Sir Harry shone in Spooks' big screen outing

In some respects Spooks is a pretty odd choice to get the 'big screen treatment'. Don't get me wrong, I loved the TV show. It's just that I always imagined that for a series to make the transition from the smaller screen it'd need to contain most of the elements - and characters - that make it a popular programme.

Yet Spooks ended in 2011 so doesn't have a current 'following' and has always prided itself on being a show that bumps off its big name stars in a regular and ruthless fashion ever since 'that moment' with the chip fryer in series one.

In fact 'ruthless' is a pretty accurate picture of where we were at when the show ended - with the much loved stalwart Ruth Evershed meeting her demise to break the heart of Sir Harry Pearce.

So, having been taken off television and without a band of established characters to explore further, why make a film? Still, bizarre and illogical as the timing might have been, Spooks: The Greater Good worked.

Yes, this was just, in essence, an extended TV episode and, yes, it might've meant less if you hadn't got a deep affinity for Sir Harry's character, but this was a film that captured what was greart about the show at its height. Those strengths being good, pacy character-driven storytelling, regular deaths of big name stars to keep you on your toes and truck loads of tension.

If anything, the lack of too many established characters probably helped make this a film that could be enjoyed by someone with no knowledge of the TV programme. It also left open a berth for a main star which was ably filled by Kit Harington. The Game of Thrones actor brought a necessary wider appeal to the film and filled the posters in a way that Peter Firth might have struggled to do.

Harington and Firth hit it off pretty well as a duo too, both conveying characters with a rich, dark past that added to their mystique. Harington provided the action and Firth, playing a rogue, wrongly-accused Pearce, provided subterfuge and bastardry (with a splash of humanity) that makes his one of my all-time favourite TV characters. Firth's performance ensured the many layers he built up over years on TV were brought out before the cinema audience. He surely deserves another outing?

It all looked great on the screen with the odd explosion thrown in to keep the pace up but, as ever with Spooks, this was more about the substance than the style. It doesn't try to take on Bourne and Bond, but nor should it. There's more than one way to skin a spy story and this was no worse for not having more chase sequences or pyrotechnics.

Elyes Gabel played a believable and not-one-dimensional Adam Qasim, the dangerous on-the-run terrorist who escapes from the clutches of MI5 to set up the plot. Tim McInnerny's Oliver Mace perhaps strayed a little too into the stereotypical bracket, as did David Harewood's Warrender, while Jennifer Ehle had a guessable-but-still-enjoyable ending.

Still a few poorly fleshed out characters aside (more than made up for in my book by the return of Malcolm) this was a strong return for Spooks. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, comes next for Sir Harry and co. More along these lines would certainly be for the 'greater good'...

Hamiltons watched on as Conservatives held off UKIP charge in target seat

Boston and Skegness stayed Tory blue in the end, with Matt Warman replicating his party's strong performance across the country and taking the seat with a 4,336 majority.

Matt Warman delivers a victory speech at 6.30am

It was a long old night at the Peter Paine Sports Centre in Boston; the eight-and-a-half-hour count took its toll on a bleary eyed Neil and Christine Hamilton, who were denied the chance to celebrate with their young protege - the 22-year-old Robin Hunter Clarke failing to capture the seat despite a 15.1 per cent swing to his party.

When the Hamiltons turned up at about 12.30am, the night was young and many predicted a tight race that could've seen politics' odd-couple celebrating. Christine was all smiles - ruffling the hair of a couple of policemen and mingling while Neil gave interviews to the press, who latched on the chance to fill the 'there's nothing happening' void with some material.

Neil Hamilton came to support his young protege...but would he have done better?

Still, the smiles soon faded as the war of attrition set in. We waited and waited, restlessly shifting from the 'press room' to the TV and back into the counting hall as it became clear this was going to be a slog. The count itself didn't begin until just before 2am thanks to some delayed papers from the Skegness end of the constituency which delayed the verification process.

It proved a long and fruitless night for the Hamiltons

The long hours not only sapped away at the energy but also the chances of a UKIP win - more and more senior Tories re-iterated that they fancied a win - with predictions ranging from 2,000-6,000. Like the 10pm exit poll that shocked the country, they were spot on. Yet it was 6.30am before the result, which by then had become inevitable, was confirmed.

