
Tory twitter really on the Beeb... CCHQ Press Office@CCHQPress·8 mins8 minutes ago BBC say 8-pt poll lead= "no clear winner" in #BattleForNumber10 but Hollande's 4-pt win in France="clear victory" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17975660 …
As a very luke warm supporter of the Conservatives, I have to say that the clear bias in the BBC against the Conservatives beggars belief. Just look at Norman Smith and Allegra Stratton calling it for Miliband.
The BBC bias was evident the other day when right-wing Jeremy Clarkson gets sacked for a punch (correctly), but left-wing Mark Thompson got promoted to the top job despite biting someone. As conservatives, we simply need to accept the BBC will never be fair to our side.
Comments
"If Ed had won the ICM poll by the same margin would the BBC have said there was a clear winner ?"
Everything I've heard so far sounds typically BBC. Very neutral and non committal. If anyone can read any bias into anything so far then they're looking for it.
The only commentator who I've heard passing a personal opinion is Jon Piennar who is always fair and he said 'unlike most others I actually thought Ed shaded it'
What I think Ed has got, but rarely shows, is an ability to connect well to Labour voters and those inclined to "back the little man". He did that last night, and my worry is that throughout this series of debates, and the campaign generally, he is going to get more accomplished at that, and people will warm to him. I got the impression last night of an audience at the very least viewing him in a less dismissive manner by the end.
Dave has got to start answering questions. There is a limit to what he's going to be confronted on, so come up with some answers. How to deal with food banks, NHS reforms, failure to control spending, the immigration pledge. He falls into the trap of answering a different question. It looks shifty and arrogant.
On food banks, it's not an admission of failure that there are more of them, or a sign that we're poorer. It's just a sign of something catching on, for various reasons, that wasn't there before. You could even say that various left-wing organisations/charities are deliberately setting them up to create "evidence" of increased poverty under the Tories. Did we have "food banks" in the 1930s depression? Does that mean we're poorer now than in the 1930s? Of course not. It was an obvious line of questioning, and he should have been prepared.
I now want to see much more of Ed on TV - it seems to me that more performances like last night and he won't get any votes at all. I'm sure that his supporters want to see more of him for entirely the opposite reason.
The BBC does seem to be letting bias creep in, but that view is probably just my Tory-tinted spectacles again mostly. I think they'd be better off in avoiding judgement calls as to who won or lost by their journalists - better to interview a non BBC person and ask for that.
Intermarriage with locals only dilutes the energy of the immigrants if they are more successful than the local communities generally.
In the case of Jews, Chinese or East African Asians that would apply but it doesn't to Muslims in northern mill towns or to the new ghettos of Eastern European Roma forming in South Yorkshire.
Amazing how much hatred for individuals Labour can whip up. The level of hostility whipped up for say Burnham or Miliband from Conservative activists and supporters doesn't carry the same venom. Not sure whether that helps Labour overall or not.
NEW #GE2015 FORECAST (w/new method): 16% chance Tory maj, 1% Lab maj, 83% Hung Parliament http://wp.me/p4Be9H-fK
Seat score 296 vs 261 - def more ARSE than OWL.
A look at the Glenrothes West (Fife) by election indicates that the total first preferences at the 2012 council elections were:
Labour 1532 (2 candidates)
SNP 1280 (2 candidates)
This council elects 3 members and the SNP candidate for GE 2015, Peter Grant, sits for this area, being elected in third place in 2012 (Labour won the first 2 places).
The result may therefore be of considerable significance re the 2015 GE prospects
For convenience:
The result yesterday was:
Council by election result of 26 March 2015 is another straw in the wind:
Glenrothes West (Fife) vote result:
SNP – 2539
LAB – 1643
CON – 202
UKIP – 146
LDEM – 61
SNP gain from Labour
The whole "my daughter was in hospital/at doctors/i had an interview" are all rubbish, that isnt to say there wont be the odd one in which has been incorrectly or vindictively carried out.
