David Cameron and Ed Miliband get the Paxman treatment

Well, David Cameron asked for that. Having dodged a full on head-to-head with Ed Miliband he went into the slightly odd format of the first TV debate and walked straight into Jeremy Paxman.

Not everyone likes Paxman's style but I do. Frankly, if you can't withstand 20 minutes of his sort of questioning from TV's toughest interviewer then you have to wonder if you're up for the 'top job'.

The former Newsnight man showed us what we had been missing by tearing straight into the Prime Minister - knocking the normally Teflon Cameron right off his stride. It was the most uncomfortable I'd seen the PM for some time and he must have been thinking 'why didn't I just do a head-to-head with Ed?'.

He recovered a little from a shaky start but was clearly rattled throughout.

Then came the Q&A with the crowd. It's a little harsh to expect the same level of electrifying grilling from the audience that Paxman had just managed and it'd be arrogant to suggest voters shouldn't get their chance to ask whatever they want. Still, this section flagged, Cameron was calm and collected and breezed through a largely forgettable 20 minutes. For me it showed the benefit of having a trained journalist at the top of his game - and also that the PM is a smooth operator who is relaxed when dealing with the public.

Still, to be fair, the audience found its feet with Ed Miliband. The Labour leader faced a trickier test - as well as more interruptions from Kay Burley - making it a far tougher Q&A. It probably helped Miliband prepare for what was to come but he was less accomplished with the audience than Cameron. He stumbled a little when faced with a question on his brother - but recovered and took the knocks relatively well.

There were, predictably, more knocks to come when he sat across the ridiculously over-large table from Paxman. The seasoned broadcaster gave Miliband a lesson early on - exposing the well-worn tactic of the media trained politician that is 'posing and answering your own questions'. Jeremy was having none of it and Ed found it hard going.

He admitted mistakes from the previous Labour Government, floundered a little on immigration and then, surprisingly, recovered when the spotlight fell on his personality. It's odd that this is seen as his weakness yet it's where he did better - batting off criticism relatively well, even taking Paxman on. I do think people might start to feel sorry about him having to face too many more questions about his family too.

In some respects Miliband was the winner. He was expected to be savaged by Paxman yet actually did better with him than with the crowd. Cameron was expected to do better yet was clearly thrown out of his comfort zone at the start. There were low expectations of Ed so it's perhaps unsurprising that he topped them while Cameron struggled to live up to his billing at the start but still came on on top in the first snap poll, probably after his comfortable Q&A.

It'll be interested to see how Miliband copes with the aftermath. Yes, he landed two lines that will be remembered - namely 'you're not that important Jeremy' when refusing to discuss an SNP deal and 'am I tough enough? Hell yes'. The latter made me wince but might well get some attention - especially on social media. He was a little more proactive than Cameron in the audience session - I guess he has to be as the challenger - but looked less relaxed and more unnatural as a result.

But what about the policies? There was little detail from either side but there are some papers that might want to make a lot about Miliband's words on immigration and the fact he labelled an EU referendum 'unlikely'. He's likely to face some scrutiny on those two issues.

The race is well and truly on and I still can't help but thinking Cameron made the biggest mistake for agreeing to this show in the first place. His saving grace was that his worst moments were at the very start - but he'll be less pleased that Ed's better moments were at the end.

After Clegg in 2010, it's maybe a poisoned chalice to win these early exchanges anyway. Brace yourself, there's plenty more of this to come.

Jeremy Clarkson, Zayn Malik and the art of the modern over-reaction

Is Twitter ok? Someone really ought to check. At one point this afternoon I was a little worried.

First came Jeremy Clarkson or, at least, the news that his contract won't be renewed (he's not actually technically been sacked despite punching someone) - then, before Twitter had chance to catch it's misplaced angry breath, bang, Zayn Malik left One Direction.

If Twitter had a blood pressure it would've been sky high as thousands rushed to vent their 140-character fury at perceived injustices to their lives.

I'm not someone who really cares for One Direction - I don't buy or listen to their music - and I wouldn't contemplate watching Top Gear since I can't really get excited by cars. I know that others do like them both though and who am I to judge? I don't want to be someone who rails against things just because they aren't to my tastes.

Yet today, again, happens to be one of those social media days where you are dragged into issues you wouldn't normally be associated with through the sheer volume of reaction.

It's hard not to laugh at some of the more overblown fan comments to the demise of Zayn Malik. I'm strangely fascinated by the things people write at times like this. Maybe I'm odd but I can't imagine being so in thrall to someone I have never met that I'd burst into tears and declare my life ruined when they simply leave a job.