Warman, the now ex head of technology at the Daily Telegraph, proved a solid contender for the party after emerging from a fairly closely contested primary. He did enough to convince the party's traditional supporters - which are especially strong in number in the villages - to stick with the Tories after a somewhat fractious end to his predecessor's time as MP.

Mark Simmonds may have earned a 12,426 majority in 2010 but by last year relations had soured with local Tories, who felt he neglected his constituency duties after becoming a junior foreign office minister. Many felt his resignation - and comments about the pay and conditions of an MP - were framed in a way to 'get back' at his critics. Of course we may never know what Simmonds truly felt since he turned down several offers of an interview with the local press. He still lives in the area and I'm told he did vote for his replacement and offer him support.

Still, senior Conservatives in the town feel that if he had been on the ballot paper on Thursday UKIP would've won.

So, if the right name was on the ballot for the Tories, was it for UKIP? It was certainly a bold move to install a 22-year-old candidate to such a high profile target seat, especially given that it had, from the outside, appeared to have been Neil Hamilton's chosen location for a potential political comeback. Hamilton mysteriously pulled out of an in-house party hustings to pave the way for Robin so, I asked, did he think he'd have done better?

Hamilton said: "It's hard to say. I am a controversial figure on the one hand, but on the other hand I do have 50 years experience of fighting elections [he joined the Conservative party aged 15 in 1964] and I do have a war chest from supporters that could've helped my campaign. So, who knows?"

He did go on to praise the young runner-up though, saying the party 'couldn't have had a better candidate' and that he hoped Robin would fight again in five years time.

Robin Hunter-Clarke remained upbeat in his post-defeat interviews

Robin, a county councillor, says he aims to do just that. He believes the Conservatives 'played the SNP card' to great effect but says the result showed people were wrong to question his ability as a candidate.

He told me: "I am pleased with the result. We shaved thousands off their majority and saw the biggest swing to UKIP in the whole country - nobody can question my age or ability, I have proved myself.
"I have grown massively in confidence and have enjoyed every single second."

He was one of many people - Green candidate Victoria Percival included - to join the call for electoral reform, highlighting the fact that earning the third largest share of the national vote only earned UKIP one MP.

He added: "Clearly the electoral system is broken and needs to be fixed but I'm afraid turkeys don't vote for Christmas and the Conservatives won't change the system that's led them to victory."

He backed UKIP to work with other minority parties - an unlikely alliance with the Greens it seems! - to press the need for change.

The victorious Warman, however, said the electorate had had the chance to change the system with the AV referendum of 2011 and felt 'first past the post' was still the best way to deliver stable Governments.

The new MP laughed off my cheeky question about any potential job in the new Cameron administration - instead saying he intends to use his influence to get key figures to come to the constituency and address its issues.

There is a strong sense in Boston that it is 'forgotten' and while Warman feels some of that is a perception - pointing to the cash for a new flood barrier as an example - he accepts that there's some truth in it, especially when it comes to the need for 'big ticket infrastructure'.

As part of his campaign he brought Jeremy Hunt and Chris Grayling to the constituency. While that aimed to show voters that a Tory MP could have the ear of big hitters in the Government, he hopes it will be a blueprint to prove to voters that the area's issues are being heard.

It's a stark contrast to the bizarre visit of Andrew Lansley, the then-health minister, to the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston in 2012. He came on the invitation of Mark Simmonds but everything possible was done to give the press the slip - including changing the plan to take Lansley out of the building around the back to avoid us. Excuses, bizarrely, included that it was the London mayoral election and a minister couldn't talk to us as a result. When we later happened upon Lansley walking through the town, he was only too happy to give us a quick chat. Simmonds, it turned out, was lobbying for cash to replace the maternity unit and probably could've done with the public support he could've got by involving the press and public but he just wasn't that sort of MP; only later turning to the paper when bureaucrats failed to cash in on the support Lansley had given for the project.

Warman will need to be more open with voters and involve them in the politics he carries out from here - big name visits are fine but the ridiculous subterfuge of the Lansley visit must be avoided.
The hospital too, with the threat to some of its services, is a huge issue for him to get his teeth into.

