Every 5 years in our elective dictatorship we get to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Winston S. Churchill
indeed......but which form of democracy Henry?
Same one that elected Churchill (in 1951) and had him heading up a coalition (in 1940)
Churchill was not 'democratically elected' in 1940, he took over leadership of a National Government which had been in power from 1935. No general election was held between 1935 and 1945 when the Labour Government was elected. Churchill was not a 'democratic choice' until 1951, although of course he was idolised as a quasi dictator during the second world war
And ironically got less votes than Labour even in that election!
Whatever your political views, you have to be gullable to see that a lot of Milliband's image has been created by the press. He is the one with the far more intelligent brother who should have got the job. This is done to undermine him, as he wouldn't have beaten his brother if he wasn't a very accomplished politician. Not this year, but the year before, Milliband actually demonstrated some of the strongest leadership from an opposition leader ever. In the course of a few weeks, he set the agenda for all the party conferences, and showed the courage to stop a military intervention in Syria. Something he knew would irritate America, so was brave thing to do. Hague wanted us to arm what was to become IS. Milliband got absolutely no credit for these remarkable weeks, simply because it didn't fit with the image the press want us to beleive.
Shame the Syria thing is an absolute farce. Miliband gave the PM his word that we would order his party to vote for action, then when he caught wind of how many Tory MPs were going to rebel he used it as an opportunity to embarrass Cameron personally and he changed his mind. Whether or not your opinion on action in Syria, basing your party's foreign policy around the best way to embarrass a party leader is not what I want in a prospective PM.
Interesting point. Can you direct me to the evidence for this?
For a self-proclaimed politics junkie you seem to lack any ability to go research facts for yourself or are oblivious to what were fairly important political events of the last 5 years. Google 'Miliband Syria change mind' there are plenty of commentaries on the events surrounding the build-up to the Syria vote from various sources. This was pretty well known at the time, which is why it is still particularly remarkable that some people still think that Miliband had always opposed it and that short-term political opportunism wasn't the reason for his volte-face (the other factor was that most of his MPs were threatening to ignore his orders, which would have been even more embarrassing to him than to Cameron given Ed's position as party leader was, at the time, tenuous).
And Bournemouth, Labour completely invented the lie in the first place that the Tories were going to raise VAT after 2015 so well played the Tories for setting up a situation where the lie completely backfired on Ed at the worst possible time. Maybe they won't print such utter rubbish as frontline campaign material next time. Slightly different to assuring the PM you agree to military action before you change your mind for purely political reasons.
I know politicians don't like to answer the question, but when EM was asked the simple question, 'the budget deficit is currently 75 billion a year, if Labour gained power what would it be in 5 years time ' he didn't give a figure?
And then in a few years time Paxman will say why didn't you match these figures, avoiding unforeseen complications. He did it to Cameron.
Every 5 years in our elective dictatorship we get to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Winston S. Churchill
indeed......but which form of democracy Henry?
Same one that elected Churchill (in 1951) and had him heading up a coalition (in 1940)
Ironically it was indeed from that moment, the re-election of the (now collectivist-minded) Conservatives in 1951 that (with the all too brief interlude of the 1980s) the UK has experienced this elective dictatorship - administered by 2 main parties whose agenda differs remarkably little and who, with impunity because of the electoral system, frequently fly in the face of public opinion.
I thought that elective dictatorship referred to the dominance the party in power has over Parliament. Ironically we have less of an elective dictatorship at the moment than at any time in the last 100 years (except the late 1970s).
Your right that there is really very little difference between the parties but I would argue that is because there is very little public appetite for hard right or hard left positions and parties are obliged to fight for the centre ground. The last 200 years has seen the same pattern repeated in British politics. There's usually a consensus, but every 30 or 40 years someone or something breaks it (Peel and free trade, LLoyd-George/Churchill and pensions/Parliament Act, Attlee & Co and the Welfare state, Thatcher and the free market). There is a disruptive period and then the parties coalescence around the new consensus.
There are very few conviction politicians around now - the current mobs' entire political careers revolve around getting re-elected. Thatcher, who I loathed with a vengeance, could at least be described as a conviction politician and there have been very few others in my lifetime - Tony Benn ..... I'm struggling for more examples.
Plato's philosopher kings is the answer - it's finding any that's the problem!
