A thought about Sturgeon/SNP. If the SNP are a major player/hold balance of power post election then it will be interesting to see who calls the shots - the SNP Westminster MPs or the SNP leader at Holyrood. Because it will make passing knife-edge legislation very difficult if reference always has to be made to an individual calling the shots from Scotland. Difficult to hammer out back room deals, establish personal relationships etc in those circumstances.
A thought about Sturgeon/SNP. If the SNP are a major player/hold balance of power post election then it will be interesting to see who calls the shots - the SNP Westminster MPs or the SNP leader at Holyrood. Because it will make passing knife-edge legislation very difficult if reference always has to be made to an individual calling the shots from Scotland. Difficult to hammer out back room deals, establish personal relationships etc in those circumstances.
Very interesting - and I think a major worry for the rUK. If Miliband does squeeze in with SNP support it'd be by far the worst possible outcome for the country.
I watched last night because I had a bet on it but what it told me is that Ed isn't front of house material. He might be a good back room boy but he's not a leader.
On a points system he wasn't the worse-probably no worse than Cameron or Clegg-but he was far and away the least suited to the job he was applying for. Every time he mentioned 'Prime Minister" which he did a lot I flinched.
It's easy to think he was over rehearsed-which he was-or that he's naturally A symetrical-which he is-but the problem wasn't either of these things. He was like a 50 year old actress playing a teenager. It was a part he couldn't play. He looked like a fish out of water.
I notice one or two Labour supporters were angry earlier. I think they realized the same. It's not a good feeling seeing an undeserving Tory Party win by default
A thought about Sturgeon/SNP. If the SNP are a major player/hold balance of power post election then it will be interesting to see who calls the shots - the SNP Westminster MPs or the SNP leader at Holyrood.
Clegg had the dignity of someone bowing out, knowing they had done their best. But he should have been replaced long ago. His presence makes the voters feel uncomfortable - like going to a party and being confronted by an embarrassing shag from your wilder youth....
For all his prep, no-one seemed to remember to tell Ed that when he wasn't speaking, don't smirk and don't gawp in incredulity. But his biggest problem isn't Ed. It's that with "steady as she goes", Cameron holds the Top Trumps. Ed made no case for taking the risk of backing Labour.
Farage tried to get people to board the Outrage Bus. But he can't deliver a referendum. He is dependent upon the Tories doing so - or replacing the Tories. But as the Tories rise to a point with YouGov where all their lost 2010 voters who have gone to UKIP have been replaced, it shows how forlorn that strategy looks now.
I wonder what kind of bounce if any UKIP will get. They tend to depend on headlines rather than the actual debate since most people don't watch them. He hasn't got much in the way of headlines.
Except ICM, Cameron seems ahead of Miliband (and that's by 1%).
Saw most of the BBC news at ten coverage but it didn't (that I saw, though I was away for a minute) include the Miliband floored by Clegg on the economy moment referred to here.
Seemed like, more or less, a four way dead heat.
Glad there's only one [full size] debate.
Risk for Miliband is that at the next, smaller, debate the only chap who did well and won't be there is Cameron. If Miliband doesn't beat Farage, that'll be a bit poor. If he doesn't beat Farage or Sturgeon that might make him look worse. And the conservative sorts who might've backed Cameron as the 'winner' this time may well prefer Farage to Miliband (or, indeed, Sturgeon, who seems to have gone down well).
I watched last night because I had a bet on it but what it told me is that Ed isn't front of house material. He might be a good back room boy but he's not a leader.
On a points system he wasn't the worse-probably no worse than Cameron or Clegg-but he was far and away the least suited to the job he was applying for. Every time he mentioned 'Prime Minister" which he did a lot I flinched.
It's easy to think he was over rehearsed-which he was-or that he's naturally A symetrical-which he is-but the problem wasn't either of these things. He was like a 50 year old actress playing a teenager. It was a part he couldn't play. He looked like a fish out of water.
I notice one or two Labour supporters were angry earlier. I think they realized the same. It's not a good feeling seeing an undeserving Tory Party win by default
Miliband's main problem is that he's got neither style or the correct form of substance. His style is a problem; and whilst this provides a laugh, it can be forgiven (I'd be terrible in front of a camera. Or behind. Or, in fact, anywhere near a camera).
His real issue is that his substance is incomplete. he's reasonable at seeing things that need fixing, but his solutions are almost always absolute crud. He'd work best as part of a team, generating ideas about what to do, but needs someone to give him an occasional good slapping for his proposed solutions.
Which is where he came from as advisor to Brown. That's his ideal role, not leader of a political party.
Interesting watching the seven dwarves while wrestling with Uncle Davids ropy internet on the Isle of Wight.
The Yougov worm was difficult to work, with invisible writing on the slider to show which direction was positive.
I won a few quid on Nicola. All the indyref practice has put her in good debating form.
Ed looked lame, Dave looked like PM, Clegg looked polished and Farage looked sweaty and nervous.
I do not think Farage did enough to change the game, and he will look even more a fish out of water next week. He will be the one arguing for cuts against the free spenders and that may not go down well with the red kippers.
I watched last night because I had a bet on it but what it told me is that Ed isn't front of house material. He might be a good back room boy but he's not a leader.
This is at the heart of the problem for Labour. I have tried to compare him with the FTSE100 Board Directors that I have known and worked for. EdMiliband would have been many levels lower, a Manager of a small Section of back room analysts. If Ed gets in without a large majority, these defects could cause massive long term problems for Labour with splits, rebellions and maybe an alternative "New Labour" party? Winning some GE's is not always a good thing for a party. Look at the aftermath of 1992 on the Conservatives.
I agree with Roger about this. Every time Ed said to camera, "If I am PM..." it just sounded that little bit less likely. He was outshone by the outsiders and did not come across as having the solidity of either Cameron or Clegg. Clegg's attack on him and a demand for an apology was one of the highlights on the night and his response that I have said that we got the regulation of the banks wrong when the challenge was spending and borrowing was weak.
Cameron was very disciplined and his reiteration of the too much spending, too much borrowing, too much tax and too much debt was something else Ed did not really have an answer to. He said your talking about the past I want to talk about the future but the message that the future would be a repeat of the past came over loud and clear with no lessons learned.
Ed could have dealt with this if he had a vision that he could sell. DC and Nick were not offering much vision either but on vision the bit players were just in a different class. This is going to be a risk for him in the also ran debate.
Ed was a long way from terrible. There were no real gaffes by anyone including him. But he did not make the case for change.
"Ed’s not going to a push-over" If the feedback on last night is right, then the SNP will have strengthened their position and take more SLAB seats than otherwise. Does anyone know what UK Labour Leader the SLAB MPs preferred in 2010? Ironic if they had favoured Ed Miliband, something they can think about with their redundancy payments.
the debates will be forgotten by Monday and most people didn't watch them anyway.
