General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

I don't think either have played Paxman well. Ed's responding well to the question about media perception and analysis of him though.

[russycarps]

What a pile of shit this is. Two terrible politicians.

[kipper64]

Yeah I think he really came into himself at the end. No gaffe, nothing the tories or the news can really run with as opposed to camerons line on zero hour contracts. The snap poll by ICM might prove an anti-miliband narrative, but nothing else I can see.

Did find the questions about not polling a majority quite unfair considering the Tories haven't won a majority, and Labour might win an election after only 5 years in opposition - that's not happened for a while has it?

[kaosmark2]

Ed's answered 2 questions well and not made any horrendous gaffes.

Cameron's answered 0 questions well and made 1 gaffe.

Both were poor, but Ed held better considering it was Cameron's preferred format.

[windy_miller]

I think milliband started very poorly in the paxo interview, but managed to turn it round by the end.

Kate Burleigh has just mentioned Ed's relationship with his brother again, as if that has any relevance on the up coming election. She spoke far too much during Ed's audience bit, and was basically stopping him from answering important questions. And she managed to plug sky's news app at one point too.

Cameron was just the same as ever. A smirking arrogant twat.

[kaosmark2]

The personal attacks on Miliband allowed him to regain some credibility after seeming slightly fluttery when asked about immigration/new-labour's record.

I don't think Ed did great, except in a couple of moments, but he did OK.

[kipper64]

Guardian/ICM poll says 54% say cameron "won", 46% Miliband - surprised at that...

[Big Vern]

Same person, two different colours.

[TheGayTent]

Think people see what they want to.

Thought John Pienaar looked good mind

Edited March 26, 2015 by TheGayTent

[kipper64]

Aye that's true. Though I think as a lot of the press are saying Miliband will be happy with that - considering his prior ratings. I suppose it might have made sense to take a poll prior to the program, then see how it would have swung afterwards.

[kipper64]

Update from the poll - shows I guess it was a Labour "win"

More from the ICM poll.

Only 8% of those polled overall indicated that they were likely to have changed their mind about how they would vote at the election on the basis of what they saw tonight.

Amongst those, 56% said they would now vote Labour. And just 30% said they were now backing the Conservatives.

[kaosmark2]

[kaosmark2]

The most common comment seems to be...

"I liked Miliband more than I thought I would"...

Given his image issues that has to be a huge win ?

Yup.

I don't think Miliband did brilliantly generally, but he definitely outshone the average perception of him, so has won overall.

[kipper64]

If you go to the live blog on the guardian, the full data has been published. One of the tables is interesting having the pre-program polling (from 24-26th march - Table 14) at 26% con vote and 36% lab vote, post program and weighted was 29% con and 40% labour, shows the swing to labour, and on both Labour were well ahead.Small base obviously but paints a clearer picture than the headline 54% vs 46%

[kaosmark2]

The yougov 51% Cameron 49% Miliband is pretty telling. Yougov is usually vastly swung towards Cameron as a leader, and is usually somewhat Tory-leaning.

[eFestivals]

The clue is in the "S"

It's not complicated.

Ahhh, the Thatcherist "me first and fuck everyone else".

Yep, I had noticed that Scotland's indy movement is fuelled by Thatcherism. The irony is delicious.

[pink_triangle]

Ed is getting such a grilling by comparison, it's bizarre. Kay Burley isn't helping matters, impartial my arse.

I'm not sure I feel comfortable sky being involved. The Murdoch papers are all going to endorse conservatives in the election, isnt this a conflict of interest?

[eFestivals]

Yes, Neil, all Labour losses will be entirely Comfy's fault.

no,. they'll be the fault of people who don't do facts.

There's plenty of people - not just in Scotland - waking up today having realised they'd got Miliband very wrong, but everything has been on view for years already and these people hadn't noticed.

[eFestivals]

The most common comment seems to be...

"I liked Miliband more than I thought I would"...

Given his image issues that has to be a huge win ?

someone around here said that would be what would happen. Others around here said it wouldn't.

From my own point of view I'd say Chicken Dave just about shaded it - much as that poll said - but the big win is that those numbers show that plenty will now be re-assessing their views on Miliband, having realised they'd under-estimated him previously.

That can only be a good thing for Labour. The narrative is no longer that "Miliband is shit", and that gives him a decent chance of being properly listened to from this point onwards. As long as he does as well in the remaining campiagn, this is Labour on an up - tho by how much we've yet to see. The ICM poll data suggests there's not a huge chunk of movable votes.