Still, getting back to the night, and why did Warman think his party could prove the pollsters wrong and gain a majority?

He said: "Evidently there's an element of 1992 about it. What we have seen is that, when it came to the crucial moment at the ballot box, people have realised that the economy was too precious to risk and people realised that David Cameron was a far better option than Ed Miliband, and they also didn't want the SNP to prop up a Labour Government."

He wouldn't be drawn into comment on his defeated rivals, but felt his party offered more 'solutions' to the issues UKIP posed than any other, alongside a 'positive vision'.

So, how about leaving his job at the Telegraph? Many people, after all, would love to be at the front of the queue to test and talk about the latest technology as he has been.

He explained: "I came to the conclusion a few years ago that I wanted to be an actor and not a critic."
He said that issues such as Facebook privacy made him feel passionate but that: "If you really care about this stuff then the only way to make a difference is if you're not on the sidelines."

But what about technology when it comes to voting? Perhaps inspired by the marathon count I asked if he thinks we'll soon be voting and counting in a very different way?

He said: "It's very hard to come up with a more secure system than what we have at the moment. It might be old fashioned but it works. I am not romantic about this stuff but it's working and you should be very careful about replacing it with something that's risky."

So there we have it - we'll probably still be sitting there until 6.30am next time too but we shouldn't moan. For a journalist there's something enjoyable about count night. The atmosphere is like no other and it wouldn't quite be the same without the test of endurance that means you've still got to be able to ask key questions despite being half awake. Maybe Matt's right?

Full result:
Matt Warman (Conservative), 18,981, 43.8% (-5.7)
Robin Hunter-Clarke (UKIP), 14,645, 33.8% (+24.3)
Paul Kenny (Labour), 7,142, 16.5% (-4.2)
David Watts (Lib Dem), 1,015, 2.3% (-12.4)
Victoria Percival (Green), 800, 1.8%
Chris Pain (Independence From Europe), 324, 0.7%
Peter Johnson (Ind), 170, 0.4%
Lyn Luxton (Pilgrim Party), 143, 0.3%
Robert West (BNP), 119, 0.3% (-5)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it wasn't all positive for the Tories on Thursday night/Friday morning. The more hardcore of us among the press carried on until 10.30am when the final Boston Borough Council result came in. Not Sky, they buggered off as soon as they'd done their post-victory interview with Matt Warman - although hats off to them for arranging to install their own internet connection to the venue for the night, that's the sort of planning and resources local media could only dream of!

The results here were more exciting and close than the General Election race that came before. UKIP - which had no seats going into the vote - and the Tories were neck and neck throughout and ended on 13 seats apiece on the 30-seat council. It meant the Conservatives have lost overall control of the council, although, in an immediate twist, look to have already picked up one councillor who has fallen out with UKIP before even taking his seat. At 14-12 with two independents and two Labour members they should just about be able to carry on in charge - but not without a fair few headaches along the way.

With more cuts to come to local Government this could be a really testing time for the council going forward. It proves, too, that the UKIP surge in Boston cannot be written off.

Voting does matter...even in safe seats

The General Election campaign will drag on a few days more yet but for many people it will have seemed all over before it began.

Take South Holland and the Deepings, for example. The seat is held by Conservative John Hayes who, in 2010, won a 21,880 majority with 59.1 per cent of the vote. The only questions to be decided on Thursday are whether his vote will be nearer 50 or 60 per cent this time and who will come second.

But, maybe it's time to look at the way we vote differently. In this election I think the share of the public vote will actually matter, even if it doesn't directly impact on the outcome of seats such as South Holland and the Deepings. There's two reasons for this:

*Firstly, it still appears as though no-one will win an outright majority. That means the potential for coalition negotiations or, possibly, a minority government. Whilst it's seats that matter I actually think that if this figure is incredibly close the share of the vote could be seen as a factor to help 'legitimise' a government. If there are two sides with roughly equal numbers of seats but one clearly attracted a greater number of people to place their 'X' then it could act as a tie breaker - a bit like goal difference in football. So, while whoever came second in South Holland might seem irrelevant, the votes given to the parties here could prove important.