The Beast of Bolsover had it about right:
"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
When told to withdraw this remark by the Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."
There are very few conviction politicians around now - the current mobs' entire political careers revolve around getting re-elected. Thatcher, who I loathed with a vengeance, could at least be described as a conviction politician and there have been very few others in my lifetime - Tony Benn ..... I'm struggling for more examples.
Plato's philosopher kings is the answer - it's finding any that's the problem!
The Beast of Bolsover had it about right:
"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
When told to withdraw this remark by the Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."
If he sat on the other side of the Commons he'd look across and say the same thing about the members opposite as well.
There are very few conviction politicians around now - the current mobs' entire political careers revolve around getting re-elected. Thatcher, who I loathed with a vengeance, could at least be described as a conviction politician and there have been very few others in my lifetime - Tony Benn ..... I'm struggling for more examples.
Plato's philosopher kings is the answer - it's finding any that's the problem!
The Beast of Bolsover had it about right:
"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
When told to withdraw this remark by the Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."
If he sat on the other side of the Commons he'd look across and say the same thing about the members opposite as well.
There are very few conviction politicians around now - the current mobs' entire political careers revolve around getting re-elected. Thatcher, who I loathed with a vengeance, could at least be described as a conviction politician and there have been very few others in my lifetime - Tony Benn ..... I'm struggling for more examples.
Plato's philosopher kings is the answer - it's finding any that's the problem!
The Beast of Bolsover had it about right:
"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
When told to withdraw this remark by the Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."
If he sat on the other side of the Commons he'd look across and say the same thing about the members opposite as well.
You mean, when he's on the Government side of the benches (from May onwards), he'll be able to say the same thing about the Tories, sitting opposite?
Every 5 years in our elective dictatorship we get to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Winston S. Churchill
indeed......but which form of democracy Henry?
Same one that elected Churchill (in 1951) and had him heading up a coalition (in 1940)
Ironically it was indeed from that moment, the re-election of the (now collectivist-minded) Conservatives in 1951 that (with the all too brief interlude of the 1980s) the UK has experienced this elective dictatorship - administered by 2 main parties whose agenda differs remarkably little and who, with impunity because of the electoral system, frequently fly in the face of public opinion.
One nation tories really came early than that and in a large part because of the experience the tory officer class in the trenches in WWI. Both Eden and MacMillan served on the western front.
While there is little between the two parties now that has only been the case since Blair. While there was common ground post WWII there were still significant differences.
And what significant differences do you discern existed between the Heath & Wilson governments of the 1970s Henry?
Will Milliband ever stop slagging off the last Labour administration?
Will Cameron?
No, that's part of his job description!
To slate your own party on immigration the economy and some thing else I cant remember he said his own party got wrong last time, seems a strange tactic. But as he seems to have 'won' the debate maybe his advisors got it right.
Whatever your political views, you have to be gullable to see that a lot of Milliband's image has been created by the press. He is the one with the far more intelligent brother who should have got the job. This is done to undermine him, as he wouldn't have beaten his brother if he wasn't a very accomplished politician. Not this year, but the year before, Milliband actually demonstrated some of the strongest leadership from an opposition leader ever. In the course of a few weeks, he set the agenda for all the party conferences, and showed the courage to stop a military intervention in Syria. Something he knew would irritate America, so was brave thing to do. Hague wanted us to arm what was to become IS. Milliband got absolutely no credit for these remarkable weeks, simply because it didn't fit with the image the press want us to beleive.
Shame the Syria thing is an absolute farce. Miliband gave the PM his word that we would order his party to vote for action, then when he caught wind of how many Tory MPs were going to rebel he used it as an opportunity to embarrass Cameron personally and he changed his mind. Whether or not your opinion on action in Syria, basing your party's foreign policy around the best way to embarrass a party leader is not what I want in a prospective PM.
Interesting point. Can you direct me to the evidence for this?
For a self-proclaimed politics junkie you seem to lack any ability to go research facts for yourself or are oblivious to what were fairly important political events of the last 5 years. Google 'Miliband Syria change mind' there are plenty of commentaries on the events surrounding the build-up to the Syria vote from various sources. This was pretty well known at the time, which is why it is still particularly remarkable that some people still think that Miliband had always opposed it and that short-term political opportunism wasn't the reason for his volte-face (the other factor was that most of his MPs were threatening to ignore his orders, which would have been even more embarrassing to him than to Cameron given Ed's position as party leader was, at the time, tenuous).