The reaction to Clarkson's demise worries me a little more. The people upset at his departure won't necessarily see it this way but they are just screaming fans struggling to gain a sense of perspective just like the 'Directioners'.

Their fan adulation for Clarkson knows no bounds. It doesn't matter to them that he punched someone because he didn't get the food he wanted - that's just 'how he is'. It makes this case a little more sinister - people allow their like of Clarkson as a TV show host to blind them to the fact that anyone in any office in the country would surely be sacked for attacking a colleague. What, exactly, was the BBC supposed to do? Clarkson brings in money, yes, but that can't make him untouchable can it?

Yet, if some comments are to be believed, the Clarkson story is yet another example of the 'liberal elite' holding too much power. Some even go as far as to say Oisin Tymon, the victim, should 'man up' and put the blame on him for bringing the curtain down on their favourite Top Gear presenter's career by having the temerity to be attacked. An awful lot of people thought the whole thing was a 'disgrace'.

Jeremy Clarkson has been a success as host of Top Gear, that is in no doubt. It's an international hit for the BBC and, in an era of funding cuts, it needs the cash it gets in from such hits. I'm no fan of his though. I can't bear someone who thinks it's funny to poke fun at another person because they are blind in one eye as he did with his vile barb at Gordon Brown. Clarkson is a school playground bully flanked by two hangers on who think it's cool to associate themselves with him. Many think Clarkson is a maverick because he's not afraid to say racist and sexist things yet he rides horses with Rebekah Brooks and hobnobs with the Prime Minister - hardly the voice of the common man. I try to avoid him at all costs - getting angry just fuels the whole circus - yet I do dislike him.

Yet, in this case, he has to be judged solely on the act in question. This isn't the 'liberal elite silencing Clarkson' - it's about an assault at work, punished by the employer. What is the BBC supposed to do? How would anyone else react to being punched at work? Would they seriously say 'Oh but that's Fred in IT and he's great at his job'?

I wonder if the people commenting on these stories ever look back on what they've said. Are they proud to have sounded off in public in the way they have? Being a fan, it seems, stops you from seeing a matter with perspective. It's something that's common with some sections of football fandom. There are people who will back a player to the hilt if he's in their team, no matter what, yet will jump to very different judgments on their rivals' stars. You'd like to think that, in the cold light of day, people might realise that the fact that neither Zayn Malik or Jeremy Clarkson are still employed in the same jobs does not matter too much in the long run.

Still, Twitter doesn't really do perspective. It's instant and it's in instants like these two that the medium gives us a strangely fascinating insight into the things some people think in the heat of the moment. It's a funny old world eh? And a scary one.

David Cameron's end game. Why now?

With the election coverage now well and truly in full swing, David Cameron wrong-footed the hack pack this evening with an interview with the BBC that raises the question of his departure at the end of the next parliament. He says terms of office are like Shredded Wheat - two are 'wonderful', while three are too many.

It's a great bit of product placement for Shredded Wheat - and probably cheaper than wheeling out Ian Botham again. It also got me wondering what other breakfast items can be compared to terms of office. Ed Miliband's buggered if his are like bacon sarnies - struggling to manage one.

Still, on a serious note, commentators have rushed to debate whether the PM was right to be so loose lipped in his kitchen (is the the kitchen election??) or whether he should've side-stepped a discussion his own future since barely anyone was debating that anyway.

The suggestion goes that Cameron, having raised his own departure, risks making himself a lame duck (that pillock from Sleaford would claim his house on expenses, presumably) and opens up a leadership debate that they could do without during an election campaign.

As a pretty slick PR man I doubt the PM was wrong-footed. Certainly not in a cosy kitchen interview. He too shrewd for that. So, assuming he meant to say it, why now? Aren't the commentators right? Doesn't this threaten to disrupt his whole campaign?

Here's why I reckon he took the plunge:

*From the very start, the Conservatives have been keen to make this election a question of leadership. The TV debates have blurred this issue a little bit, making Cameron look scared to take on Miliband in a head-to-head challenge, a decision calculated so not to let his rival get exposure. I think, in part, he wanted to get back the leadership agenda and what better way to do so than by making the story about himself? Seem daft? Well, don't forget that Cameron polls as well if not better than most of his rivals when it comes to approval ratings. If we're all focusing on the leaders as personalities, the Tories think they're in safe electoral territory.