*Vote share could also be important when looking to the future of British politics. One knock-on effect of the rise of UKIP has been to spread the calls for voting reform beyond the Lib Dems and Greens. Between the three of them they could attract 25-30 per cent of the vote but end up with fewer than five per cent of the seats. I can foresee a situation where that sort of calculation starts to tip the balance towards the need for reform. So, to return to dear old South Holland and the Deepings, a vote for an outsider party in that constituency may strengthen the case for reform and serve to highlight the declining relevance of 'first past the post'. Equally, if you don't feel that way, it's clear that a vote for the Tories or Labour can help bolster the status quo in such a scenario.

In some respects non-Tory voters have a free reign in South Holland and the Deepings just as non Labour voters would in Bootle or West Ham. They know who their MP will be come Friday morning so they don't need to think tactically, they should simply vote for who they like - let a site such as Votes for Policies help you choose if you're unsure - and know that there's no reason why that vote won't matter in either the short or long term.

I always think that not voting simply allows the political system to be dominated by those people who blindly support one party. That vocal, tribal, card-carrying, bandwagon-jumping minority of political nutters then gets its voice heard loudest. When the overall race is as close as this one we shouldn't leave it to them.




PS: I gave my verdict on how the five candidates for South Holland and the Deepings fared at a recent hustings event for the Spalding Voice. Read it here.

Audience on song to grill election trio

Fair play to the BBC. When it comes to an election people line up to say it's biased. I often think that if the sheep from all sides are bleating then you're probably doing as good a job as possible of being fair and balanced. The Beeb came in for some criticism for the audience assembled for the five-way leader debate and, while I think that was possibly a tactic, it's clear that it raised its game with tonight's Question Time special. This time the audience seemed not only balanced but also energised and up for the challenge of holding Cameron, Miliband and Clegg to account.

Cameron kicked off Question Time with his half-hour. He frustrated the camera-man by instantly stepping off the large 'Q', and walked straight into a grilling about welfare and benefits. He was clearly prepped but still dodged the chance to offer more detail on the cuts to come. On the economy and NHS he drifted into 'pumped up Dave' territory but this was not the occasion for full-on sleeves-up arm-waving mode - not least because sweating under lights isn't pretty. This was like the second half of the now-distant Sky News debate and, just as in that slot, he enjoyed the format. That's not to say he was comfortable - the benefits non-answer was rumbled, the umpteenth brandish of 'the note' fell flat and the daft 'law to ban tax rises' was exposed - but he survived and will look back on a performance that at least ticked the 'Prime Ministerial' box at the same time as not forgetting which football team he apparently supports.

Ed stepped up second and found that the crowd was in no mood to forgive and forget the past. He floundered a little here, struggling to address this 'overspending blamed for recession' line. By now Ed and his party really ought to have forged a stronger retort to the narrative established by their opponents. Why doesn't he talk about how the money had to be spent to save banks and therefore people's mortgages and savings. He'll grab headlines over his promise to govern as a minority - even though he's already mentioned it - rather than go for an electoral deal and stuck strongly to his guns on the EU and immigration. Still, that pesky raised Q might still overshadow his half-hour, with his stumble off it as he left the stage at the end proving fodder for creators of Gifs, Vines and memes everywhere.

The audience was in no mood to let Clegg off the hook either - slapping him straight around the chops with 'that' tuition fees question. The Lib Dem leader's hours spent answering calls on LBC will have helped here as he was adept at addressing the interrogations from the clued-up crowd.He defended himself and was able to play his 'i'm different to them honest' card, sounding like he was answering the 'coalition question' more openly than the others even though he wasn't. As damage limitations go this was a decent effort.

The snap poll crowned the Prime Minister the winner. In the long term it'll be interesting to see if Ed Miliband's risky sounding 'i'll govern alone' line has any impact though.

It's a cliche to say that the audience was the winner but this was a crowd that asked tough, testing questions and didn't let any of the trio get away with their standard spin. All three were at it - using the questioner's name, the obligatory 'that's a great question' when they realise they've got no response and saying 'let me address that directly' before doing anything but - and the crowd was in no mood to let them off the hook. The BBC needs to bottle this audience and take it on tour to future Question Time episodes. Led by the excellent David Dimbleby they helped give us an entertaining and challenging 90 minutes that outstripped most of the regular series shows from recent weeks. There's life in the Beeb - and political debates yet it seems...

