That's a four way MoE tie, surely? Is it right to say no one won with a convincing lead?
In just what way does ''best''differ from plain old best? And just what were the respondents criteria and how did they weight them? Or is this too technical for such an important issue
BBC highlights are very heavy on Sturgeon. Not surprising as its BBC National and trying to be impartial instea of Labour run BBC Scotland.
So the SNP were only proposing to take control of BBC Scotland's political output?
No they want BBC Scotland devolved, so they can strip out the Labour Party placepeople and make it an impartial broadcaster.
You mean a SNP supporting one don't you.
Not really. They kept on Eilidh Angelini after all. The SNP are not Dogmatic. They will intentionally remove Labour placepeople, that's the biggest part of Labour's problem in Scotland - they use Scotland as their own fiefdom to promote and place their relatives and party people into public sector jobs.
The SNP have avoided that so far, hopefully always will. But good people will keep their jobs. Only a good, effective, non-dogmatic public sector will make people happy enough to vote Yes.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
Off to bed safe in the knowledge that brent crude dropped 5% today and if Northern voters stick with Labour then they are hosepiping their money to Scotland
Cameron is as likely to keep hold of number 10 as you were your wife.
Vile and for the second time. Where's a moderator, surely this deserves a ban?
You call in vain. The moderator has already chosen to let the vileness stand. My comment about how disgusting these attacks are was, ironically, moderated.
Comments about other posters' personal life are off limits.
If you fail to adhere to this, well we'll just make sure your comments automatically go to the pending folder, and have to be manually released as and when the Moderating team can be bothered to.
@jonwalker121: Parties will argue about meaning of Comres post-debate poll (pic) - I think it looks best for Cameron #leadersdebate http://t.co/4tifRYcUAl
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
I haven't paid much attention to the Opposition debate line up - is Ms Sturgeon on that panel as well as Ed?
If so, nasty prospects for SLAB
Why, yes. Yes she is. With her good friend Leanne and her ally Natalie.
Allies are better than enemies in politics. It's why the Scottish Government works better than Westminster. It's why FPTP is broken. It's why the UK is a basketcase.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As (possibly) Clegg- well what might have been!!
A lot of unpleasantness from some quarters this evening – did Ed do poorly then?
PB has spent the last two-and-a-half hours disagreeing about everything. Polling says he'll face a tough test north of the border - which, arguably, we already knew.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
Thought Ms Greenie was much better than usual - but she's got nothing to lose and appeared much better prepared. Her accent is really peculiar. I always assume she's a pundit not a UK party leader.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As to Clegg- well what might have been!!
Cameron was excellent. He took full advantage of the others going after his record to maximise his camera time, and was very prime ministerial in doing so. He was solid in defence, played good offence against Labour and UKIP and sat back and allowed Sturgeon to obliterate any hopes Labour had of turning the polls around in Scotland. Overall a very satisfying night for the blue team. I think The Sun have nailed it with their headline btw: Miliband has blown it, it's over.
First of all, I'm not a Labour or any other chap. Second, what I said is true. Is Scott even a human being? - classic bot like behaviour. It (Scott) adds nothing to the debate. Time for someone to press the off button methinks.
No but if I did and wanted to emigrate to another country I would more than happy to be told 1. I am not welcome or 2. I need to pay for my own treatment/take out insurance.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
The SNP will take 11 Liberal seats.
Hence why I said 30 or so.
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
First of all, I'm not a Labour or any other chap. Second, what I said is true. Is Scott even a human being? - classic bot like behaviour. It (Scott) adds nothing to the debate. Time for someone to press the off button methinks.
Thought Ms Greenie was much better than usual - but she's got nothing to lose and appeared much better prepared. Her accent is really peculiar. I always assume she's a pundit not a UK party leader.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As to Clegg- well what might have been!!
I've got to say Plato I thought they all did very well, though Farage looked worse for wear. I would recommend a full round check up, bloods, ECG etc.. for Nigel. He may need to change his lifestyle slightly if he wants to prolong his chances of living on the planet much longer.
Anyway, am I wrong, or are you now based in the USA? I've only come back to comment recently..
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
The SNP will take 11 Liberal seats.
Hence why I said 30 or so.
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
I expect SNP to have more votes than either the Tories or Labour can form a government without. I..e only Labour + SNP or Labour and Tory is a viable arrangement. Not a co-alition in the former case but in terms of governing.
The Liberals will get 20 seats. If they have a solid night. SNP will struggle to get less than 50. Labour only need 275 to govern just on SNP support.