*By openly mentioning three possible successors he's probably also trying to show that the Tories have 'bigger beasts' waiting in the wings than Labour has on its front line. The likes of Theresa May, George Osborne and, in particular, Boris Johnson will be much more well-known to the wider public than Labour's front bench. It's all part of the 'long term plan' and 'safe pair of hands' message.

*He's also potentially dampening the enthusiasm of any potential plotters and openly discussing what everyone has known for a long time - that Boris is being lined up for a tilt at the top job after he walks into a safe seat. There's no need for any furtive talk on that score any more - and the potential for BoJo to attract a headline for doing something divisive may have been diluted too.

*By starting to talk about a third term, he's getting it in voters' heads that he could be around for another five years, getting them to consider him to be Prime Ministerial and looking beyond this election. possibly also deflecting short term embarrasment over the TV debates or the Afzal Amin story. It might also be a way of telling more hardline members of the party that he wont 'go on and on'.

I know it's not a foolproof case, but it maybe goes some way to explaining why Cameron spoke so openly about his future. Of course, the questions don't stop there. What if he doesn't win an outright majority? Will that, presumably, be the end of him in frontline politics since he doesn't wish to fight for another term in 2020? Does he favour any of that trio in particular? Would he not have to go if he lost the EU referendum anyway? These are questions, of course, that keep the spotlight firmly on him and the Tories and less on Labour and his rivals. It was once said of the Blair/Brown era that the talk of their rivalry was tolerated because it meant no-one was focussed on the Tories.

It's odd that, when it comes to politics, we spend so long asking politicians questions and hammering them for not answering and yet when they do we spend ages debating whether or not it was the right move to answer the question in the first place. I guess that's largely because why someone says something is probably as important as what they've said. This was certainly a headline grabbing move by Cameron - but maybe that was his intention after all.

On Thursday he's away from the cozy kitchen and into Jeremy Paxman's bear pit. It'll be interesting to see what he says there...

10 musings on Osborne's pre-election Budget

George Osborne has brandished his big red box for the final Budget of this coalition Government, delivering his all-important speech after the most well-worn photo opportunity in history (can't they think of something new?). His hour-long speech can't really be analysed outside of the context of the election, now less than 50 days away but was this speech in any way significant?

Here's 10 things I was left pondering in the aftermath:

Targets: I imagine if I decided to only pay half of my mortgage payments for the next few years the bank wouldn't be entirely satisfied if I blamed external factors and promised that I was definitely now back on track and 'walking tall' again. The simple fact is Osborne and the Tories promised far more than they could actually deliver when trying to win our votes five years ago. I don't buy this 'well we had a huge deficit to deal with' line either. I'm pretty sure the desperate state of the economy was known - and argued over - at the last election. George has delivered about half of his target to eliminate the deficit - a figure that was something he campaigned against at the last election. Still, it's churlish of Labour to criticise him too much for this since he's delivered the sorts of numbers they were planning to achieve if elected in 2010.

Banks: Osborne boasted about the fact Labour was the party that bailed out the banks while his party would get taxpayers' cash back by selling our stake now things had got better. I couldn't help but think this was a strange boast. Was the Chancellor saying he wouldn't have stepped in to prevent banks going out of business? Or was he praising the opposition - implying he was reaping the rewards of their decision. It certainly seemed a silly thing to say.

Gimmicks and giveaways: No gimmicks, no giveaways eh? Well, not unless you count the penny off a pint of beer, scrapping the paper tax return or the ISA for first time buyers. There were others too. Why say it when you know it's not true?

Good ideas: One of the problems with our political system is that our 'Government vs Opposition' format means the response to any Budget, or indeed any Government policy, has to be to oppose it. Labour may well have liked the Help To Buy ISA, say, and want to do that themselves but they don't feel they're able to say it. It means we treat every thing as a black and white 'right and wrong and ignore more sensible grey areas in the middle. Some have said the new ISA will simply encourage people to get into debt but those are probably not the people struggling to get onto the ladder. That money will be welcome to the people who can afford to pay off a mortgage but can't afford the up front cost and it isn't exactly a case of chucking away free money to people without requiring them to save some themselves. Raising the personal allowance on Income Tax will be welcome to many as will relief to savers who have suffered from low interest rates.

Pick your stats: Both parties have unearthed their own measure of 'standards of living' that prove we're either better or worse off than 2010. There's a surprise. You really can prove anything with statistics it seems. My favourite line is 'more people in work than ever before'...conveniently forgetting that there are also 'more people than ever before'.