And Bournemouth, Labour completely invented the lie in the first place that the Tories were going to raise VAT after 2015 so well played the Tories for setting up a situation where the lie completely backfired on Ed at the worst possible time. Maybe they won't print such utter rubbish as frontline campaign material next time. Slightly different to assuring the PM you agree to military action before you change your mind for purely political reasons.
I have googled as you suggested, read the Telegraph article, and it amounts to one persons word against another. There is no actual evidence.
Will Milliband ever stop slagging off the last Labour administration?
Will Cameron?
No, that's part of his job description!
To slate your own party on immigration the economy and some thing else I cant remember he said his own party got wrong last time, seems a strange tactic. But as he seems to have 'won' the debate maybe his advisors got it right.
Part of his job description to make excuses and deflect the answer?
Whatever your political views, you have to be gullable to see that a lot of Milliband's image has been created by the press. He is the one with the far more intelligent brother who should have got the job. This is done to undermine him, as he wouldn't have beaten his brother if he wasn't a very accomplished politician. Not this year, but the year before, Milliband actually demonstrated some of the strongest leadership from an opposition leader ever. In the course of a few weeks, he set the agenda for all the party conferences, and showed the courage to stop a military intervention in Syria. Something he knew would irritate America, so was brave thing to do. Hague wanted us to arm what was to become IS. Milliband got absolutely no credit for these remarkable weeks, simply because it didn't fit with the image the press want us to beleive.
Shame the Syria thing is an absolute farce. Miliband gave the PM his word that we would order his party to vote for action, then when he caught wind of how many Tory MPs were going to rebel he used it as an opportunity to embarrass Cameron personally and he changed his mind. Whether or not your opinion on action in Syria, basing your party's foreign policy around the best way to embarrass a party leader is not what I want in a prospective PM.
Interesting point. Can you direct me to the evidence for this?
For a self-proclaimed politics junkie you seem to lack any ability to go research facts for yourself or are oblivious to what were fairly important political events of the last 5 years. Google 'Miliband Syria change mind' there are plenty of commentaries on the events surrounding the build-up to the Syria vote from various sources. This was pretty well known at the time, which is why it is still particularly remarkable that some people still think that Miliband had always opposed it and that short-term political opportunism wasn't the reason for his volte-face (the other factor was that most of his MPs were threatening to ignore his orders, which would have been even more embarrassing to him than to Cameron given Ed's position as party leader was, at the time, tenuous).
And Bournemouth, Labour completely invented the lie in the first place that the Tories were going to raise VAT after 2015 so well played the Tories for setting up a situation where the lie completely backfired on Ed at the worst possible time. Maybe they won't print such utter rubbish as frontline campaign material next time. Slightly different to assuring the PM you agree to military action before you change your mind for purely political reasons.
I have googled as you suggested, read the Telegraph article, and it amounts to one persons word against another. There is no actual evidence.
So what evidence would you accept? A signed affadavit from Miliband confessing that he dropped a bollock because both his party and rebel Tories were unlikely to vote for action? Or are we just going to ignore this as circumstantial, because if we ignore everything that's circumstantial then say goodbye to linking donations from lobbyists to getting questions asked or policy changed, because unless someone admits it, then there's no actual evidence.
Cameron gets a much easier ride in the media, especially the newspapers, than Milliband. So any Labour leader is pushing uphill to some degree. Milliband came across better than expected. Like Ormiston and Muttley have posted this is partially due to the negative image posted of him in the media. When you do see him, he benefits from some of that stuff being seen to be untrue.
There is a reason that the Conservatives are against a head to head debate between Milliband and Cameron because it highlights that Cameron is not as bright and Milliband is more effective than the propaganda makes out. Milliband apparently does pretty well in Prime Ministers Questions on a weekly basis against Cameron. The fact that the Conservative statagists don't want a head to head debate says it all about Cameron's head to head debating skills.
Every 5 years in our elective dictatorship we get to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Winston S. Churchill
indeed......but which form of democracy Henry?