What happens is you have a set of tasks you must carry out. Apply for work, attend the job centre etc. If you cannot make the appointment you must tell them.
This is what is happening in almost all these cases, is that people just dont turn up. And then seven days later they get not benefits.
The entire of welfare reform from IDS, a great social reformer, is about aligning benefits and work. When you are in work you have certain things you must do. You must be on time, you must turn up, you must make an effort.
If for some reason you are late, you must let your employer know, and you do it very rarely. If you cant turn in for work, you must let your employer know as soon as possible. You cant just not turn up.
Sanction, sanction, sanction. They've been one of the greatest tools in getting people into work. In getting some to understand that benefits isnt an easy life. It is there to get you on your feet.
Because a sanction can have such a great impact on the life of the person being sanctioned it is essential that oversight and a set criteria is used and kept to.
If youve been sanctioned. Tough. Turn up on time, like the rest of us.
Ironic given that serial rebel Winston Churchill was once the local MP.
A pity we didn't have PB in the 1930s, it would have been interesting to read what party loyalists said about Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper etc.
Lab 2 candidates 2,132
SNP 3 candidates 2,230
and the figures for 2007 were
Lab 2 candidates 2,212
SNP 2 candidates 3,110
That said, IIRC, Labour has promised to balance the *current* budget but to increase capital budget spending, so presumably they have calculated that this positioning is favourable to them
The Bercow Coat of Arms tells you everything you need to know about him.
I thought Kay Burley made a couple of very inappropriate interjections (e.g. when Miliband referred to 6 figure banker bonuses she corrected him to "7 figure" thereby amplifying his point).
Miliband had a terrible start with Paxman, and was all over the place on spending, but then fought back well and handled the personal stuff (slightly inappropriate questioning) well too.
Overall, I think the 54-46 split to Cameron is pretty reasonably, actually
In fact the only 2 parts I saw came as I was changing program on my sky box!
One of those moments saw Ed floundering re Scotland spending the bankers bonus.
My wife however did watch it all and she thought Miilliband had by far the worst of it with some utterly devastating comments from the audience.
Still, at least I have now ruled out the Lib Dems for my vote after yesterday so I think I will be going Blue this time. My wife who I would have said was near nailed on to vote for Sir Bob has now decided for different reasons (keep Ed out) to vote Blue too.
Will there be enough people like her as we get towards voting day to keep Ed away from the levers of power - who knows ....
But Jack W seems sure enough :-)
This didnt happen five years ago, not because the need didnt exist, it just wasnt fulfilled by foodbanks.
Personally I preferred Miliband last night, Cam was a little bit safe and overdid the stats. Paxo went in hard early in the interviews but he really gave Miliband the chance to project himself in a strong manner with the question on toughness.
No question for me on Miliband on toughness, or determination the real question how does he go about his re-distribution of wealth. He really took the opportunity to distance himself from New Labour but after four and a half years of leadership I still don't see a credible plan to move forward the nation and the Labour Party.
Personally I don't think he and his team have done enough in opposition to deserve the chance to govern. Miliband hasn't been a good choice as leader, Labour have others with more potential, Umunna looks very polished and I think he would choose a more sensible path forward.
The only thing that has happened under this government, is that they are being properly applied insofar as staff don't turn a blind eye anywhere near as frequently as previously. It has always been the case that the unemployed could have their benefits stopped or reduced for failing to comply with their obligations when claiming.
Food bank usage has risen because of reforms to the welfare system, most notably access to crisis loans.
These payments were largely for alignments to benefit (which are now being called “delays” by those who don’t understand the system) which are effectively payday advances.
Formerly these payments would have covered an entire period in one go and on a single application. This means they would cover up to 13 days. Food banks however, only give out three days at a time.
This creates a multiplier effect on applications. It takes four food bank visits to do what one visit to the benefits office or jobcentre used to do.