Boston and Skegness: The anatomy of a UKIP target seat

Boston and Skegness is a key target seat for UKIP in next week's election. Nigel Farage has been saying so himself for quite some time. But will the party succeed? What makes it a target and what factors may affect the result?

Firstly, it's hard to deny that UKIP's success in Boston and Skegness has been astonishing. In the 2005 and 2010 General Elections it scored its highest and second highest share of the vote in the constituency. That proved to be the mere launchpad when, in 2013, the party pulled off a big result at the Lincolnshire County Council elections. The night began with six of Boston's seven seats in Conservative hands. I stood and watched as it ended with five of the seven in UKIP hands and just the one Tory remaining.

The surge didn't end there. Nowhere else in the country gave a higher support to UKIP in the European Parliament elections 12 months later. In total 52 per cent of the people who turned out to vote in Boston supported UKIP.

So, logically, the next stop is to elect an MP surely? Well, the first thing to stress is that it could happen. Aside from this, Boston itself has 'form' when it comes to kicking out ruling Tories, with the Boston Bypass Independents sweeping to a famous council victory in 2007. UKIP commissioned Survation to carry out a poll last year and it predicted the party could win 46% of the vote, with the Tories - who currently hold the seat with a near-12,500 majority - on 26%. A later poll for Lord Ashcroft, however, had the Tories holding onto the seat 38-35 over UKIP in second.

It's clear too, let's be honest, that UKIP's support has built up in Boston on the back of its focus on immigration. The foreign-born population in Boston rose by 467% between 2001 and 2011 according to Census data that is hotly disputed in the borough. Whatever you think about immigration - let's not go into that right now - it's clear that with those sheer numbers it is bound to be a talking point.

At one point issues surrounding immigration caused unrest among a significant minority in the town. An on-off 'protest march' movement eventually manifested itself as a static protest and it's fair to say that much of the frustration underpinning that has fed into UKIP's subsequent political success, even though this was not the work of the party. The local council's response to that sentiment in Boston was to hold an 'immigration inquiry' calling on witnesses from education, health, employment etc. It drew up a wish-list of proposals that were needed and the process was an attempt to show that it wasn't racist to talk about immigration while recognising that population growth had had an impact on services. To some extent the borough elections, also next Thursday, will be the voters' judgement on how successful the inquiry's eventual report has been.

But this isn't just a straightforward tale of 'anti-immigration vote equals UKIP victory'. It's too blinkered to see matters such as this in such simplistic terms. To an extent, I feel sorry for Boston. It has, in the past, been the 'bad traffic town' and the 'fat town' and now it's the 'immigration town'. It's forever labelled and, when it is, people often fail to look beyond the label. So, yes, immigration is a huge election topic - undeniably the biggest - yet there are other issues that will have a say in the outcome of this election.

Forgotten 
Following on from the above, it's important not to forget that there is a strong sense among some Bostonians that they're forgotten. Whether it's by the Westminster elite when it comes to immigration, or at a more local level when it comes to being 'governed by Lincoln', these are pretty strong perceptions. Yes, you can read UKIP's county council surge as a protest vote if you like but don't ignore that part of that protest may well have been against County Hall. Lincoln is on its fourth bypass, Grantham is getting a bypass, Spalding is planning a second, even Burgh Le Marsh has one yet Boston's seems a long, long way off. It's unfair to put that at the door of one council - it's been a bugbear for decades - but ignore it at your peril. People in Boston are sick and tired of traffic issues. They once elected a party to tackle that and, although that went pear shaped, it shows they're prepared to air their dissatisfaction. Health - and the need to support the Pilgrim Hospital - education and flood risk are also big issues.

Constituency
This post has, to a large extent, centred on Boston but it's important to consider that the constituency isn't solely about Boston. It's the biggest town and draws the most attention but there's also Skegness - a seaside town with its own set of issues  - and a host of villages in between and around the two. It remains to be seen whether UKIP will be as strong here, especially the villages which traditionally deliver a strong Tory vote.