There are still people who believe that the only reason, or the most significant reason, that Cameron lost in 2010 is because of the impact of the debates, and that played a role in the negotiations for this one. I happen to disagree with that view, and do not believe the impact o these will be overstated, but in addition to the 'most people didn't watch them' argument being pointless - more people don't watch most political happenings than last night, but they can still have an impact, even if not as significant as political obsessives believe it should or could - I don't think the debates will be forgotten by Monday. It will get some media play over the next few days, more people than usually tune into politics will have seen at least bits of it, and that will have some sort of impact on the narrative and those people.
That impact should not be overstated, and may not prove decisive to the narrative or the views of the party leaders, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
I personally thought the two who exceeded my expectation were Sturgeon and Clegg. The former came across as articulate and passionate whilst the latter made a generally good fist of it.
Cameron and Miliband were both exactly as expected. Bennett spoke well but came across as a bit worthy. I thought Farage failed to take the opportunity to light up the campaign. And Wood was only really speaking to Wales (unlike Sturgeon).
I thought it was an interesting format, but it is very disappointing not to have a 3/4 way debate between the parties that matter in England.
Mr. City, Sturgeon did have the unique advantage of not being in government in Westminster terms, but having the gravitas of office from being First Minister.
That said [as I did, prior to the debate] she also, arguably, had the most to lose in polling terms but seems to have put in a strong performance. Still another debate to go, though.
For me the most important number last night was 37. Little did I realise earlier in the week when I asked PBers when they thought the Tory poll score would first hit 37/38 it would do so in the same week. IF we see the Tories remain at 35-37 in the polls throughout the campaign, there will only be one winner.
As for last night, I thought the winners were Julie Etchingham for her excellent moderation and Nicola Sturgeon for her spirited performance and sticking it to Ed on a number of occasions. I thought the Welsh woman and Natalie Bennett were simply out of their depth.
As I expected Farage underperformed and his comments about HIV patients will be ripe for misrepresentation on the doorstep.
However my final thought about last night is did any voters (outside the political class) actually watch it? I fell asleep several times during the 2 hours because the entire thing was basically sterile.
Clegg had the dignity of someone bowing out, knowing they had done their best. But he should have been replaced long ago. His presence makes the voters feel uncomfortable - like going to a party and being confronted by an embarrassing shag from your wilder youth....
Both Labour and the Lib Dems have the wrong Leader to appeal to the voters. Clegg is very badly damaged goods and drags the LD brand down. The Conservatives chose the wrong Leader in 2005 (posh boy) Cameron was right for the boom time but after the crash he was the wrong Leader.
I think Mike has called it fairly well on this one. I said last night I feel sorry for Clegg because he makes a real effort and even may do pretty well, but his image problem prevents it from helping because even if it does deserve to get a hearing, a lot of people will not go even that far, so his effort is wasted on a lot of people. I feel like he is probably able to sway a lot of people when one on one with them, but he can only meet so many people.
Ed was overrehearsed but that won't have been apparent to people who don't watch politics very often, and he was indeed well prepared and I thought did really well, some good lines and some detail and can come across well. He is nowhere near as poor at presentation as his opponents have pretended, and it's a question now of how well in the next few weeks he can get that message to filter out, vs the 5 years osmotic drop from the political sphere about how crap he is filtering down to people.
Sturgeon - entirely expected win I believe.
Farage - Not really any significant gaffes, no knock out moments, he was strong in his key areas. He'd have liked to have been the clear winner, but it was certainly no failure.
Bennett - Unlike most people it seems I thought she did well after a clunky start, benefiting from no-one going after her on the night and unravelling her claims.
Wood - Drifted in and out of things, but scored some hits. A question of if she can be more prominent in the next outing.
Cameron - Plenty of camera time, he had some good lines, but had no answer he could give on some of his failures. Was alright.
Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
I don't agree about Cameron who did look PM. But there is no question that having run things, having made decisions and, superficially at least, having delivered a better result than Labour are promising (no tuition fees rather than £6K as an example) Sturgeon came across as a more substantial and credible figure than Ed.
He is going to have a real problem with her next time out.
Ed has 30 seats at risk up here. They are more at risk now. Ed has always ignored Scotland. He played a tiny bit part in the referendum. He needs to think about those seats. If he is indeed to be PM he needs to save as many as he can and yet he did not engage Sturgeon all night. Murphy must be very frustrated.
On a different slant, with Clegg's opening attack on Cameron, this may make any future coalition impossible. Clegg chose to reveal joint cabinet decisions for political advantage. This is something that the LDs have done on numerous ocassions. When the problem with the image of Clegg and the Lib Dems is that they are untrustworthy, it may not be the smartest move to pile up examples of how untrustworthy they are to people who worked with them.
the debates will be forgotten by Monday and most people didn't watch them anyway.
There are still people who believe that the only reason, or the most significant reason, that Cameron lost in 2010 is because of the impact of the debates, and that played a role in the negotiations for this one. I happen to disagree with that view, and do not believe the impact o these will be overstated, but in addition to the 'most people didn't watch them' argument being pointless - more people don't watch most political happenings than last night, but they can still have an impact, even if not as significant as political obsessives believe it should or could - I don't think the debates will be forgotten by Monday. It will get some media play over the next few days, more people than usually tune into politics will have seen at least bits of it, and that will have some sort of impact on the narrative and those people.
That impact should not be overstated, and may not prove decisive to the narrative or the views of the party leaders, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.
I'm of the view that the debates (the first one) did cost the Conservatives a majority. Pre-debate, they were nudging 40% in polls, and never quite recovered to that level.
But, as luck would have it, things have turned out well for them. The Lib Dems in opposition would still be polling 20%+, and challenging the Conservatives in dozens of seats. Now, they're a spent force.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
Yes they did vote no, so you and the rest of us, will have to live with it. The main parties, and many on hear nearly wetted themselves at the prospect of a yes vote I said they should go, pity they did not take my advice. If you want a United Kingdom, the SNP MP`s have the same voting rights as anyone else.
A thought about Sturgeon/SNP. If the SNP are a major player/hold balance of power post election then it will be interesting to see who calls the shots - the SNP Westminster MPs or the SNP leader at Holyrood. Because it will make passing knife-edge legislation very difficult if reference always has to be made to an individual calling the shots from Scotland. Difficult to hammer out back room deals, establish personal relationships etc in those circumstances.
They will have no problem there, it will be done in London , they will be well prepared and nowadays we have telephones if needed.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
Yes they did vote no, so you and the rest of us, will have to live with it. The main parties, and many on hear nearly wetted themselves at the prospect of a yes vote I said they should go, pity they did not take my advice. If you want a United Kingdom, the SNP MP`s have the same voting rights as anyone else.
Yorkcity, FYI, I have been a supporter of Scottish independence for many years.
Crosby and Cameron have played a blinder..got rid of the chicken tab.. made the rest look like squabbling children at kiddies party.EdM has obviously run out of steam and the rest don't really count. It is no wonder that the Labour Party are not making any statements this morning..they must be furious.
I have been trying to work out what it is about Ed which makes me feel uncomfortable. just realised that he looks like the man attending a wedding or funeral who has been made to wear an ill-fitting suit and a white shirt with a new collar. He just looks and acts awkward.