Europe: It's often said that the crisis in the Eurozone was one of the things that served to delay the our recovery from the economic crisis. I wonder if, in any of the tables, graphs or sets of numbers produced in the last day, anyone has an accurate prediction for the impact on the Eurozone economy that our much-vaunted renegotiation might have? Just a thought...

Ideology: The Budget - and subsequent debate - did shine a light on a small point of difference, ideologically, between the main two parties. It's often feared that 'they're all the same' but, when it comes to the economy it's not quite true. The Tories think there's still scope for some fairly big cuts, largely in welfare, as they aim for a smaller-than-previously-promised surplus by the end of the next Parliament and larger cuts to debt. Labour would spend - and, yes, borrow - more and move towards a balanced budget much slower. Not that either of them like to being presented in such a simplistic way of course. Whether that's a clear enough difference to matter when it comes to votes is another matter and it'll be interesting to see what the Greens, UKIP etc come up with as an alternative given that they have the freedom to be more creative.

Cliches: Why are all families 'hard working families'? It's just one of a host of cliches that was littered through the speeches of both sides of the house. And is George really still peddling that awful 'we're all in this together' line?

Commons: The behaviour of MPs in the Commons never ceases to amaze. To see grown men and women shouting over each other and trading lame jokes and one liners is an unedifying spectacle and does nothing for the calls to increase the wages of MPs. They should sit back and watch the footage and be ashamed of themselves.

Papers: The day after a Budget is always a great time to grab a newspaper - particularly one of the 'serious' titles who produce big pullouts at short notice packed with analysis, case studies and the sort of detail the telly simply doesn't have time to go into. It must hard work but great to be a part of. I'm also impressed by the amount the i packed into its edition. You have to take your hat off to those involved. The mid range papers seemed to struggle in comparison - with the Mail sporting Osborne as the Teletubbies sun in a badly dated cultural reference and the Express going for something incredibly dull and formulaic. I'd not seen the latest Money Supermarket ad (unlike most of the population it seems) that inspired The Sun front page so was briefly baffled by the odd image of Osborne in a pair of shorts. I still don't think it's one of their better efforts. The serious papers came out even more favourably in comparison to some uninspired offerings - maybe the lack of a clear soundbite or theme gave those eager tabloid subs little to chew on?

Debating the TV debates

What if we had a TV debate about whether we should have a TV debate and invite all the leaders to that? Maybe we they could show a documentary about the TV executives' long and fruitless quest to get grown adults to stand in front of a microphone instead?  Sound ridiculous?  Well, sadly, that's because we're in a ridiculous situation.

If anyone needs evidence of why many members of the public are disengaged with politics then look no further than the current row over the TV election debates. 

They were introduced to great fanfare at the last election and, while they may have had their plusses and minuses, they did at least prove a platform to bring the election to the widest possible audience.

Despite knowing that they were popular last time around, pretty much everyone involved has made an almighty mess of arranging something which should be simple. With fixed term parliaments we even had the benefit of knowing the date of the election almost five years ago. I'm not sure how many other TV programmes have the benefit of knowing a broadcast date that far in advance.

Sadly personal interest comes well before democracy for everyone involved.

David Cameron should be utterly ashamed of himself. He's come out and criticised the broadcasters for not consulting on their plans yet he wants to dictate what they do with no 'consultation' of his own. It seems he's being advised that Ed Miliband's ratings would only be enhanced by sharing a stage with 'Dave' so he's trying to duck a head-to-head showdown, despite waxing lyrical about debates before their inception in 2010. Worse still he's feigning concern for other parties who are missing out.

Not only is that a blatant case of putting self interest ahead of the voters' interests but it also undermines his party's drive to paint Miliband as a weak leader.  Labour's simple retort can be: "If he's that weak why not take him on?". Whatever you think of Ed Miliband, is someone really suited to leading the country if they can't back themselves to come out on top in a debate against him?

The icing on the cake came when 'Lord' Michael Grade weighed in in favour of the PM accusing the broadcasters of being arrogant in what was surely the biggest case of a pot calling a kettle black ever.

Still, Ed Miliband hardly did himself any favours by promising to enshrine TV debates in law if he was to become Prime Minister. I happen to think they should be held but I also think that politicians shouldn't be telling broadcasters what to screen. It smacked of a petty cheap shot to get a headline because that's precisely what it was.

The broadcasters haven't helped either. They were far too slow to recognise the new era of party politics that is upon us and have come up with imperfect plans. You can't help but feel the papers have revelled in their misery given that they're in no rush to see their broadcast rivals be at the centre of attention during the campaign and have stirred it all up.