[eFestivals]

If there isn't a lot of movable votes then I would assume that means Labour really have to fuck up to not be in number 10 if polls are to be believed

that ICM poll last night is saying there's 8% of the vote which is movable, but that's movable in any direction, don't forget.

And cos it's normal practice for the incumbent to get a natural benefit just because of being the incumbent, it's probably less than 8% in reality.

Labour don't have to fuck up. They've lost over 2% of the national vote and a greater proportion of seats via how Scotland will vote, and that's what puts it on a knife-edge for Labour when it would otherwise be an easy walk into no10.

It's the liars who say they want a Labour goivt but who won't vote Labour who will lose Labour the election, if they lose.

[gary1979666]

Cameron - think he was really shaky for the first half of Paxman, then settled into it. Did alright on the studio audience part of it. Not an amazing performance, but straight-batted it in general.

Milliband - much better than I thought. His comment summed up the performance - underpromised and over delivered! Came across as stronger and more normal, plus some good answers. But the substance of what he said let him down for me. The answer on cuts, which is there big arguement against the tories, wasnt great - could only mention tiny items and admitted it was only hundreds of millions. Would have put money on a bacon sarnie joke, but 2 surprised!

Overall, thought it the sections were over far too quickly - maybe each question needed a couple more follow-ups. The audience questions/Burley were generally poor but thought Paxo (a tory) was pretty fair and gave them both a good grilling.

The big test for both of them is going to be next week. With the SNP, Greens and UKIP on as well, plus less time for answers, they need to hit the ground running and make ever answer count.

[eFestivals]

no comment about Kay Burley working for the tories, Gary?

Now we know why Cameron wanted to decide the format.

[lost]

Have Labour actually ruled out a coalition with the SNP? I thought they had but last night Ed seemed to be much more non-committal saying just that he wouldn't pander to Salmond.

I actually think the next election is a pretty good one to lose as the easier cuts have been made and the parliament is probably going to be against a backdrop of rising interest rates, i think it gives the non-power party a great chance of a majority in 2020.

So if my choices are between another Tory/lib-dem coalition with a labour majority in 2020 (probably under a new labour guy as Ed will be blamed for not winning and they will wrestle control of the party back) Or a Labour/SNP coalition this parliament with probably Boris as PM in 2020, I think I'd go for the former.

[eFestivals]

Have Labour actually ruled out a coalition with the SNP?

yep, they have, categorically.

I thought they had but last night Ed seemed to be much more non-committal saying just that he wouldn't pander to Salmond.

Miliband can't stop the SNP supporting any policy the SNP want to support, so Miliband has to accept he might be having SNP support.

The question is then about whether he'll 'buy' the SNP's support by doing deals. Miliband has made clear that he won't pander to them for their support. Which is a wise move, cos if he did it would destroy Labour in England much as has happened in Scotland.

I actually think the next election is a pretty good one to lose as the easier cuts have been made and the parliament is probably going to be against a backdrop of rising interest rates, i think it gives the non-power party a great chance of a majority in 2020.

Miliband has given himself a good get-out around this. He's committed to do 2015-16 with the tories spending plans, which does every bit of cutting that Labour need to do. The last bits and pieces can be done by not making spending increases, with growth/inflation eating that bit away.

So in theory he can blame it all on the tories - tho just like '97 they'll be plenty of people wanting a Labour PM to go further.

So if my choices are between another Tory/lib-dem coalition with a labour majority in 2020 (probably under a new labour guy as Ed will be blamed for not winning and they will wrestle control of the party back) Or a Labour/SNP coalition this parliament with probably Boris as PM in 2020, I think I'd go for the former.

I know what you mean here. The long-term looks dodgy for Labour if they're propped up by the SNP.

The worst result of all would be one where there ceases to be a meaningful anti-tory opposition - which would also be the very best result for the SNP. Giving the impression that the SNP are pulling Labour's strings will be what the SNP try to do, because they're wreckers who have no desire to see the UK well-governed.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

no comment about Kay Burley working for the tories, Gary?

Now we know why Cameron wanted to decide the format.

OK - she works for Murdoch's Sky, and Murdoch / Cameron are pretty close. Could be seen as biased, but I don't think she showed much favour to Cameron last night. To be honest, she was really poor - certainly no Dimbleby. Was worse for her too, as compared to Paxo, she looked even worse.

I'm pretty sure we've all known why Cameron wanted to decide the format for some time