He kept grinning like a Cheshire cat last night and when he was speaking, he noticeably turned his head like a learner driver making a point of turning his head to look at the mirrors so the examiner realises he is doing so. In short nothing about his performance last night seemed natural. However to be fair to him he didn't commit any major gaffe though the Clegg exchange will be used over and over again in the next 5 weeks.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
The spectacle of a debate is clearly designed to try to get people who do not obsessively follow politics to pay attention. Although it is mostly obsessives who will have watched regardless, it will have been a bigger draw than most political events, meaning some people who were not already clear on the basic positions and the snippets of details we got last night, and what they think of all the leaders, will have received that information when they otherwise might not.
Can someone against debates tell me what we lose if the debates happen, even if we as people who follow politics don't get much substance from them? That's the key for me. Some people say these things have no impact, others seem to believe that have too much impact and that's unfair for some reason (though for some reason the idea people may be swayed by a 2 minute PEB spin video and extremely selective sheets of a few hundred words and stock photos pushed through the door, or a poster, is acceptable when being swayed by a 'debate' is not), but for me our political discourse is not harmed by the debates, therefore if we are able to have the spectacle why not, even if the benefit is not incontestable either.
The debates merely add another method of getting some people some level of information (how much is indeed questionable, but the leaders did occasionally put some detail, which for some people may have been the first time they heard them).
I think it is wrong that people might be swayed by a debate, so we should not have them, comes the cry (direct or implication).
I get much less traction when I cry that I think leaflets are an even worse way for people to be swayed, considering they get even less challenge and can be even more spin heavy, so maybe they should not happen either, lest people be convinced in an inappropriate manner.
Clegg had the dignity of someone bowing out, knowing they had done their best. But he should have been replaced long ago. His presence makes the voters feel uncomfortable - like going to a party and being confronted by an embarrassing shag from your wilder youth....
For all his prep, no-one seemed to remember to tell Ed that when he wasn't speaking, don't smirk and don't gawp in incredulity. But his biggest problem isn't Ed. It's that with "steady as she goes", Cameron holds the Top Trumps. Ed made no case for taking the risk of backing Labour.
Farage tried to get people to board the Outrage Bus. But he can't deliver a referendum. He is dependent upon the Tories doing so - or replacing the Tories. But as the Tories rise to a point with YouGov where all their lost 2010 voters who have gone to UKIP have been replaced, it shows how forlorn that strategy looks now.
I ageree with the comment about Clegg; I really can’t understand why he didsn’t resign as LD leader six or so months ago. Even if Cameron hadn’t replaced him as DPM and left Cable as the senior LD in the cabinet the LD’s would, have been a lot better off.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
Ha Ha Ha, you not listen to anyone else then , they were throwing billions about as if it was small change. Sounds like green cheese as cameron looked the fake he is , Clegg a failed snake oil salesman and Ed as just useless. Westminster is second league, with second rate leaders and you boys don't like it.
"Labour claimed Mr Miliband had shown his “passion and confidence” to 10m viewers — ITV said final viewing figures would not be available until Friday — but there were also awkward moments."
Trying to stand back from our personal impressions and going by the polls: (1) Sturgeon either won or got a score draw, both of them very creditable in this format. That will both help the SNP in Scotland and reduce any fear of the SNP elsewhere. (2) Miliband (pace Roger!) got a score draw, which again outperformed expectations. That will help with the people who want a change of government but weren't sure he was tough enough. (3) Farage spoke very clearly (simply good voice projection) and I thought his key point that if we stay in the EU then free movement is inevitable was well made, helped by the fact that it's correct. I think he was unwise to venture into HIV treatment but his core audience maybe doesn't mind. I expect a small UKIP bounce and he's certainly done enough to prevent a further slide in their ratings for now. (4) Cameron seemed to be going through the motions - it looked exactly as though he felt as PM he shouldn't need to be there. Not much effect either way. (5) Clegg looked a bit 2nd division - a few good lines but no clear message. Wood was the same only more so. Bennett was OK but low-key. Major effects? Media spin may affect it for a day or two, but nothing decisive. On balance I'd guess a UKIP plus, slowing the concentration on the Con/Lab battle.
Someone made a Titanic reference to Clegg last night and it seemed very apposite. He's still there playing in the orchestra but keeping a stiff upper lip.
I thought his outburst at EdM was heartfelt - it really seemed to be a pressure cooker reaction. Now it may have been all confected - but it didn't feel like it.
Cameron is genetically PM stuff - he's got that firm presence that seems to keep the attention on him even if he's not saying much or doing it loudly.
Mr Farage needs to turn the volume down on his end of the pier act. I don't mind it in small doses - but their comes a time to be less cheeky chappy and last night was one of them.
EdM - well, he wasn't as bad as expectations - but his face pulling, school boy shrugging combined with his refrain about Being Prime Minister just felt awkward. The more he said it - the more it jarred. @Roger's analogy made me LOL = spot on.
Ms PC was okay but her wiggling at the podium reminded me of a breakfast TV presenter appealing to me to find a novelty vegetable interesting.
Ms Greenie was much improved - but she was just knitting a lentil scarf and no one tried to engage her.
And Ms Sturgeon was very solid, half Mrs Merkel and half Salmond. No wonder SLABers would prefer her to be their leader.
Clegg had the dignity of someone bowing out, knowing they had done their best. But he should have been replaced long ago. His presence makes the voters feel uncomfortable - like going to a party and being confronted by an embarrassing shag from your wilder youth....
For all his prep, no-one seemed to remember to tell Ed that when he wasn't speaking, don't smirk and don't gawp in incredulity. But his biggest problem isn't Ed. It's that with "steady as she goes", Cameron holds the Top Trumps. Ed made no case for taking the risk of backing Labour.
Farage tried to get people to board the Outrage Bus. But he can't deliver a referendum. He is dependent upon the Tories doing so - or replacing the Tories. But as the Tories rise to a point with YouGov where all their lost 2010 voters who have gone to UKIP have been replaced, it shows how forlorn that strategy looks now.
He's not that bad! Gods, this is the Brown situation all over again; the more people talk about how clearly he's a big ball of terribleness on stage, but boy howdy he's got the know how, it just undermines him.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
What do you mean by "we"?
I know more about Leanne than I did; and many, many voters know today what they did not know yesterday, that Ed is crap. Rejoice!
Not sure why, but Leanne is growing on me. Fair enough, she may not be in the top leagues when it comes to this sort of thing. She has persevered too, I read that her partner killed himself after battling with depression, leaving behind Leanne and a daughter. A trouper.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
Ha Ha Ha, you not listen to anyone else then , they were throwing billions about as if it was small change. Sounds like green cheese as cameron looked the fake he is , Clegg a failed snake oil salesman and Ed as just useless. Westminster is second league, with second rate leaders and you boys don't like it.
Malcolmg, so you agree that we should reduce our Govt deficit at a slower rate and that the markets will not increase interest charges accordingly?
Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
I don't agree about Cameron who did look PM. But there is no question that having run things, having made decisions and, superficially at least, having delivered a better result than Labour are promising (no tuition fees rather than £6K as an example) Sturgeon came across as a more substantial and credible figure than Ed.
He is going to have a real problem with her next time out.
Ed has 30 seats at risk up here. They are more at risk now. Ed has always ignored Scotland. He played a tiny bit part in the referendum. He needs to think about those seats. If he is indeed to be PM he needs to save as many as he can and yet he did not engage Sturgeon all night. Murphy must be very frustrated.
David, never mind frustrated , Murphy is just as rubbish as Ed. He has flopped up here after having been touted as a big Westminster beast. So far he has flopped badly and looks worse by the day.
Newspapers make themselves look silly with OTT headlines, almost certainly written before
Yes, the 'Cam hit for Six' and Ed 'losing' the election stuff is pretty risible.
Am I the only person who thinks Ed might come out of the next events pretty well? I know the others could gang up on him next time without Cameron there, but several people seem to think Cameron did well with the additional airtime from his responding to people challenging him, and Ed seems to have prepared very well for these things. And come the final event, he's at the least as good in that scenario as Clegg and Cameron, without the record of hits and misses to defend of the latter (in the last five years at least - Cameron and Clegg's efforts notwithstanding, Ed seems to have escaped most of the blowback on his record in the last government) or the atrocious image problem of the latter (he's 'weird', not hated or dismissed as irrelevant, and he can do something about the weird thing - in fact he seemed perfectly normal compared to the stories).
Huge blow for SLAB. With just 5 weeks to go until the GE Jim McGovern the defending Labour MP in Dundee West has apparently withdrawn his nomination and retired. The story is being reported by the Dundee Courier.
Gordon Macdonald MSP @GMacdonaldMSP Jim McGovern quits as Dundee West MP fw.to/820lyuY
I'm increasingly of the opinion that a weak Tory led Government will be the best outcome. Labour can ditch Miliband and regroup. But will a reduced LibDem bloc be willing to prop them up?
After this GE, according to all the polls the Lib Dems will at best drop to become the 4th biggest party of UK MPs. In terms of MEPS they have in successive elections gone from 3rd to 4th to last year’s joint 6th with 5 others. They are becoming just one of many minor parties. When their MPs retire, they will shrink still further as they have lost for a generation the NOTA vote.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
For me the most important number last night was 37. Little did I realise earlier in the week when I asked PBers when they thought the Tory poll score would first hit 37/38 it would do so in the same week. IF we see the Tories remain at 35-37 in the polls throughout the campaign, there will only be one winner.
As for last night, I thought the winners were Julie Etchingham for her excellent moderation and Nicola Sturgeon for her spirited performance and sticking it to Ed on a number of occasions. I thought the Welsh woman and Natalie Bennett were simply out of their depth.
As I expected Farage underperformed and his comments about HIV patients will be ripe for misrepresentation on the doorstep.
However my final thought about last night is did any voters (outside the political class) actually watch it? I fell asleep several times during the 2 hours because the entire thing was basically sterile.
There is a singer called George Ezra. He has a fantastic voice and looks great on tele. Ed has a terrible voice and looks awkward on tele. I suspect people hear and look at Ed and then mentally switch off as its too painful. Unlike Ezra who has one of the most magical voices I have heard in eons.
This is a good thread. Anyways its not about who won the debates, its about voting intention opinion polls & we need to wait and see. With Easter bank holiday shenanigans it may take a couple of weeks to see the shakedown. But heres my take:
1. Cameron will be happy & I expect tories support to shore up. we might see some polls nudging 40% in next few weeks. 2. Miliband. SLAB's the big problem for him 3. SNP will be happy 4. Ukip. I cant tell. I hate Farage & so do lots of pple but thats not the point. Did he boost support? Don't know. He looked very ill whatever. 5. Clegg. Stabbed Cameron early on which made him look a bit of a dick really & may do him no favours in Sheffield Hallam. Thought he was very boring but don't know what else he could've done. My guess is LDs will go up to double figures.
Mr. Easterross, how does that sort of view come across to unionist Scots, would you say?
Mr. Gadfly, good question on height for Cameron. People associate tallness with leadership (quite wrongly, Basil II was a stumpy fellow, I think, but hard as nails. And Maximin was very tall).
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
What do you mean by "we"?
I know more about Leanne than I did; and many, many voters know today what they did not know yesterday, that Ed is crap. Rejoice!
Not sure why, but Leanne is growing on me.
Maybe it was because in talking about the debates people made the Borgen comparison as an example of Danish politics, but she made me think of the lead lady from that show.
(5) Clegg looked a bit 2nd division - a few good lines but no clear message.
I disagree. If anything his message was too clear and he made it a little too much without reference to what was actually being discussed. It's just that the message is not that appealing for many people, being essentially an appeal to not go too far in either direction about anything.
Clegg had the dignity of someone bowing out, knowing they had done their best. But he should have been repla
I ageree with the comment about Clegg; I really can’t understand why he didsn’t resign as LD leader six or so months ago.
Agreed. I almost admire his sheer stubborness though. Could another leader have appealed to a few more percent, who are willing to consider voting LD again but cannot internally justify it while the 'traitor' is still leader? Eh, maybe, it's hard to say, but worth a try probably. But he just keeps going.
I really hope he retains his seat. It would be easy on the LDs when they have to rebuild if they can just ignore Clegg's leadership, pretend he never existed, but if he is still there, though clearly not as leader anymore, he and they have to confront matters more.
I have been trying to work out what it is about Ed which makes me feel uncomfortable. just realised that he looks like the man attending a wedding or funeral who has been made to wear an ill-fitting suit and a white shirt with a new collar. He just looks and acts awkward.
He kept grinning like a Cheshire cat last night and when he was speaking, he noticeably turned his head like a learner driver making a point of turning his head to look at the mirrors so the examiner realises he is doing so. In short nothing about his performance last night seemed natural. However to be fair to him he didn't commit any major gaffe though the Clegg exchange will be used over and over again in the next 5 weeks.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
To be accurate I believe she raised it, and Nicola later directly challenged Ed, Dave and Nick to commit to it.
I have been trying to work out what it is about Ed which makes me feel uncomfortable. just realised that he looks like the man attending a wedding or funeral who has been made to wear an ill-fitting suit and a white shirt with a new collar. He just looks and acts awkward.
He kept grinning like a Cheshire cat last night and when he was speaking, he noticeably turned his head like a learner driver making a point of turning his head to look at the mirrors so the examiner realises he is doing so. In short nothing about his performance last night seemed natural. However to be fair to him he didn't commit any major gaffe though the Clegg exchange will be used over and over again in the next 5 weeks.
Sturgeon stood out from the rest easily. Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
Yes effective at promising magic money trees of spending.... A product of our welfare state. Would fit very well with Syriza in Greece, such a shame they voted No.