Same one that elected Churchill (in 1951) and had him heading up a coalition (in 1940)
Ironically it was indeed from that moment, the re-election of the (now collectivist-minded) Conservatives in 1951 that (with the all too brief interlude of the 1980s) the UK has experienced this elective dictatorship - administered by 2 main parties whose agenda differs remarkably little and who, with impunity because of the electoral system, frequently fly in the face of public opinion.
One nation tories really came early than that and in a large part because of the experience the tory officer class in the trenches in WWI. Both Eden and MacMillan served on the western front.
While there is little between the two parties now that has only been the case since Blair. While there was common ground post WWII there were still significant differences.
And what significant differences do you discern existed between the Heath & Wilson governments of the 1970s Henry?
I was more interested in music at the time and politics meant opposing the fascists on the streets ie Lewisham and a rather dry Govt and Politics A level : - ) but..
Europe- Heath took us in and was much more pro-europe. The labour was still very unsure and many on the left opposed joining, Benn for one as I remember.
Industrial relations - The power of the unions v the power of the CBI and business was a key issue all through the 70s and lead to Thatcher's policy of destroying the big unions especially the miners who see and many others saw as bringing down the tory government in 73.
Social - Legalisation of homosexuality (a liberal bill under a labour govt) and other equal right legislations such as the equal pay act.
But Jints makes a very good point about about the upheaval followed by consensus. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis as i was taught it on that A level. Thatcher was the last upheaval, Blair broadly followed her policy wise and so created the consensus which still exists. Farage is trying to create a new upheaval around europe and immigration although from outside the main two parties. We'll see how that works.
Cameron gets a much easier ride in the media, especially the newspapers, than Milliband. So any Labour leader is pushing uphill to some degree. Milliband came across better than expected. Like Ormiston and Muttley have posted this is partially due to the negative image posted of him in the media. When you do see him, he benefits from some of that stuff being seen to be untrue.
There is a reason that the Conservatives are against a head to head debate between Milliband and Cameron because it highlights that Cameron is not as bright and Milliband is more effective as the propaganda makes out. Milliband apparently does pretty well in Prime Ministers Questions on a weekly basis against Cameron. The fact that the Conservative statagists don't want a head to head debate says it all about Cameron's head to head debating skills.
Not really, any week that Miliband bests Cameron at PMQs is usually described by analysts as 'rare' and most Labour MPs privately admit to it being a pretty miserable 30 minutes to sit through each week. The reason why Cameron didn't want a head-to-head debate is the same reason why both Blair and Brown (at least initially before caving) opposed TV debates, because the incumbent always comes across worse as they have to both defend their record as well as put forward the case for re-election (which again is more difficult for the incumbent anyway as hardly any incumbent increases their vote share), whereas the challenger can focus more energy on winning votes and can damage their opponent by playing fast and loose with attacks on the incumbent's record. The whole debacle regarding 'how many debates' and 'who's involved' and Cameron not being initially more open to TV Debates considering his view on them in 2010 didn't reflect particularly well on anyone though. At least he was principled enough to demand that the Greens were involved.
Cameron gets a much easier ride in the media, especially the newspapers, than Milliband. So any Labour leader is pushing uphill to some degree. Milliband came across better than expected. Like Ormiston and Muttley have posted this is partially due to the negative image posted of him in the media. When you do see him, he benefits from some of that stuff being seen to be untrue.
There is a reason that the Conservatives are against a head to head debate between Milliband and Cameron because it highlights that Cameron is not as bright and Milliband is more effective as the propaganda makes out. Milliband apparently does pretty well in Prime Ministers Questions on a weekly basis against Cameron. The fact that the Conservative statagists don't want a head to head debate says it all about Cameron's head to head debating skills.
Whatever your political views, you have to be gullable to see that a lot of Milliband's image has been created by the press. He is the one with the far more intelligent brother who should have got the job. This is done to undermine him, as he wouldn't have beaten his brother if he wasn't a very accomplished politician.
Cosying up to the unions is being an accomplished politician? Ah right...
Of course it is, if you are a Labour Politician and you need their votes to win a leadership election. You can always upset them afterwards as all labour leaders invariably do. Do you actually understand what it is to be a politician?
It was great to see Paxman give both of the leaders a grilling. Particularly Cameron who Paxman had on the ropes in a way that you don't see often. Particularly on all the pledges broken / deficit / debt question and where 12 billion of cuts would come from. The Conservatives like to go on about reducing the deficit but don't like to mention about the 1.5 trillion debt which has doubled under the Conservative government.