Two votes
Perceived wisdom, for what it's worth, suggests that the fact it's a council election next Thursday too should boost turnout. The same train of thought would say that the higher the turnout the harder it is for the challenger to win. Turnout in the aforementioned Euro elections was a mere 33.3% - it won't be as low next Thursday. Of course there is always a danger that a disgruntled local election protester will take a chance to land a 'double blow' on their opponents too.

Age
What about the people actually standing? UKIP's charge is led by Robin Hunter-Clarke. The young Tory-turned-Ukipper might be seen by some as 'too young' at 22 to entrust with the responsibilities of the Commons - especially if he ends up part of a small group of MPs propping up a whole Government. It's a charge he dismisses and he might turn out to be a much safer bet than Neil Hamilton, who withdrew his bid to stand for election right at the last minute. UKIP's own polling showed people weren't too favourable to Hamilton and, while the Skegness born contender will need to convince people he has the right qualities and experience to succeed, he won't be forever facing questions on the past as Hamilton would've done.

Fresh face for Tories
A UKIP source told me they were delighted when incumbent Mark Simmonds said he was standing down. They felt it was easier to win a vacant seat than fight a familiar face on their own record. That's maybe true but there are some people in the town who had become less than enamoured with Mark Simmonds. The MP was originally denied a job under Cameron by the circumstances of the coalition but eventually got a post in the foreign office. Over time his relationship with the local Tories became strained and upon announcing his resignation Mr Simmonds bemoaned the 'intolerable' impact of trying to live with his family on the pay and expenses he received - something that caused a fair bit of a stir in the national press. He was offered a full interview to explain his comments to the electorate and chose not to bother. His replacement on the Tory ticket is the Daily Telegraph head of technology Matt Warman. In the circumstances an articulate and sensible fresh face might well do the Tories good. Those that would've voted for Mark Simmonds won't be put off by Matt Warman and some of those who had drifted away will return. Warman himself will benefit from having to win his nomination through a party primary, a good chance to sharpen his campaigning skills.

Packed field
It's easy to see this as a Tory-UKIP scrap but it's not. It's a nine-strong field which is bound to complicate matters. Labour's Paul Kenny is fighting for the third time. He'll be buoyed by the fact that in 1997 and 2001 this was a Labour/Tory marginal where the majority was below 1,000. He himself performed well as mayor, particularly prominently in the aftermath of the floods which hit the town in late 2013, and may have an appeal beyond the party as a result.

UKIP itself must contend with the challenge of Chris Pain. He led the party in Lincolnshire to its county council success before a bitter fallout with Farage and co which also saw other UKIP councillors leave the party. Chris Pain stood in 2010 for UKIP and is now under the banner of An Independence From Europe, itself launched by ex-UKIP member Mike Nattrass. The split had little or no impact in last year's Euro elections but it might eat into Robin Hunter-Clarke's vote here. Independent Peter Johnson, a former policeman, might well dilute the vote available to UKIP, occupying a 'none of the above' 'common sense' ground that the eurosceptic party likes to try to sit within.

The Tories may well lose some votes to Lyn Luxton. She wanted to win the party's nomination and, when not chosen to contest the primary, switched to the Lincolnshire Independents before founding her own Pilgrim Party. She'd done a lot of canvassing on the ground before being snubbed by the Tories and will hope that now bears fruit.

Victoria Percival promises to be a passionate exponent of the Green cause - and might surprise a few - while the BNP's Robert West is an often controversial character who is a veteran of various elections over the years.

Don't expect too much from the Lib Dem though. David Watts is the party's contender but you'd think he'll probably be busy defending his seat on Broxtowe Borough Council. Broxtowe, where I'm originally from incidentally, is run by a Lib-Lab coalition so it'll be a tight race. His selection shouts 'paper candidate' to me.

A close call
The electoral past of the last couple of years points towards UKIP doing very well but it's clear that some of the facts make this a far-from-straightforward seat to call. The circumstances of the vote - on the same day as the council election - the fact there are nine contenders with their own personal strengths and the existence of other issues affecting voters' choices beyond immigration all make for a much more complex picture. If the bookies know anything - and you don't often see a poor one - they reckon the Tories are now favourites again. All I know for sure is that it could be a long and dramatic night next Thursday. See you there.