Ha Ha Ha, you not listen to anyone else then , they were throwing billions about as if it was small change. Sounds like green cheese as cameron looked the fake he is , Clegg a failed snake oil salesman and Ed as just useless. Westminster is second league, with second rate leaders and you boys don't like it.
Malcolmg, so you agree that we should reduce our Govt deficit at a slower rate and that the markets will not increase interest charges accordingly?
I don't personally but neither Labour or Tories are doing it fast enough and SNP will not either. I am all for helping people but what this country needs to do for a start is get rid of vanity projects , start hitting tax avoider/evaders , drop Trident , foreign aid , sort out a proper immigration system , decent minimum wage and make sure that no-one in work gets benefits and no-one out of work can get as much in benefits as someone who is working. Invest in infrastructure in other places apart from London.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
The spectacle of a debate is clearly designed to try to get people who do not obsessively follow politics to pay attention. Although it is mostly obsessives who will have watched regardless, it will have been a bigger draw than most political events, meaning some people who were not already clear on the basic positions and the snippets of details we got last night, and what they think of all the leaders, will have received that information when they otherwise might not.
Can someone against debates tell me what we lose if the debates happen, even if we as people who follow politics don't get much substance from them? That's the key for me. Some people say these things have no impact, others seem to believe that have too much impact and that's unfair for some reason (though for some reason the idea people may be swayed by a 2 minute PEB spin video and extremely selective sheets of a few hundred words and stock photos pushed through the door, or a poster, is acceptable when being swayed by a 'debate' is not), but for me our political discourse is not harmed by the debates, therefore if we are able to have the spectacle why not, even if the benefit is not incontestable either.
The debates merely add another method of getting some people some level of information (how much is indeed questionable, but the leaders did occasionally put some detail, which for some people may have been the first time they heard them).
Your first paragraph highlights one of the problems: people uninterested in politics will not have watched the debate, and will get their impression of it from the media afterwards. This just hands more power to the media, as we are seeing this morning. There's a reason why the media organisations were slobbering over the debates.
As for what we lose: democracy is hurt by this. We are not in a presidential system, and we vote for MPs at GEs, not leaders. The debates concentrate the debate on the leaders and political parties rather than on the local candidates. And that matters.
Add in things like the worm, and you get nothing more than a television quiz show utterly devoid of substance.. The comparison with the weakest link someone made last night is correct.
As I mentioned last night, one of the important factors influencing my vote this GE will be the candidates' websites and how they mention local issues. I will view someone who mentions a local issue more highly than someone who does not, even if I do not agree with their view on that issue.
Newspapers make themselves look silly with OTT headlines, almost certainly written before
Yes, the 'Cam hit for Six' and Ed 'losing' the election stuff is pretty risible.
Am I the only person who thinks Ed might come out of the next events pretty well? I know the others could gang up on him next time without Cameron there, but several people seem to think Cameron did well with the additional airtime from his responding to people challenging him, and Ed seems to have prepared very well for these things. And come the final event, he's at the least as good in that scenario as Clegg and Cameron, without the record of hits and misses to defend of the latter (in the last five years at least - Cameron and Clegg's efforts notwithstanding, Ed seems to have escaped most of the blowback on his record in the last government) or the atrocious image problem of the latter (he's 'weird', not hated or dismissed as irrelevant, and he can do something about the weird thing - in fact he seemed perfectly normal compared to the stories).
Have you missed the fact that he sounds and looks like a duffer of the first order. God help us if he ever gets to be PM.
Mr. Easterross, how does that sort of view come across to unionist Scots, would you say?
Mr. Gadfly, good question on height for Cameron. People associate tallness with leadership (quite wrongly, Basil II was a stumpy fellow, I think, but hard as nails. And Maximin was very tall).
MD my dear friend, there is no generic beast a Scottish Unionist. Scots Tories think totally differently from SLAB people. I cant wait until the early hours of 8th May to see SLAB MP after SLAB MP "impaled" on the SNP's stakes. I don't want to see any SLAB MPs survive 7th May.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
The spectacle of a debate is clearly designed to try to get people who do not obsessively follow politics to pay attention. Although it is mostly obsessives who will have watched regardless, it will have been a bigger draw than most political events, meaning some people who were not already clear on the basic positions and the snippets of details we got last night, and what they think of all the leaders, will have received that information when they otherwise might not.
Can someone against debates tell me what we lose if the debates happen, even if we as people who follow politics don't get much substance from them? That's the key for me. Some people say these things have no impact, others seem to believe that have too much impact and that's unfair for some reason (though for some reason the idea people may be swayed by a 2 minute PEB spin video and extremely selective sheets of a few hundred words and stock photos pushed through the door, or a poster, is acceptable when being swayed by a 'debate' is not), but for me our political discourse is not harmed by the debates, therefore if we are able to have the spectacle why not, even if the benefit is not incontestable either.
The debates merely add another method of getting some people some level of information (how much is indeed questionable, but the leaders did occasionally put some detail, which for some people may have been the first time they heard them).
Your first paragraph highlights one of the problems: people uninterested in politics will not have watched the debate, and will get their impression of it from the media afterwards. This just hands more power to the media, as we are seeing this morning. There's a reason why the media organisations were slobbering over the debates.
As for what we lose: democracy is hurt by this. We are not in a presidential system, and we vote for MPs at GEs, not leaders. The debates concentrate the debate on the leaders and political parties rather than on the local candidates. And that matters.
Add in things like the worm, and you get nothing more than a television quiz show utterly devoid of substance.. The comparison with the weakest link someone made last night is correct.
As I mentioned last night, one of the important factors influencing my vote this GE will be the candidates' websites and how they mention local issues. I will view someone who mentions a local issue more highly than someone who does not, even if I do not agree with their view on that issue.
We have a semi-presidential system. What people think of the party leaders is a big factor in voting intentions.
Huge blow for SLAB. With just 5 weeks to go until the GE Jim McGovern the defending Labour MP in Dundee West has apparently withdrawn his nomination and retired. The story is being reported by the Dundee Courier.
Gordon Macdonald MSP @GMacdonaldMSP Jim McGovern quits as Dundee West MP fw.to/820lyuY
Juat another donkey going before he gets kicked out. Assume he gets more cash going now than getting thrashed in a few weeks.
I thought EdM and Cameron were about 6'1 or 6'2? I'm not good at heights as I'm quite tall and all my other halves have been well over 6'. So almost everyone is a bit short in comparison.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
To be accurate I believe she raised it, and Nicola later directly challenged Ed, Dave and Nick to commit to it.
I have been trying to work out what it is about Ed which makes me feel uncomfortable. just realised that he looks like the man attending a wedding or funeral who has been made to wear an ill-fitting suit and a white shirt with a new collar. He just looks and acts awkward.
He kept grinning like a Cheshire cat last night and when he was speaking, he noticeably turned his head like a learner driver making a point of turning his head to look at the mirrors so the examiner realises he is doing so. In short nothing about his performance last night seemed natural. However to be fair to him he didn't commit any major gaffe though the Clegg exchange will be used over and over again in the next 5 weeks.