Thought Ms Greenie was much better than usual - but she's got nothing to lose and appeared much better prepared. Her accent is really peculiar. I always assume she's a pundit not a UK party leader.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As to Clegg- well what might have been!!
I've got to say Plato I thought they all did very well, though Farage looked worse for wear. I would recommend a full round check up, bloods, ECG etc.. for Nigel. He may need to change his lifestyle slightly if he wants to prolong his chances of living on the planet much longer.
Anyway, am I wrong, or are you now based in the USA? I've only come back to comment recently..
He does look ill. I don't know if he declined makeup but he was looking incredibly pale.
Well, not having been able to watch it live, I have finally caught up (though not had a chance to read the thread), and my major takeaway is...Ed M is a lot taller than I thought he was.
Thought Ms Greenie was much better than usual - but she's got nothing to lose and appeared much better prepared. Her accent is really peculiar. I always assume she's a pundit not a UK party leader.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As to Clegg- well what might have been!!
I've got to say Plato I thought they all did very well, though Farage looked worse for wear. I would recommend a full round check up, bloods, ECG etc.. for Nigel. He may need to change his lifestyle slightly if he wants to prolong his chances of living on the planet much longer.
Anyway, am I wrong, or are you now based in the USA? I've only come back to comment recently..
'Please remind me once again who is the nasty party?'
IOS tantrum down to Sturgeon pissing in Ed's soup?
Ed won on 3 of 4 polls though
This is on a National poll. The SNP got a "6% more likely to vote". Splitting that 50:50 that means half their 45% are more likely, moving them to a certain 45% and 40% of non SNP voters now considering them.
I must say I thought Bennet deserved a boost from tonight. Apart from a rather clunkily delivered opening, I thought she was actually pretty good, and benefited from no-one really targeting her.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
The SNP will take 11 Liberal seats.
Hence why I said 30 or so.
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
I expect SNP to have more votes than either the Tories or Labour can form a government without. I..e only Labour + SNP or Labour and Tory is a viable arrangement. Not a co-alition in the former case but in terms of governing.
The Liberals will get 20 seats. If they have a solid night. SNP will struggle to get less than 50. Labour only need 275 to govern just on SNP support.
If the SNP get 50 then Labour getting 275 would be a huge challenge. That doesn't mean 17 gains by Labour elsewhere, it means close to 50 gains.
I must say I thought Bennet deserved a boost from tonight. Apart from a rather clunkily delivered opening, I thought she was actually pretty good, and benefited from no-one really targeting her.
It's interesting how we all see things differently. Personally I thought she was worse than useless. Caroline Lucas is a far more effective operator.
Cameron was excellent. He took full advantage of the others going after his record to maximise his camera time
While I only thought he did ok, I did think he seemed to get a lot more camera time, which gave him more chances to get his message out which is probably a good thing.
I thought Ed was on pretty good form though. Some of his delivery felt a bit too rehearsed but then I'm used to seeing him speak and many others are not, and he got in some pretty good lines particularly in the final question.
Quoting a Guido hack hardly counts as an original thought.
Constant droning on about another posters lack of originality, probably isn't the best way to demonstrate your own. We know he gets under your skin, you can shut up now.
Thought Ms Greenie was much better than usual - but she's got nothing to lose and appeared much better prepared. Her accent is really peculiar. I always assume she's a pundit not a UK party leader.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
Clegg won, but it is not about winning. Cameron was a wallflower, but PM nevertheless. Miliband was coherent but goofy and geeky. Sturgeon was brilliant, but too earnest. Wood was lyrical, but unconvincing, Bennet was, well, foreign and a tad too nervous. And Farage was prehistoric.
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As to Clegg- well what might have been!!
I've got to say Plato I thought they all did very well, though Farage looked worse for wear. I would recommend a full round check up, bloods, ECG etc.. for Nigel. He may need to change his lifestyle slightly if he wants to prolong his chances of living on the planet much longer.
Anyway, am I wrong, or are you now based in the USA? I've only come back to comment recently..
For Nigel F it wasn't the sweating as such. Nico Rosberg is supremely fit, but sweats terribly. It was that greasy, sweaty sheen that exuded from Nigel F's skin that looked rather quite unhealthy. And his bulging neck fat, some kind of overactive thyroid possibly, but could lead to HBP, and other blood and coronary diseases. He needs a good once over.
I must say I thought Bennet deserved a boost from tonight. Apart from a rather clunkily delivered opening, I thought she was actually pretty good, and benefited from no-one really targeting her.
It's interesting how we all see things differently. Personally I thought she was worse than useless. Caroline Lucas is a far more effective operator.