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
Will Milliband ever stop slagging off the last Labour administration?
Will Cameron?
No, that's part of his job description!
To slate your own party on immigration the economy and some thing else I cant remember he said his own party got wrong last time, seems a strange tactic. But as he seems to have 'won' the debate maybe his advisors got it right.
Part of his job description to make excuses and deflect the answer?
That is not at all what I said, is it? But anyway could you name a politician who doesnt?
Cameron gets a much easier ride in the media, especially the newspapers, than Milliband. So any Labour leader is pushing uphill to some degree. Milliband came across better than expected. Like Ormiston and Muttley have posted this is partially due to the negative image posted of him in the media. When you do see him, he benefits from some of that stuff being seen to be untrue.
There is a reason that the Conservatives are against a head to head debate between Milliband and Cameron because it highlights that Cameron is not as bright and Milliband is more effective as the propaganda makes out. Milliband apparently does pretty well in Prime Ministers Questions on a weekly basis against Cameron. The fact that the Conservative statagists don't want a head to head debate says it all about Cameron's head to head debating skills.
Whatever your political views, you have to be gullable to see that a lot of Milliband's image has been created by the press. He is the one with the far more intelligent brother who should have got the job. This is done to undermine him, as he wouldn't have beaten his brother if he wasn't a very accomplished politician.
Cosying up to the unions is being an accomplished politician? Ah right...
Of course it is, if you are a Labour Politician and you need their votes to win a leadership election. You can always upset them afterwards as all labour leaders invariably do. Do you actually understand what it is to be a politician?
It is untrue to say that Ed Milliband has been cosying up to the Trade unions. Milliband beat David Milliband with the votes of the Unions in a close run fight helping to swing it but since then has been putting distance between him and the Unions and pretty much upsetting them year on year since the vote. Many of the Trade Unions are consequently not enthusiastic about Ed Miliband.
Exactly. To gain power, Milliband has to speak to a different audience, and he knows it. Putting distance between himself and the Unions is seen as good for votes. His brother got the looks and the voice, but actually the substance of what the man says generally impresses me. It does interest me in these modern times how important image is. Cameron is a small c conservative in many ways and an asset to the party for that reason, because he comes over as a decent, reasonable bloke - and despite that miffing off quite a few to the right in his party, it makes them more palatable to the wider electorate. If they were to appoint Gove or May, it would be a disaster for them IMO. My problem with his party, certainly isn't with him. There are conservatives like Kenneth Clarke who I have great admiration for also. he is a great example of a conviction politician that has got a rough deal from the press. He is one of the greatest statesmen this country has had in recent years.
I have no doubt that Cameron has a passionate commitment to the NHS. There are more in his party that do not, but as long as it is important to the British people, it is an advantage to the conservatives who can claim that commitment and be believed. The general view is that Labour wins on NHS and Conservatives on the economy, although some of the greatest economic success the country has had in recent years has been under a Labour administration. Thing sare never as simple as the press would like us to believe. Alistair Darling's management post crash was lauded throughout the world. Something that open minded people with no agendas can acknowledge.
Of course the crash would have happened under whatever government was in power at the time. And it is reasonable to expect that we would start to recover, as we have done from previous crashes. I think the main differences between the parties are not that great. We are not talking about socialists - we have two main parties that are capitalist. Both aspire to bee seen as caring capitalists, although one leans more naturally to the caring side and the other the free market having complete control.
Putting my political preferences aside, I thought Cameron was a little bit shaky and that Miliband new he had nothing to lose so went for it. Ed seemed to be really aggressive, I thought and was trying to be hard in front of Paxman - and that backfired on him. My overall impression, trying to be completely objective, was that Cameron looked like a Prime Minister but that Miliband looked completely out of his depth.
Will be interesting to see what happens when it becomes a 7-way and the likes of Farage and Sturgeon get into the mix!
Paxman didn't seem to realise the programme wasn't about him.
I can't stand people who ask you a question but don't let you finish your answer. I found myself feeling sorry for Miliband which isn't an emotion that comes easily.
Part of the reason parties behave in similar ways in office is that they face the same real-world constraints - financial, practical and legal. It is not just about what you believe or might want to do.