I was just wondering how Scottish unionist parties might respond to that view, which would give the 3% who live in Wales the power to overrule the wishes of a clear majority everywhere else.
Mr. G, not sure I can see Miliband lasting long against Tywin Lannister.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
Sturgeon definitely mentioned it and so if you are correct both said it.
Newspapers make themselves look silly with OTT headlines, almost certainly written before
Yes, the 'Cam hit for Six' and Ed 'losing' the election stuff is pretty risible.
Am I the only person who thinks Ed might come out of the next events pretty well? I know the others could gang up on him next time without Cameron there, but several people seem to think Cameron did well with the additional airtime from his responding to people challenging him, and Ed seems to have prepared very well for these things. And come the final event, he's at the least as good in that scenario as Clegg and Cameron, without the record of hits and misses to defend of the latter (in the last five years at least - Cameron and Clegg's efforts notwithstanding, Ed seems to have escaped most of the blowback on his record in the last government) or the atrocious image problem of the latter (he's 'weird', not hated or dismissed as irrelevant, and he can do something about the weird thing - in fact he seemed perfectly normal compared to the stories).
If the five opposition parties has the same format as last night,Ed as the "establishment "candidate faces a torrid debate.Attacks from Scotland and and Wales and in England from the left with the Greens and from the right and UKIP. The three ladies have no incentive to attack each other but Farage could get a bit of a combined pasting from them.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
Sturgeon definitely mentioned it and so if you are correct both said it.
Yes, both mentioned it. One of the few significant surprises on the night.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
We political nerds seriously underestimate how the great British public react to these events...
This is surely a good thing!
Worrying that so many people have no clue about what is going on around them and do not understand such basic points. Does not paint a good picture of the level of education in the country.
Eagerly awaiting Stephen Fisher's updated projection this morning. Will the Tories go over 300 seats with Labour declining to below 260?
Well I wasn't too far out, though I say so myself! Fisher has the Tories on 300 seats ((+4 compared with last week), Labour on 258 seats (down 3) their lowest tally over the past year, with the LibDems on 20 seats (down 1) The SNP are shown as winning 47 seats with the remaining 27 seats being split N.I. 18, UKIP 5, Plaid 3 and Greens 1.
If I were Sturgeon , I would push her MP`s in any post election talks to have a red line. That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC. Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
To be accurate it was the Welsh woman who said each of the 4 countries should vote separately and be required to vote in favour of leaving if we are to.
Sturgeon definitely mentioned it and so if you are correct both said it.
They both did. IIRC Wood said it first and Sturgeon picked it up and amplified it.
Can anyone who is in favour of the debates answer this question:
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
We political nerds seriously underestimate how the great British public react to these events...
Hmmm. Is there a link to the article covering this, showing numbers and how they were collated?
I smell b/s.
I dont. Thats what most pple are like. The link is The Guardian.
Well, the fact it's in the Guardian is a good reason to smell b.s. ;-)
But seriously, such graphics are pointless without information on the number of queries and how the information was collated. A comparison with the number of queries in an equivalent time before the debates would also tell you much more.
Your first paragraph highlights one of the problems: people uninterested in politics will not have watched the debate, and will get their impression of it from the media afterwards.
Some people not generally interested in politics will have watched it. How many is unclear, not as many as we might like, but some.
Regardless, the problem is people uninterested in politics. How do we address that problem? A debate might reach a few more. Not having a debate will definitely not reach anymore. So the problem you raise might be helped by the debate, it might not, but without it those people are definitely not reached.
As for what we lose: democracy is hurt by this. We are not in a presidential system, and we vote for MPs at GEs, not leaders. The debates concentrate the debate on the leaders and political parties rather than on the local candidates. And that matters.
Add in things like the worm, and you get nothing more than a television quiz show utterly devoid of substance. .
We are not a presidential system it is true. But people do vote for parties not candidates in many many instances, and the leader embodies the party to a large degree. Like you I would prefer that not be the case, but the parties themselves want it that way. The debates are a symptom of that issue not the cause. Until such time as our party system is less party dominated, we may as well make the best of a bad situation.
I also do not believe it can have been significantly different in previous times, given the slavering adulation or frothing hatred people still show today for the leaders of previous times. If even a fraction of that was present at the time, who the leader was was a major factor.
And I cannot agree with the 'utterly devoid of substance' remark. It cannot be denied this was overwhelmingly a media spinning exercise, but there was detail put out there by the leaders. I certainly learned things about the Greens and their ideas that I did not know. How much will stick with me who can say, but it got me thinking about them, perhaps even interested in looking up more about them (even if only to mock, who knows).
And again, leaflets, billboards and PEBs contain even less substance because they cannot be challenged immediately by the other side and are often bolder in their ridiculous spinning. Why not ban those as not being appropriate for people to be swayed by?
The debates may not be especially great. Perhaps you are right and they are doing some harm - but even were that the case, and I do not think so, other campaigning methods are even worse, and you do not seem concerned about those.
Huge blow for SLAB. With just 5 weeks to go until the GE Jim McGovern the defending Labour MP in Dundee West has apparently withdrawn his nomination and retired. The story is being reported by the Dundee Courier.
Gordon Macdonald MSP @GMacdonaldMSP Jim McGovern quits as Dundee West MP fw.to/820lyuY
Juat another donkey going before he gets kicked out. Assume he gets more cash going now than getting thrashed in a few weeks.
Comments
First ... in the PB debate.
I watched last night because I had a bet on it but what it told me is that Ed isn't front of house material. He might be a good back room boy but he's not a leader.
On a points system he wasn't the worse-probably no worse than Cameron or Clegg-but he was far and away the least suited to the job he was applying for. Every time he mentioned 'Prime Minister" which he did a lot I flinched.
It's easy to think he was over rehearsed-which he was-or that he's naturally A symetrical-which he is-but the problem wasn't either of these things. He was like a 50 year old actress playing a teenager. It was a part he couldn't play. He looked like a fish out of water.
I notice one or two Labour supporters were angry earlier. I think they realized the same. It's not a good feeling seeing an undeserving Tory Party win by default
For all his prep, no-one seemed to remember to tell Ed that when he wasn't speaking, don't smirk and don't gawp in incredulity. But his biggest problem isn't Ed. It's that with "steady as she goes", Cameron holds the Top Trumps. Ed made no case for taking the risk of backing Labour.
Farage tried to get people to board the Outrage Bus. But he can't deliver a referendum. He is dependent upon the Tories doing so - or replacing the Tories. But as the Tories rise to a point with YouGov where all their lost 2010 voters who have gone to UKIP have been replaced, it shows how forlorn that strategy looks now.
Except ICM, Cameron seems ahead of Miliband (and that's by 1%).
Saw most of the BBC news at ten coverage but it didn't (that I saw, though I was away for a minute) include the Miliband floored by Clegg on the economy moment referred to here.
Seemed like, more or less, a four way dead heat.
Glad there's only one [full size] debate.
