Last night, David Cameron and Ed Miliband went, if not quite head-to-head, then side-by-side, each facing a grilling by Jeremy Paxman and an audience Q+A live on Sky News and Channel 4 in the election's first major TV set piece.
The consensus among the press and those on social media was that Miliband did really rather well, putting up a fiery, varied performance, and even taking Paxman to task for not being "that important." An ICM/Guardian poll found in favour of Cameron, but by a much smaller margin than comparisons between the two men usually produce.
Was this just a temporary bit of good luck for Labour? Or does this mark a turning point for Miliband, whose TV appearances have rarely been cause for celebration in the past?
Ed won. He "demuppetised" himself, in the phrase used by David Cameron's strategists. But the big questions about each leader remain. For Cameron: If he could change one thing about Britain, what would it be? He left that box vacant, as he largely has for five years. For Ed Miliband, the question is whether he understands that he cannot simply point at something and say it is too high (energy prices) or too low (wages). The question that Miliband continues to duck is how to give people the government they want to give them without more money. The financial crisis is a red herring; the ageing of the population is the problem, delayed state pensions and other painful changes are among the messages that politicians will have to deliver. But not in this election, it seems. Paxman asked tough questions but there are even tougher ones looming not just for whoever wins on 7th May, but worse, for whoever wins in 2020.
I'm not so sure that he showed the electorate that he’s a Prime Minister in waiting but I think, by being so combative and displaying so much more energy than Cameron, he gave a lot of people in the Labour party who had their doubts some cause to think that he can win the election for them. That could be the most important impact of this debate long term—given how tight the race is going to be, the ground games of the respective parties could be quite crucial. Having a bunch of activists out there who really do believe now that this guy is able to take them over the line could make the difference between winning and losing.
"I think Cameron frankly had a bit of a mare, I think really from the off he looked very discomfited... but I think where Mr Cameron struggled really was with the economy, trying to say that he's managed the economy well... I thought the questions that Paxman asked to Miliband were actually tougher than the questions asked to Cameron, they were far more personal, and Ed Miliband dealt with it pretty well... I think it may [revise views of Miliband,] and I've said before I think that some of the newspaper attacks on Ed Miliband... have been rather unpleasant, rather nasty, and what the guy showed tonight is that he can weather it."
No it wasn't the moment but it was a moment. In his interview with Jeremy Paxman, Ed Miliband managed to do something quite important: he revealed himself to be a human being. Previously, voters could be forgiven for thinking he was a politics geek with a sub-speciality in embarrassing photo opportunities. But, under fire from Paxo , he revealed himself to be interesting, combative and, even, occasionally funny. For Labour, which has been struggling under an avalanche of bad leadership ratings, this really can only be good news. But there is still something of a mountain to climb.
The consensus among the press and those on social media was that Miliband did really rather well, putting up a fiery, varied performance, and even taking Paxman to task for not being "that important." An ICM/Guardian poll found in favour of Cameron, but by a much smaller margin than comparisons between the two men usually produce.
Was this just a temporary bit of good luck for Labour? Or does this mark a turning point for Miliband, whose TV appearances have rarely been cause for celebration in the past?
Demuppetisation
Bronwen Maddox, Editor of ProspectEd won. He "demuppetised" himself, in the phrase used by David Cameron's strategists. But the big questions about each leader remain. For Cameron: If he could change one thing about Britain, what would it be? He left that box vacant, as he largely has for five years. For Ed Miliband, the question is whether he understands that he cannot simply point at something and say it is too high (energy prices) or too low (wages). The question that Miliband continues to duck is how to give people the government they want to give them without more money. The financial crisis is a red herring; the ageing of the population is the problem, delayed state pensions and other painful changes are among the messages that politicians will have to deliver. But not in this election, it seems. Paxman asked tough questions but there are even tougher ones looming not just for whoever wins on 7th May, but worse, for whoever wins in 2020.
The party liked it
Tim Bale, Professor of Politics at Queen Mary UniversityI'm not so sure that he showed the electorate that he’s a Prime Minister in waiting but I think, by being so combative and displaying so much more energy than Cameron, he gave a lot of people in the Labour party who had their doubts some cause to think that he can win the election for them. That could be the most important impact of this debate long term—given how tight the race is going to be, the ground games of the respective parties could be quite crucial. Having a bunch of activists out there who really do believe now that this guy is able to take them over the line could make the difference between winning and losing.
He can weather it
Nigel Farage, Ukip leader, speaking to journalists last night"I think Cameron frankly had a bit of a mare, I think really from the off he looked very discomfited... but I think where Mr Cameron struggled really was with the economy, trying to say that he's managed the economy well... I thought the questions that Paxman asked to Miliband were actually tougher than the questions asked to Cameron, they were far more personal, and Ed Miliband dealt with it pretty well... I think it may [revise views of Miliband,] and I've said before I think that some of the newspaper attacks on Ed Miliband... have been rather unpleasant, rather nasty, and what the guy showed tonight is that he can weather it."
Ed spoke human
Ann Treneman, political sketch writer for The TimesNo it wasn't the moment but it was a moment. In his interview with Jeremy Paxman, Ed Miliband managed to do something quite important: he revealed himself to be a human being. Previously, voters could be forgiven for thinking he was a politics geek with a sub-speciality in embarrassing photo opportunities. But, under fire from Paxo , he revealed himself to be interesting, combative and, even, occasionally funny. For Labour, which has been struggling under an avalanche of bad leadership ratings, this really can only be good news. But there is still something of a mountain to climb.