The less likely you are to achieve power the easier is to promise things you'll never have to deliver - and the less likely you are to understand why they are not deliverable anyway.
Every 5 years in our elective dictatorship we get to choose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'
Winston S. Churchill
indeed......but which form of democracy Henry?
Same one that elected Churchill (in 1951) and had him heading up a coalition (in 1940)
Ironically it was indeed from that moment, the re-election of the (now collectivist-minded) Conservatives in 1951 that (with the all too brief interlude of the 1980s) the UK has experienced this elective dictatorship - administered by 2 main parties whose agenda differs remarkably little and who, with impunity because of the electoral system, frequently fly in the face of public opinion.
One nation tories really came early than that and in a large part because of the experience the tory officer class in the trenches in WWI. Both Eden and MacMillan served on the western front.
While there is little between the two parties now that has only been the case since Blair. While there was common ground post WWII there were still significant differences.
And what significant differences do you discern existed between the Heath & Wilson governments of the 1970s Henry?
I was more interested in music at the time and politics meant opposing the fascists on the streets ie Lewisham and a rather dry Govt and Politics A level : - ) but..
Europe- Heath took us in and was much more pro-europe. The labour was still very unsure and many on the left opposed joining, Benn for one as I remember.
Industrial relations - The power of the unions v the power of the CBI and business was a key issue all through the 70s and lead to Thatcher's policy of destroying the big unions especially the miners who see and many others saw as bringing down the tory government in 73.
Social - Legalisation of homosexuality (a liberal bill under a labour govt) and other equal right legislations such as the equal pay act.
But Jints makes a very good point about about the upheaval followed by consensus. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis as i was taught it on that A level. Thatcher was the last upheaval, Blair broadly followed her policy wise and so created the consensus which still exists. Farage is trying to create a new upheaval around europe and immigration although from outside the main two parties. We'll see how that works.
LOL. Good attempt H
Agree that Jints' analysis is on the money. At least fringe parties, now that they have some capacity to gain representation, get issues on the agenda.
Putting my political preferences aside, I thought Cameron was a little bit shaky and that Miliband new he had nothing to lose so went for it. Ed seemed to be really aggressive, I thought and was trying to be hard in front of Paxman - and that backfired on him. My overall impression, trying to be completely objective, was that Cameron looked like a Prime Minister but that Miliband looked completely out of his depth.
Will be interesting to see what happens when it becomes a 7-way and the likes of Farage and Sturgeon get into the mix!
It's funny how different people see the same thing! In my view, the heavily made-up Cameron looked very startled when Paxman started - in fact I can't remember ever having seen him look so shaken. Like a frightened rabbit. He's not used to being interrupted and having his answers forensically dismantled like that. (This is why a TV debate/showdown/structured interview works so much better than the braying, question-ignoring, embarrassment that is PMQs).
I thought Cameron was treated with kid gloves by Kay Burley (but no surprise there) when he faced the audience questions. He looked more in control than when he was facing Paxo - but facing a disgruntled audience of inquisitive voters live on terrestrial and satellite tv is a walk in the park compared to an eighteen-minute Paxo stuffing. He seemed smooth, competent but a bit complacent. I honestly can't remember any of the answers he gave to any of the questions! (Except the ridiculous "have you ever had three shredded wheat?" bit of eyelid batting that Burley did at the end. Cameron's answer was "er... yes... but ... er... let's not go into that now... a-ha hah!"
Miliband looked very relaxed in front of the audience. He dealt with Burley's silly questions well, including the horrified look on his face when she suggested he and David Cameron might go for a pint. He was also relaxed and engaging with the audience's questions. Although, again, I can't remember any of them; or any of the answers.
He was obviously up-for-it when he sat down with Paxo. I thought that was the best eighteen minutes of tv for a long time. Paxo was trying to nail him to the spot and he gave pretty relaxed and full answers. He was impatient, interrupting and on the edge of being rude, just to try to get under Miliband's skin. Miliband rose to it. He's not slick and professional like Cameron; he's more seat-of-the-pants and passionate. That came out with some of his remarks. "It's the people that decide who is the next Prime Minister, not you, Mr Paxman".
Who won it and who lost it?