The broadcasters must hold firm now, though. The Prime Minister - and anyone else who can't be bothered to turn up - should be 'empty chaired' and the show must go on. These politicians want us to vote for their parties and we deserve to know when they've put themselves first and spurned the chance to talk to us. I also don't agree with the suggestion, covered in this weekend's Independent On Sunday, that the PM should get his own separate show to 'be fair'. If he turns down his platform then it's 'fair' that he misses out - he can't be allowed to get his own way by throwing a tantrum. Unless, of course, having his oen show means being locked in a small room with an angry Jeremy Paxman.

It's all a sorry state of affairs and shows little sign of being solved. It doesn't auger well for possible coalition building after the ballot if our politicians can't agree when to go on the telly together. Maybe we should empty chair the whole lot. We might get more sense that way...

Noel's birds flying in the face of the critics

Not one Noel Gallagher review will go by without mentioning Oasis and the possibility of a reunion between the brothers. There, see, I've gone and done it now too.

The problem with that is that Chasing Yesterday becomes an album that will probably never really be judged on its merits. Instead critics will be looking for a new Wonderwall or Champagne Supernova. That or something so wildly different to make this a 'concept' album. When neither arrives it's written off as rubbish with no further thought.

I even saw one suggestion that Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds' self-titled first album could've been seen as excellent if it were an Oasis album, since it would've been a refreshing new direction and a step up from the band's last effort, but because it was Noel on his own it was more disappointing because the person in question was hoping for something wildly different. I find that more than a little bizarre, but then I do find myself baffled by a lot of music reviews to be honest. Half the time they're out to wow you with how many Pink Floyd B sides they can casually throw into conversation. I find it all a bit smug, sneery and deeply unsatisfying.

I should declare an interest here. I'm something of a Noel fanboy and in the lead-up to this release - snapped up on day one, of course - I even decided to give the much maligned Be Here Now a spin. It's a guilty pleasure - even if the tracks are so long that you barely get more than three in when popping it in the car on a half-hour commute.

So, onto Chasing Yesterday. It begins in intriguing fashion with Riverman. You feel Noel's almost toying with the critics by beginning briefly in a Wonderwall-y fashion before breaking into something that, for me at least, felt fresh and different, not least with the early deployment attention-grabbing saxophone. It's long, but not Be Here Now long thankfully, but a strong start nevertheless.

In some respects I was still trying to take it in as In The Heat of the Moment kicked in. It's a good, catchy tune that was a solid single choice, although I felt it maybe could've waiting until a little later in the album.

Chasing Yesterday is almost an album of two halves (maybe made for the newly resurgent vinyl?) - with the first part continuing strongly, including Lock All The Doors and The Dying of the Light - the 'slow one' many will be looking out for.

Then comes The Right Thing - it takes the change of pace and tone of Riverman and runs with that a bit further. It caught me off guard - more Lighthouse Family than Gallagher family - but in a good way. This is clearly a 47-year-old artist with the confidence to throw in a splash of something new into a tried and tested formula, albeit nothing too off-piste to throw off the regulars.

The only problem came straight after. I felt the album then started to tail off - possibly because I'd been relaxed into a lull by The Right Thing. While The Song Remains The Same - undoubtedly a title that'll be gobble up by reviewers keen to show Noel offers nothing different here - and The Mexican didn't quite catch my attention in the same way. They were still good, listenable tracks, but maybe it was a mistake to place them after something so different?

Still my lull ended in some style. You Know We Can't Go Back is a track with instant appeal. It's a bit like Embrace with an edge (have that reviewers!) and provides an upbeat jolt and - thanks to a piano - goes nicely into the Ballad of the Mighty I. This track features the talents of Noel's mate Johnny Marr which, I think, probably works better as an album closer than a second single and feels like a follow up to AKA...What A Life.

Any self-respecting follower of Noel's work will know he 'does good B sides' and it was a lesson worth learning given that the deluxe edition contains three further tracks. They could all, typically, have made the album, especially the Black Keys-sounding Do The Damage. The remix of The Heat Of The Moment didn't really work for me though.

So there we have it - a good collection of tunes from Noel Gallagher - some of it 'traditional', some a clear follow up to the first album and some completely different. It's a good blend and a thoroughly decent album. Of course, it's not (What's The Story) Morning Glory? but I'd struggle to judge many albums favourably against that. I prefer to judge this on its own merits and if you do that, ignoring everything else, I reckon there's some really good material at the heart of this. While Noel's on this form there's really no need to fret over an Oasis comeback...