In some ways that was a prime example of how not to produce a programme. The format didn’t work, the selection of audience questions was lax in the extreme and the whole thing was clunky. Why on earth did Sky and Channel 4 not ditch their adverts? The programme wasn’t 90 minutes long, it was 72 minutes long. We’d have learned far more about the two men if Paxman had been able to quiz them each for 45 minutes or even an hour. Trying to cover so much ground in 18 minutes was never going to be highly illuminating, so Paxman did as well as he could in the time he had. Seeing Paxman again made us realise what we lost when he left Newsnight. Surely he needs to be found a proper interviewing perch again. Taking over Question Time from David Dimbleby might be a good start. Anyway, I digress.
I missed Cameron’s interview with Paxman because of a late running train, so I watched that after the whole thing had finished. It was very odd that Miliband took audience questions first and then was interviewed by Paxman, yet Cameron did it the opposite. I suppose there must have been a reason for that but I am buggered if I can think what it was.
Neither of the two protagonists made a gaffe. Miliband had the more memorable lines, especially in the Paxman interview, but will it mean anything in the long run? What will floating voters have made of it? I suspect those who were veering away from Miliband will have had cause to pause for thought, and in a sense that’s probably all Labour’s strategy team can have asked for.
Expectations of Ed Miliband before tonight were low. He surpassed them, but there were enough uncomfortable moments for Ed Miliband for the Tories to believe that their man more than held his own.
The instant poll for The Guardian called the debate 54-46 for David Cameron. I would call it the other way. I thought Ed Miliband shaded it, but not in any decisive or election result-changing way.