A snap poll has said that Cameron edged the "debate" over Miliband; and that's what Sky have been leading with since. However, that's not the real measure; because we knew that Cameron is a lot more popular than Miliband anyway. So for the gap to be closed so much is a big problem for Cameron. But the real battleground is the "undecideds". And in this area, Miliband absolutely stormed it. Miliband has a lead of 56-30. That's where the election will be won and lost; and since last night, that's where Miliband has struck the first and biggest blow.
(Of course, the real winners were Paxman; and whoever ran the bar at the studio, since Farage went straight there when he arrived).
It is a good point that Cameron is more popular than Miliband and you can see that in the audience initial reactions. Some of this relates to the negative images portrayed in the newspapers and media. The audience was definitely more sympathetic to Cameron and initially more judgmental to Miliband. I thought that Miliband coped with the questions well and got some good audience responses particularly when Paxman was concentrating on personality.
The election run may actually help Miliband dispel some of the propaganda that has been built up against him and win over the undecideds.
I don't know if it was the way the studio light caught Burley's contact lenses but she had a white glow in her eyes that looked like she was a bit alien or a cyborg or something. Like something out of the Midwitch Cuckoos - the film with Christopher Reeves. It was very odd.
I think the spotlight on the leaders is always going to be more risky for DC than EM. EM has been portrayed as a lefty, useless geek so can only gain really, unless he really is one. DC is the Prime Minister, so has to match up to the high expectations this affords. It isn't really that EM is a better debater, but it absolutely serves no purpose for DC to have direct comparisons if they can be avoided. If they are close - whoever wins - EM wins because he is the one starting from the low point and consequently is having his reputation enhanced.
Comments
And Bournemouth, Labour completely invented the lie in the first place that the Tories were going to raise VAT after 2015 so well played the Tories for setting up a situation where the lie completely backfired on Ed at the worst possible time. Maybe they won't print such utter rubbish as frontline campaign material next time. Slightly different to assuring the PM you agree to military action before you change your mind for purely political reasons.
Your right that there is really very little difference between the parties but I would argue that is because there is very little public appetite for hard right or hard left positions and parties are obliged to fight for the centre ground. The last 200 years has seen the same pattern repeated in British politics. There's usually a consensus, but every 30 or 40 years someone or something breaks it (Peel and free trade, LLoyd-George/Churchill and pensions/Parliament Act, Attlee & Co and the Welfare state, Thatcher and the free market). There is a disruptive period and then the parties coalescence around the new consensus.
Plato's philosopher kings is the answer - it's finding any that's the problem!
The Beast of Bolsover had it about right:
"Half the Tory members opposite are crooks."
When told to withdraw this remark by the Speaker: "OK, half the Tory members aren't crooks."
;-)
To slate your own party on immigration the economy and some thing else I cant remember he said his own party got wrong last time, seems a strange tactic. But as he seems to have 'won' the debate maybe his advisors got it right.
There is a reason that the Conservatives are against a head to head debate between Milliband and Cameron because it highlights that Cameron is not as bright and Milliband is more effective than the propaganda makes out. Milliband apparently does pretty well in Prime Ministers Questions on a weekly basis against Cameron. The fact that the Conservative statagists don't want a head to head debate says it all about Cameron's head to head debating skills.
Europe- Heath took us in and was much more pro-europe. The labour was still very unsure and many on the left opposed joining, Benn for one as I remember.
Industrial relations - The power of the unions v the power of the CBI and business was a key issue all through the 70s and lead to Thatcher's policy of destroying the big unions especially the miners who see and many others saw as bringing down the tory government in 73.
Social - Legalisation of homosexuality (a liberal bill under a labour govt) and other equal right legislations such as the equal pay act.
But Jints makes a very good point about about the upheaval followed by consensus. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis as i was taught it on that A level. Thatcher was the last upheaval, Blair broadly followed her policy wise and so created the consensus which still exists. Farage is trying to create a new upheaval around europe and immigration although from outside the main two parties. We'll see how that works.
http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/
I thought Miliband handled the brother question and general Paxman rudeness quite well. I thought the immigration question about an exact figure of people able to live in this country did not make a lot of sense and Milliband did well not to be pinned down on that.
The 'did the Labour spend too much question' and the whole 'caused the world economic crisis' is badly handled by Labour. Labour's spending percentage of government spending was pretty standard for any government of that time. It was not Labour's overspending that was a cause of the crash. This is a Conservative theme for years and needs to be challenged and nailed down.