Risk for Miliband is that at the next, smaller, debate the only chap who did well and won't be there is Cameron. If Miliband doesn't beat Farage, that'll be a bit poor. If he doesn't beat Farage or Sturgeon that might make him look worse. And the conservative sorts who might've backed Cameron as the 'winner' this time may well prefer Farage to Miliband (or, indeed, Sturgeon, who seems to have gone down well).
His real issue is that his substance is incomplete. he's reasonable at seeing things that need fixing, but his solutions are almost always absolute crud. He'd work best as part of a team, generating ideas about what to do, but needs someone to give him an occasional good slapping for his proposed solutions.
Which is where he came from as advisor to Brown. That's his ideal role, not leader of a political party.
Interesting watching the seven dwarves while wrestling with Uncle Davids ropy internet on the Isle of Wight.
The Yougov worm was difficult to work, with invisible writing on the slider to show which direction was positive.
I won a few quid on Nicola. All the indyref practice has put her in good debating form.
Ed looked lame, Dave looked like PM, Clegg looked polished and Farage looked sweaty and nervous.
I do not think Farage did enough to change the game, and he will look even more a fish out of water next week. He will be the one arguing for cuts against the free spenders and that may not go down well with the red kippers.
Cameron was very disciplined and his reiteration of the too much spending, too much borrowing, too much tax and too much debt was something else Ed did not really have an answer to. He said your talking about the past I want to talk about the future but the message that the future would be a repeat of the past came over loud and clear with no lessons learned.
Ed could have dealt with this if he had a vision that he could sell. DC and Nick were not offering much vision either but on vision the bit players were just in a different class. This is going to be a risk for him in the also ran debate.
Ed was a long way from terrible. There were no real gaffes by anyone including him. But he did not make the case for change.
What did we learn last night that we did not already know?
If the feedback on last night is right, then the SNP will have strengthened their position and take more SLAB seats than otherwise. Does anyone know what UK Labour Leader the SLAB MPs preferred in 2010? Ironic if they had favoured Ed Miliband, something they can think about with their redundancy payments.
Nicola is definitely First Minister , Cameron, Milliband were not Prime in comparison.
That impact should not be overstated, and may not prove decisive to the narrative or the views of the party leaders, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.
Cameron and Miliband were both exactly as expected. Bennett spoke well but came across as a bit worthy. I thought Farage failed to take the opportunity to light up the campaign. And Wood was only really speaking to Wales (unlike Sturgeon).
I thought it was an interesting format, but it is very disappointing not to have a 3/4 way debate between the parties that matter in England.
That said [as I did, prior to the debate] she also, arguably, had the most to lose in polling terms but seems to have put in a strong performance. Still another debate to go, though.
Mr. Felix, do we have viewing figures?
For me the most important number last night was 37. Little did I realise earlier in the week when I asked PBers when they thought the Tory poll score would first hit 37/38 it would do so in the same week. IF we see the Tories remain at 35-37 in the polls throughout the campaign, there will only be one winner.
As for last night, I thought the winners were Julie Etchingham for her excellent moderation and Nicola Sturgeon for her spirited performance and sticking it to Ed on a number of occasions. I thought the Welsh woman and Natalie Bennett were simply out of their depth.
As I expected Farage underperformed and his comments about HIV patients will be ripe for misrepresentation on the doorstep.
However my final thought about last night is did any voters (outside the political class) actually watch it? I fell asleep several times during the 2 hours because the entire thing was basically sterile.
The Conservatives chose the wrong Leader in 2005 (posh boy) Cameron was right for the boom time but after the crash he was the wrong Leader.
Ed was overrehearsed but that won't have been apparent to people who don't watch politics very often, and he was indeed well prepared and I thought did really well, some good lines and some detail and can come across well. He is nowhere near as poor at presentation as his opponents have pretended, and it's a question now of how well in the next few weeks he can get that message to filter out, vs the 5 years osmotic drop from the political sphere about how crap he is filtering down to people.
Sturgeon - entirely expected win I believe.
Farage - Not really any significant gaffes, no knock out moments, he was strong in his key areas. He'd have liked to have been the clear winner, but it was certainly no failure.
Bennett - Unlike most people it seems I thought she did well after a clunky start, benefiting from no-one going after her on the night and unravelling her claims.
Wood - Drifted in and out of things, but scored some hits. A question of if she can be more prominent in the next outing.
Cameron - Plenty of camera time, he had some good lines, but had no answer he could give on some of his failures. Was alright.
He is going to have a real problem with her next time out.
Ed has 30 seats at risk up here. They are more at risk now. Ed has always ignored Scotland. He played a tiny bit part in the referendum. He needs to think about those seats. If he is indeed to be PM he needs to save as many as he can and yet he did not engage Sturgeon all night. Murphy must be very frustrated.
But, as luck would have it, things have turned out well for them. The Lib Dems in opposition would still be polling 20%+, and challenging the Conservatives in dozens of seats. Now, they're a spent force.
I know more about Leanne than I did; and many, many voters know today what they did not know yesterday, that Ed is crap. Rejoice!
The main parties, and many on hear nearly wetted themselves at the prospect of a yes vote
I said they should go, pity they did not take my advice.
If you want a United Kingdom, the SNP MP`s have the same voting rights as anyone else.
It is no wonder that the Labour Party are not making any statements this morning..they must be furious.
He kept grinning like a Cheshire cat last night and when he was speaking, he noticeably turned his head like a learner driver making a point of turning his head to look at the mirrors so the examiner realises he is doing so. In short nothing about his performance last night seemed natural. However to be fair to him he didn't commit any major gaffe though the Clegg exchange will be used over and over again in the next 5 weeks.
Can someone against debates tell me what we lose if the debates happen, even if we as people who follow politics don't get much substance from them? That's the key for me. Some people say these things have no impact, others seem to believe that have too much impact and that's unfair for some reason (though for some reason the idea people may be swayed by a 2 minute PEB spin video and extremely selective sheets of a few hundred words and stock photos pushed through the door, or a poster, is acceptable when being swayed by a 'debate' is not), but for me our political discourse is not harmed by the debates, therefore if we are able to have the spectacle why not, even if the benefit is not incontestable either.
The debates merely add another method of getting some people some level of information (how much is indeed questionable, but the leaders did occasionally put some detail, which for some people may have been the first time they heard them).
That sounds pretty bloody duplicitous.
TV highlights neutral
Post match polls neutral
Newspapers make themselves look silly with OTT headlines, almost certainly written before
What is coming across is the passion he has for public service.
I get much less traction when I cry that I think leaflets are an even worse way for people to be swayed, considering they get even less challenge and can be even more spin heavy, so maybe they should not happen either, lest people be convinced in an inappropriate manner.
Incidentally, where is Cable?
"Labour claimed Mr Miliband had shown his “passion and confidence” to 10m viewers — ITV said final viewing figures would not be available until Friday — but there were also awkward moments."
FT
(1) Sturgeon either won or got a score draw, both of them very creditable in this format. That will both help the SNP in Scotland and reduce any fear of the SNP elsewhere.