Ed and Nicola's dating game dominated BBC debate

So, Nicola fancies Ed but Ed's playing it cool even though a lot of Ed's mates like the sound of Nicola and are even starting to prefer her to him. As burgeoning relationships go, Ed and Nicola isn't exactly Ross and Rachel from Friends but it's clear that it's an increasingly important dynamic in this multi-layered election.

At the end of 'manifesto week' came the BBC Debate and one of the clearest pitches yet from the SNP as Nicola Sturgeon turned to Ed Miliband and called for a deal to 'lock the Tories out of Number 10'. Like her or not she spoke with passion and determination and while Ed did his best to be non-committal it wasn't easy for him to repel a powerfully put plea.

In truth he was never going to say yes to a deal with the SNP, not least for the fear of helping what will surely be a miserable election for Labour north of the border (unlike Nigel Farage this blog won't get confused into thinking Hadrian's Wall is still the border. Unless of course UKIP intends to return us to the Roman times?). Oddly, by being so anti-Tory, the SNP has helped Labour. There's no need for Miliband to offer a formal coalition with Sturgeon, Salmond et al because they've made it clear they wouldn't prop up the Conservatives, the only other plausible big party. Begrudging or otherwise it's clear that the SNP would support Labour even if it made no deal after May 7. Ed will just need to hold his nerve and hope he isn't too reliant on the SNP - something that won't be easy against his feisty Celtic counterpart.

It's difficult to know whether the truth behind the impasse between Labour and the SNP, which neither of the parties will wish to utter in public, will have filtered through from this debate, however. It's always difficult to know if anything at all will change from a TV debate. Will, for example, the simple of fact of not seeing David Cameron on such a stage backfire on him, or help him distance himself from a situation he'll now be able to portray as chaos. The comments from the contenders and watchers on social media suggest it was wrong for the PM to duck the challenge but the important thing is the long-term perception and he'll be hoping that people prefer a chicken to chaos, or at least that it's the latter piled of mud that sticks.

I also wonder what will happen to the Greens. Natalie Bennett, once again, struggled to look as formidable as Nicola Sturgeon when it came to flying the anti-austerity flag. However, I wonder if any English viewers who were impressed with either Sturgeon or Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood will, in time, be won over to voting Green as the 'English alternative' to the SNP or Plaid. Bennett tried her best - at one point over zealously barking her point down the microphone to be heard - but struggled to make an impression once people saw the fascinating game of political footsie between Nicola and Ed emerge. The Scottish First Minister's vow to force Ed and Labour to be better will have spoken to many Old Labour voters, but how will that translate to votes?

And then there's Nigel. Farage fired off with a plea to stand up for the people - making a plea to speak common sense and say what real people are thinking in his opening gambit. I thought this was strong ground for him, the sort of stuff that his 'man in the pub' shtick is made for. And then he chose to attack the audience for being left-wing. I hadn't really heard him booed or jeered so I'm not sure whether this was prompted by anything in particularly or merely a tactic. The anti-BBC stuff will be lapped up by readers of the Mail and his new best mates at the Express, whose owner Richard Desmond handed him a £1 million cheque yesterday. It also feeds the anti-establishment, outsider rhetoric that actually goes down really well in Farage's public speeches. Intended or not, it got the UKIP leader a headline that was only topped by the SNP/Labour exchanges. It was the equivalent of Millwall Football Club's 'no-one likes us, we don't care' manifested as a political campaign and it probably went down well with his core vote who, according to pollsters, are considering returning to the Tory fold.

On the whole Miliband will come away telling himself that the fact it almost turned into 'Ed Miliband's Question Time' for large chunks will be good for helping to paint him as Prime Minister material. The fact that his trio of female questioners will have appealed to his core voters might still undermine his chances though. Given that he's not exactly winning Tories over, he can't really afford for the working class to abandon him. The 'Cameron failed to turn up to his job interview' line from Labour was predictable but strong. Whether that lasts once the debate fades in the past remains to be seen. What's clear, however, is that Nicola won't go away. Can Ed keep his cool and hold her at bay? Only time will tell.

Sturgeon emerging...but Cameron will consider himself TV debate winner

I wasn't able to see the much-hyped seven-way TV political showstopper live. I was out at the time but as I supped a pint in a pub I looked over and saw that the one proper 'leader's debate' was on the screen. The sound was off and the subtitles were on. Nigel Farage's face was on the screen and the text simply read 'controlled immigration'. Not at all predictable then. 