A Conservative Government or any shade of government in power at the time would have suffered just as badly, It is disingenuous of Conservatives to try and blame the world wide crash on Labour, when this related to sub prime mortgages and deregulation of the financial sector. The deregulation that they had enthusiastically started and supported for the preceeding 20 years.
Milliband hinted that Labour could have had more regulation with regard to the banks but they have failed to challenge the Conservative assertion that it was down to Labour overspending. This does not help with voters perception about how Labour handles the economy.
I think most of us would struggle to manage a Paxman grilling though. It was fun to watch both leaders wither under the Paxman scrutiny.
But anyway could you name a politician who doesnt?
I have no doubt that Cameron has a passionate commitment to the NHS. There are more in his party that do not, but as long as it is important to the British people, it is an advantage to the conservatives who can claim that commitment and be believed. The general view is that Labour wins on NHS and Conservatives on the economy, although some of the greatest economic success the country has had in recent years has been under a Labour administration. Thing sare never as simple as the press would like us to believe. Alistair Darling's management post crash was lauded throughout the world. Something that open minded people with no agendas can acknowledge.
Of course the crash would have happened under whatever government was in power at the time. And it is reasonable to expect that we would start to recover, as we have done from previous crashes. I think the main differences between the parties are not that great. We are not talking about socialists - we have two main parties that are capitalist. Both aspire to bee seen as caring capitalists, although one leans more naturally to the caring side and the other the free market having complete control.
Putting my political preferences aside, I thought Cameron was a little bit shaky and that Miliband new he had nothing to lose so went for it. Ed seemed to be really aggressive, I thought and was trying to be hard in front of Paxman - and that backfired on him.
My overall impression, trying to be completely objective, was that Cameron looked like a Prime Minister but that Miliband looked completely out of his depth.
Will be interesting to see what happens when it becomes a 7-way and the likes of Farage and Sturgeon get into the mix!
I can't stand people who ask you a question but don't let you finish your answer. I found myself feeling sorry for Miliband which isn't an emotion that comes easily.
The less likely you are to achieve power the easier is to promise things you'll never have to deliver - and the less likely you are to understand why they are not deliverable anyway.
Agree that Jints' analysis is on the money. At least fringe parties, now that they have some capacity to gain representation, get issues on the agenda.
I thought Cameron was treated with kid gloves by Kay Burley (but no surprise there) when he faced the audience questions. He looked more in control than when he was facing Paxo - but facing a disgruntled audience of inquisitive voters live on terrestrial and satellite tv is a walk in the park compared to an eighteen-minute Paxo stuffing. He seemed smooth, competent but a bit complacent. I honestly can't remember any of the answers he gave to any of the questions! (Except the ridiculous "have you ever had three shredded wheat?" bit of eyelid batting that Burley did at the end. Cameron's answer was "er... yes... but ... er... let's not go into that now... a-ha hah!"
Miliband looked very relaxed in front of the audience. He dealt with Burley's silly questions well, including the horrified look on his face when she suggested he and David Cameron might go for a pint. He was also relaxed and engaging with the audience's questions. Although, again, I can't remember any of them; or any of the answers.
He was obviously up-for-it when he sat down with Paxo. I thought that was the best eighteen minutes of tv for a long time. Paxo was trying to nail him to the spot and he gave pretty relaxed and full answers. He was impatient, interrupting and on the edge of being rude, just to try to get under Miliband's skin. Miliband rose to it. He's not slick and professional like Cameron; he's more seat-of-the-pants and passionate. That came out with some of his remarks. "It's the people that decide who is the next Prime Minister, not you, Mr Paxman".
Who won it and who lost it?
A snap poll has said that Cameron edged the "debate" over Miliband; and that's what Sky have been leading with since. However, that's not the real measure; because we knew that Cameron is a lot more popular than Miliband anyway. So for the gap to be closed so much is a big problem for Cameron. But the real battleground is the "undecideds". And in this area, Miliband absolutely stormed it. Miliband has a lead of 56-30. That's where the election will be won and lost; and since last night, that's where Miliband has struck the first and biggest blow.
(Of course, the real winners were Paxman; and whoever ran the bar at the studio, since Farage went straight there when he arrived).
The election run may actually help Miliband dispel some of the propaganda that has been built up against him and win over the undecideds.