(2) Miliband (pace Roger!) got a score draw, which again outperformed expectations. That will help with the people who want a change of government but weren't sure he was tough enough.
(3) Farage spoke very clearly (simply good voice projection) and I thought his key point that if we stay in the EU then free movement is inevitable was well made, helped by the fact that it's correct. I think he was unwise to venture into HIV treatment but his core audience maybe doesn't mind. I expect a small UKIP bounce and he's certainly done enough to prevent a further slide in their ratings for now.
(4) Cameron seemed to be going through the motions - it looked exactly as though he felt as PM he shouldn't need to be there. Not much effect either way.
(5) Clegg looked a bit 2nd division - a few good lines but no clear message. Wood was the same only more so. Bennett was OK but low-key.
Major effects? Media spin may affect it for a day or two, but nothing decisive. On balance I'd guess a UKIP plus, slowing the concentration on the Con/Lab battle.
I thought his outburst at EdM was heartfelt - it really seemed to be a pressure cooker reaction. Now it may have been all confected - but it didn't feel like it.
Cameron is genetically PM stuff - he's got that firm presence that seems to keep the attention on him even if he's not saying much or doing it loudly.
Mr Farage needs to turn the volume down on his end of the pier act. I don't mind it in small doses - but their comes a time to be less cheeky chappy and last night was one of them.
EdM - well, he wasn't as bad as expectations - but his face pulling, school boy shrugging combined with his refrain about Being Prime Minister just felt awkward. The more he said it - the more it jarred. @Roger's analogy made me LOL = spot on.
Ms PC was okay but her wiggling at the podium reminded me of a breakfast TV presenter appealing to me to find a novelty vegetable interesting.
Ms Greenie was much improved - but she was just knitting a lentil scarf and no one tried to engage her.
And Ms Sturgeon was very solid, half Mrs Merkel and half Salmond. No wonder SLABers would prefer her to be their leader.
That each part of this United Kingdom must have a separate vote on staying in or leaving the EC.
Nicola mentioned it last night , sets it up quite nicely, that the power might start to move from westminster London to the regional parliaments.
Am I the only person who thinks Ed might come out of the next events pretty well? I know the others could gang up on him next time without Cameron there, but several people seem to think Cameron did well with the additional airtime from his responding to people challenging him, and Ed seems to have prepared very well for these things. And come the final event, he's at the least as good in that scenario as Clegg and Cameron, without the record of hits and misses to defend of the latter (in the last five years at least - Cameron and Clegg's efforts notwithstanding, Ed seems to have escaped most of the blowback on his record in the last government) or the atrocious image problem of the latter (he's 'weird', not hated or dismissed as irrelevant, and he can do something about the weird thing - in fact he seemed perfectly normal compared to the stories).
That, as much as anything else, will be what loses him the election.
Gordon Macdonald MSP @GMacdonaldMSP
Jim McGovern quits as Dundee West MP fw.to/820lyuY
The overnights will be in about 0930 - so we'll know the figures.
Ed has a terrible voice and looks awkward on tele.
I suspect people hear and look at Ed and then mentally switch off as its too painful. Unlike Ezra who has one of the most magical voices I have heard in eons.
1. Cameron will be happy & I expect tories support to shore up. we might see some polls nudging 40% in next few weeks.
2. Miliband. SLAB's the big problem for him
3. SNP will be happy
4. Ukip. I cant tell. I hate Farage & so do lots of pple but thats not the point. Did he boost support? Don't know. He looked very ill whatever.
5. Clegg. Stabbed Cameron early on which made him look a bit of a dick really & may do him no favours in Sheffield Hallam. Thought he was very boring but don't know what else he could've done. My guess is LDs will go up to double figures.
Mr. Gadfly, good question on height for Cameron. People associate tallness with leadership (quite wrongly, Basil II was a stumpy fellow, I think, but hard as nails. And Maximin was very tall).
I really hope he retains his seat. It would be easy on the LDs when they have to rebuild if they can just ignore Clegg's leadership, pretend he never existed, but if he is still there, though clearly not as leader anymore, he and they have to confront matters more.
How old is he now? He's got a grey flash in his hair but still reminds me of an 18yrs old.
And it's not like he's got a baby face either. It's most peculiar.
As for what we lose: democracy is hurt by this. We are not in a presidential system, and we vote for MPs at GEs, not leaders. The debates concentrate the debate on the leaders and political parties rather than on the local candidates. And that matters.
Add in things like the worm, and you get nothing more than a television quiz show utterly devoid of substance.. The comparison with the weakest link someone made last night is correct.
As I mentioned last night, one of the important factors influencing my vote this GE will be the candidates' websites and how they mention local issues. I will view someone who mentions a local issue more highly than someone who does not, even if I do not agree with their view on that issue.
I smell b/s.
I was just wondering how Scottish unionist parties might respond to that view, which would give the 3% who live in Wales the power to overrule the wishes of a clear majority everywhere else.
Mr. G, not sure I can see Miliband lasting long against Tywin Lannister.
The three ladies have no incentive to attack each other but Farage could get a bit of a combined pasting from them.
Fisher has the Tories on 300 seats ((+4 compared with last week), Labour on 258 seats (down 3) their lowest tally over the past year, with the LibDems on 20 seats (down 1)
The SNP are shown as winning 47 seats with the remaining 27 seats being split N.I. 18, UKIP 5, Plaid 3 and Greens 1.
But seriously, such graphics are pointless without information on the number of queries and how the information was collated. A comparison with the number of queries in an equivalent time before the debates would also tell you much more.
Regardless, the problem is people uninterested in politics. How do we address that problem? A debate might reach a few more. Not having a debate will definitely not reach anymore. So the problem you raise might be helped by the debate, it might not, but without it those people are definitely not reached. We are not a presidential system it is true. But people do vote for parties not candidates in many many instances, and the leader embodies the party to a large degree. Like you I would prefer that not be the case, but the parties themselves want it that way. The debates are a symptom of that issue not the cause. Until such time as our party system is less party dominated, we may as well make the best of a bad situation.
I also do not believe it can have been significantly different in previous times, given the slavering adulation or frothing hatred people still show today for the leaders of previous times. If even a fraction of that was present at the time, who the leader was was a major factor.
And I cannot agree with the 'utterly devoid of substance' remark. It cannot be denied this was overwhelmingly a media spinning exercise, but there was detail put out there by the leaders. I certainly learned things about the Greens and their ideas that I did not know. How much will stick with me who can say, but it got me thinking about them, perhaps even interested in looking up more about them (even if only to mock, who knows).
And again, leaflets, billboards and PEBs contain even less substance because they cannot be challenged immediately by the other side and are often bolder in their ridiculous spinning. Why not ban those as not being appropriate for people to be swayed by?
The debates may not be especially great. Perhaps you are right and they are doing some harm - but even were that the case, and I do not think so, other campaigning methods are even worse, and you do not seem concerned about those.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/jim-mcgovern-quits-as-dundee-west-mp-1.859389