I usually think that, every time I've seen Bennett before I've thought she was awful (and maybe that colours how I saw her tonight, as no-one tore her to pieces with ease), but she was able to be clearly different from the others and she didn't ramble or obfuscate as much, on the face of it, which was fairly refreshing.
Farage I thought did middling - very strong on immigration of course, no gaffes, but no big wins either I felt.
After the first few questions I felt like I could summarise Leanne Wood by stating that clearly her favourite word is 'exacerbate', if I drank it could have made a dangerous drinking game. She faded into invisibility at times, not entirely surprising given PCs regional appeal and ambitions, but when she popped up on several questions at least she seemed a solid enough performer, scored some hits on Ed M.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
The SNP will take 11 Liberal seats.
Hence why I said 30 or so.
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
Indeed. Very obvious that LD order of preference will be:
1) Lab + LD 2) Con + LD 3) Lab + LD but reliant on SNP
Absolutely blindingly obvious - no way will they prefer to be reliant on SNP (who will have just smashed 9 or 10 of their MPs) than a steady as she goes continuation of the current coalition.
So SNP gaining Lab seats absolutely does help Cameron.
I must say I thought Bennet deserved a boost from tonight. Apart from a rather clunkily delivered opening, I thought she was actually pretty good, and benefited from no-one really targeting her.
It's interesting how we all see things differently. Personally I thought she was worse than useless. Caroline Lucas is a far more effective operator.
I usually think that, every time I've seen Bennett before I've thought she was awful (and maybe that colours how I saw her tonight, as no-one tore her to pieces with ease), but she was able to be clearly different from the others and she didn't ramble or obfuscate as much, on the face of it, which was fairly refreshing.
Farage I thought did middling - very strong on immigration of course, no gaffes, but no big wins either I felt.
After the first few questions I felt like I could summarise Leanne Wood by stating that clearly her favourite word is 'exacerbate', if I drank it could have made a dangerous drinking game. She faded into invisibility at times, not entirely surprising given PCs regional appeal and ambitions, but when she popped up on several questions at least she seemed a solid enough performer, scored some hits on Ed M.
the trouble is that an SNP surge does nothing to help a con government into power, it only makes a labour government more likely to be genuinely left wing
It makes a coalition of the losers less likely. Last time if Labour had a few more/Tories less then a Labour+Lib Dem coalition could have been plausible. A Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition is frankly not plausible.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
The SNP will take 11 Liberal seats.
Hence why I said 30 or so.
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
Indeed. Very obvious that LD order of preference will be:
1) Lab + LD 2) Con + LD 3) Lab + LD but reliant on SNP
Absolutely blindingly obvious - no way will they prefer to be reliant on SNP (who will have just smashed 9 or 10 of their MPs) than a steady as she goes continuation of the current coalition.
So SNP gaining Lab seats absolutely does help Cameron.
Is the ComRes poll which is on Guido's website a genuine VI poll? It has the Greens on 9, which would be +4 on their last poll.
Clegg excellent attacks on Miliband seem exponentially more popular on PB comments than in the public as a whole, who'd have thought it?
I really feel sorry for Clegg, truly. He tries so hard, and he can and did make some good points at time, but it just will not matter. One on one with the man I am sure people could forgive everything, he could sway them round, but not enough will stop to listen no matter if he deserves it or not, making the effort pretty wasted (whether one think his effort did well or not).
Sturgeon 'winning' was not a surprise. She's always formidible and for most of the night she reined in that smug, mocking assurance that she adopts in many interviews that annoys me (but not Scots voters, clearly), coming across as reasonable and positive. Alas.
I was surprised on several questions it was Ed trying to be specific on policy points in his openings given the general penchant for vagueness, I think it was a good move but not sure it worked.
So the answer is no winner in tonight's debat. David and Ed did ok, nick was good, nigel blew hot and cold but was okay, Natalie was up on expectations, Leanne was OK and Nicola did as expected. All have something positive to take away
Tactics in arranging them, Tories have a slight lead.
Comments
It's happening all over Northern England on QT.
Woohoo!!!!
And just what were the respondents criteria and how did they weight them?
Or is this too technical for such an important issue
"Are you giving the Stompie Moeketsi Room a makeover?"
Yes but It's now the Margaret Thatcher wing.
We Tories have to stick together
@MSmithsonPB: If Farage's debate performance gives UKIP a lift that could hurt the Tories
Dave can't win...
Many thanks RobD
A bit of a mixed bag wrt the rest of tonight's polls, although Sturgeon will be quite pleased.