I caught up on ITVPlayer later (how modern) and sadly that one glimpsed shot across a Wetherspoons bar probably summed the whole event up - a little bit predictable. It felt slow, 'safe' and didn't really offer up much of a free flow debate outside of the odd fleeting moment.

That's not to say the whole thing was insignificant. We've come a long way in quite a short space of time since the last election. In 2010 it felt novel that Nick was there alongside Gordon and 'Dave' but now here we were with seven leaders, five years of coalition seemingly proving that the old Red v Blue, Labour v Tory battle is over. Or at least it seems to be for now.

In 2010, 'Cleggmania' was the result of a strong showing by a man smartly able to portray himself an outsider - a fresh face to give us 'new' politics that the expenses and recession hit Westminster bubble badly needed. Buoyed by that, the ITV face-off saw all four new arrivals on the debate podiums try to paint themselves as outsiders offering change. It sometimes seems the race to be the best 'none of the above' candidate is the most hotly contested one these days.

Farage says he offers 'real change' by being anti-EU but I felt he was a little subdued on the night. At last year's European elections he took on Nick Clegg but now, surrounded by a bigger crowd, he offered less gusto and passion. He tried to tell us the others were all the same but they clearly weren't. In fact he seemed more like 'one of the blokes' next to a fresh trio of female contenders. 

I thought maybe he was trying to temper his performance but then came the slightly bizarre 'HIV' line. You fear that there was more than just an 'NHS cost' motive when talking about foreigners with HIV. People from overseas with diabetes, for example, will also cost the health service but that's a condition his supporters might have. This seemed a murkier brand of dog whistle politics.

Leanne Wood flew the flag for Plaid Cymru but her Scottish counterpart proved the most formidable of the new recruits. Nicola Sturgeon managed to speak to voters beyond Scotland and put the anti-austerity case better than Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood or, indeed, Ed Miliband. 

But while the post-debate spotlight has been on Sturgeon - thanks in part to a hotly contested leaked memo - I can't help thinking David Cameron will be the happiest of the lot.

The format meant Ed Miliband got little time to face off with the Prime Minister and, as a result, the Labour leader's efforts to land blows on Cameron felt too forced and fell flat. The odd line resonated but more people probably came away from this feeling Ed still looks a little awkward in the way he uses his hands when he speaks and his tone of voice. It's sad that image counts but in these 'beauty contests' viewers will make their minds up, at least sub consciously, on image and not many people will changed their view on Ed from this.

Cameron must have been standing on the end smiling at the fact that while Ed tried to strike a tone that said 'sensible, prime ministerial, fair', the three ladies all wooed Miliband's core voters with a pitch to the anti-austerity vote. A strong Sturgeon showing is good news for the PM as it reaffirms the belief that the SNP will grab many of Labour's seats in May. Meanwhile, there was less time for Cameron's right-wing to be wooed by Farage. If anything, the most aggressive attacks on the Prime Minister came from Nick Clegg, who set on his coalition partner straight away in a bid to distance himself ahead of the vote.

The other way Cameron wins here is that, through engineering just one debate, he created a situation where all seven leaders played it safe. They knew this was their only chance to wheel out the soundbites and state their case so no-one really took a risk. It all felt a little too stage managed - with very few, if any, stand out lines or moments. Instead I grew tired at the number of time 'balance the books' etc were wheeled out by more than one of the panel.

If anyone emerges as 2015's Clegg it might well be Sturgeon. Many of the papers are now gunning for her and she seems keen to try to get Ed to agree to an anti-Cameron alliance. Miliband must worry that many of his voters might prefer Sturgeon at the helm of their party. In fact, if Sturgeon's anti-austerity pitch does go down well with English voters then Natalie Bennett's Greens are probably better placed to capitalise, even if Bennett does lack a little of the leadership strength of her predecessor Caroline Lucas.

While Cameron will be happy to have diluted Ed Miliband's chances and fended off a potentially difficult situation, he won't have done much to have boosted his own party's appeal. Still, that probably sums up the defensive outlook the Prime Minister has had, from the start of the negotiations on the format of the debate right through to the night itself.