The move from cash to food mirrors that implemented for asylum seekers by the Labour administration. It stems from concerns about misuse of the cash, i.e spending on cigarettes, alcohol and drugs.
Food bank donations are not repayable. The previous cash loan system required the recipient to incur a repayable debt.
As popular in London as they are the rest of the country? Surprising
Looks as if the Tories in Scotland are going to have to get cracking if they are to keep up with the competition in Edinburgh Zoo ...
Do you think Mr Hughes will hang on?
95 – 160 d
Giant panda, Gestation period
http://www.cnplus.co.uk/8680568.article?WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Newsletter16
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventry-mp-geoffrey-robinson-set-8925898
Coventry NW CLP emergency meeting called for tomorrow.
Apologies, I did misread the 2012 Glenrothes figures.
However the SNP have gained the seat yesterday with a meaningful swing. Little reason for Labour to amend their stance of extreme worry :-)
Then a previous solution to a problem (crisis loans) was removed, and government agencies encouraged people to use food banks instead.
Food bank usage therefore went up. Consequently, good-minded people (and the churches have been very strong at this) thought there was a need and started organising more foodbanks.
Fundamentally all that has happened is that an element of welfare provision has moved from the state to the Big Society. But it's in a practical form (food), that is less open to abuse, and is a wasting asset in any event. So, all in all, a better use of resources.
But it's difficult to put that up against a cheap soundbite.
Labour still think it is ok to borrow to invest, even when we are way more than half way through the economic cycle and it will all too soon be necessary for borrowing to increase again. Unless this is a very unusual economic cycle indeed (and it does have some unusual features such as a zero interest rate policy deep into the recovery) the economy will turn down again some time in the next Parliament turning all surplus and "paying down the debt" plans into a ball of chalk.
The question is what state will we be in when this happens? It really, really needs to be a much better state than this. As a deficit hawk I think the tories have not done enough on this and are storing up a world of pain for us all as a result. Irresponsible does not come close to what I think of Labour's plans.
"What Dave did come across as was uncaring about those who have problems. Need to find savings? Screw down benefits. Never mind that living costs, and those of finding a job are higher in some parts of the country than others."
My expectation is that the food banks and 'Cammo's Broken Britain' (if I can borrow a Jeremy Bullmore line) will be a huge feature of Labour's campaign. In a way it encapsulates everything people believe and have always believed about the Tories. Expect in the last three weeks of the campaign Labour to throw the kitchen sink at it
Miliband has made one or two commitments to turning back on this step-by-step paring back of the system - on the bedroom tax for example - but I would be surprised if there was actually a fundamental change of direction.
CCHQ Press Office@CCHQPress·8 mins8 minutes ago
BBC say 8-pt poll lead= "no clear winner" in #BattleForNumber10 but Hollande's 4-pt win in France="clear victory" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17975660 …
Make Norman Tebbit Director General.
Reduce the license fee to a tenner a year and part privatise the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation
Sounds by his low standards though that he did alright overall.
I think Puplstar has your handle on YouGov sub samples. The one you site from today has SNP 39 and Lab 30. (It also puts the Tories at 10 which seems a bit low even by Scottish Tory standards!). More importantly it follows the recent and as yet unexplained pattern of an extreme downrating of SNP/Plaid identifiers by 51to 32; in sharp contrast to the more modest downrating levels which had pertained in YouGov up until last week.
The lesson. Put not your faith in sub samples but in real polls like ICM last Monday, massive YouGovs like the super poll published on Tuesday or non downrated sub samples like the one published by Survation on Thursday. Interestingly on my calculations a real vote like the one in Glenrothes last night suggests a gap between Labour and SNP of roughly 20 per cent if reflected across the country.