At least Mike gives his own opinions. Rather than just copying others...
:InnocentFace
The SNP have avoided that so far, hopefully always will. But good people will keep their jobs. Only a good, effective, non-dogmatic public sector will make people happy enough to vote Yes.
If so, nasty prospects for SLAB
My comment about how disgusting these attacks are was, ironically, moderated.
He seems happier in his fantasy World.
Comments about other posters' personal life are off limits.
If you fail to adhere to this, well we'll just make sure your comments automatically go to the pending folder, and have to be manually released as and when the Moderating team can be bothered to.
IoS can you confirm that you understand this.
The 30 or so LD MPs could be critical once again, if the SNP take Scotland's Labour MPs then realistically (so long as Clegg holds his seats) then LDs would likely end up with the Tories again like this time.
Allies are better than enemies in politics. It's why the Scottish Government works better than Westminster. It's why FPTP is broken. It's why the UK is a basketcase.
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Post-Debate-Tables.pdf
Yup. Point taken.
Although I think its fair to say Scott can't come up with an original thought of his own.
Can't think why.
'Please remind me once again who is the nasty party?'
IOS tantrum down to Sturgeon pissing in Ed's soup?
So, the winner was...... Cameron. As (possibly) Clegg- well what might have been!!
PB has spent the last two-and-a-half hours disagreeing about everything. Polling says he'll face a tough test north of the border - which, arguably, we already knew.
And she uses Ms Lucas as a human shield - that she's not an MP just makes it odder.
ROFLMAO
I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you.
Losers also get petulant on Internet blogs (hey look, an original thought!)
Torquil Crichton is almost being pro-SNP. Never in my life...
Honest question: Can you plausibly see a Labour+SNP+Lib Dem coalition Dair?
In the scenario that there are (say) 300 Con, 260 Lab, 40 SNP and 30 LD then who would take power?
The only plausible government there I can see is Con with LD. Had it been close to 300 Con, 300 Lab then LD could choose, so the rise of the SNP does (indirectly) help the Cons in that sort of scenario.
Carswell was very pro nige tweeting throughout but I missed his support in the hiv issue? No doubt a kipper fan can prove me he chimed in there too?
Anyway, am I wrong, or are you now based in the USA? I've only come back to comment recently..
Quoting a Guido hack hardly counts as an original thought.
If you look at the top of each post, you will see the name of the poster (or bot) that is writing that post.
If you see a name you don't like, skip to the next one..
You can practise with this post if you like. Have fun!
you must be an anti Irish racist.
you caused the potato famine.
'Ed won on 3 of 4 polls though'
Did you miss the thread header?
Ed probably lost another 5 - 10 Labour MP's in Scotland after Sturgeons performance.
The Liberals will get 20 seats. If they have a solid night. SNP will struggle to get less than 50. Labour only need 275 to govern just on SNP support.
And yes, Nigel has that burning the candles at both ends look about him.
That's massive.
Shadsy
By a country mile...
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/583752044177186817/photo/1
I thought Ed was on pretty good form though. Some of his delivery felt a bit too rehearsed but then I'm used to seeing him speak and many others are not, and he got in some pretty good lines particularly in the final question.
Well, that and the Tory Edinburgh surge.
Farage I thought did middling - very strong on immigration of course, no gaffes, but no big wins either I felt.
After the first few questions I felt like I could summarise Leanne Wood by stating that clearly her favourite word is 'exacerbate', if I drank it could have made a dangerous drinking game. She faded into invisibility at times, not entirely surprising given PCs regional appeal and ambitions, but when she popped up on several questions at least she seemed a solid enough performer, scored some hits on Ed M.
@Pong thanks for the tie tip!
1) Lab + LD
2) Con + LD
3) Lab + LD but reliant on SNP
Absolutely blindingly obvious - no way will they prefer to be reliant on SNP (who will have just smashed 9 or 10 of their MPs) than a steady as she goes continuation of the current coalition.
So SNP gaining Lab seats absolutely does help Cameron.
Ed first or joint first in all 3.
YG outlier.
Ed is supposed to be Crap yet Dave the master debater only comes out better in one of the four
Sturgeon 'winning' was not a surprise. She's always formidible and for most of the night she reined in that smug, mocking assurance that she adopts in many interviews that annoys me (but not Scots voters, clearly), coming across as reasonable and positive. Alas.
I was surprised on several questions it was Ed trying to be specific on policy points in his openings given the general penchant for vagueness, I think it was a good move but not sure it worked.
Tactics in arranging them, Tories have a slight lead.