Wasn't there a yougov 51/49? Might be my imagination
WATCH: NEO NAZI TRIES TO SET FIRE TO EU FLAG BUT FALLS FOUL OF EU FIRE RETARDANT LAWS
http://edlnews.co.uk/2015/03/26/watch-neo-nazi-tries-to-set-fire-to-eu-flag-but-falls-foul-of-eu-fire-retardant-laws/
The Labour sound bite is warm, kind, lovely and fluffy. The Conservative is cruel, harsh and baby eating. On sound bites, Labour win. The easy choice always will!
However, there is a public perception that welfare needs to be controlled.
The cap isn't unpopular, and reducing it isn't unpopular.
The thrust of IDS reforms are popular, the concept of getting people off their backsides and active is popular. It is seen as a driver of increased employment rates.
Preventing a life on welfare as a lifestyle choice is popular.
Conservatives will win on policy, actions and principles, Labour on sound bites. The more Labour focus on the issue the more difficult it will be for them as it develops beyond sound bites.
"The TV non-debate: Miliband does better than expected, but not better than Cameron "
Q: What's only thing worse than our MP of 40 years stabbing CLP in back, by denying us chance to choose his successor? #GeoffreyRobinson
The fact that the polls found David Cameron to have won shows just how much people expect their expectations to be met.
None of it is likely to matter at all in the grand scheme of things.
Premature twin pandas
"...he's the donor. "
Kebab?
(Ok, I know he is on a diet Malcolm)
That's a good figure for C4 and for politics, but in the scheme of things way below the figures for the 2010 leaders debates on BBC1 and ITV. (The first one on ITV got c8m I think)
To put it in context, Question Time gets c2.5-2.8m every single week.
Not commented in a while but debates have stimulated the mind.
The assumption on this site seems to be that the most seat markets are skewed by Tory leaning betters. Whilst this is probably true and it is certainly a contributor there are several key differences from the last election
1. David Cameron was fighting someone prime ministerial that is GB already had the job. Ed Miliband has to break through this disbelief barrier characterised by the audience laughter. This is possible and certainly the former German chancellor Helmut Kohl was respected in the job but ridiculed and portrayed as a giant potato before taking the job.
2. Ed Miliband is not a natural performer. We have been told a number of time over the last few weeks that Miliband has been practicing for a long time for the debates. Cameron has having Sunday lunch with James Landale at the weekend. It certainly didn't seem like Ed has prepared for a long time.
3. Ed will be taking part in th opposition debate where he an he alone represent the establishment and someone who has been in UK government, against 2 nationalist parties and one far right populist party and one far left party. He may be able to lead the left wingers against farage but is just as likely to come unstuck as he is fishing from the same pool as Snp. Plaid and greens.
Labour do still have an electoral advantage, but they will possibly racking up significant votes in Scotland for little return, so the efficiency of their vote could also have eroded.
They are also up against a split between centre right and right wing parties, but there are mps to the left of centre from LDs, SNP, Plaid, Greens, and respect who will all chip away their support.
Anyway perhaps as OGH points out frequently things don't look that great for Cameron at this time. If I had the disposable income to bet I would rather put my money on a conservative majority than Labour most seats, as I have met very very few people who like Miliband at all, in fact the Labour supporters I know hate Cameron. Miliband now has 6 weeks front and centre to emphasize to people that they want the more likeable Cameron (net leader ratings) as Prime Minister.
We can only hope for a b lack swan to make it interesting.
Could have improved his performance in actual fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11498661/Ed-Miliband-attacked-before-TV-debate-live.html
27/03/2015 01:21
Despicable, sordid, desperate, grubby, conniving, cack-handed attempt to prevent our favourite end credits - @afneil
amp.twimg.com/v/7d848bd0-2c0…
Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn)
27/03/2015 08:37
Uh oh. Joey Essex to quiz Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage for ITV2 on #GE2015, reveals @WillPayneTV thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/s…
Never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
2.7m viewers for the Channel 4 ‘debates’ strikes me as rather good – must admit I was expecting something way south of the 2 million mark.
27/03/2015 09:26
Ed Miliband 'attacked before TV debate': live tgr.ph/1HU8OeL