To think Jeremy Paxton

[Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost]

Is a nasty piece of work. Didn't see the necessity in him saying to Ed Miliband people see you as a Geek! What's that got to do with him running the country. Hate personal insults
I thought Ed did very well. He already has my vote as I am strong labour supporter.

He was really horrible to Milliband; didn't make any personal insults to Cameron but loads to Milliband. Unpleasant to watch.

Bourdic - yes, I thought he was tbh.

If Paxman was a woman, he would be hated!

He can be a truly rude horror, which is a shame because at other times he can be very effective.

Tonight I turned off after the geek thing, yeeuch!

On another occasion he was spectacularly rude to a greek "guest" on Newsnight and I cringed for all concerned.

Sadly, Miliband was awful. He has spent a week preparing for tonight. Don't tell me he was not prepped for the geek thing. His reply was startlingly inadequate.

I don't think Paxman is as good as his rep. He believes his own hype.

He talks over answers and twists answers.

Saying that Milliband and Cameron are two cheeks of the same arse in my humble opinion.

Thank fuck for the SNP

He's a fucking prick whose attack dog mentality has played a role in trivialising political debate. I didn't watch the debates as I knew precisely how it would go.

Politicians know that he goes in on the attack before they've even opened their mouths, so they just clam up and straight bat every response. He rarely gets anything out of interviewees, other than a boost to his own ego.

I'm not advocating going back to the deferential tone of the 1950s with 'Can you explain your government's policy to me Mr Macmillan' type questioning, but there needs to be more subtlety.

I remember in the immediate aftermath of the credit crunch Evan Davies started his interview with a Labour minister with:

"it must be dreadful being blamed for global events over which you have no control" - Minister agreed and reiterated that we were in a global financial crisis.

Then came the killer: "If this is the case, why were you so happy to take the credit when the economy was going well." - Silence.

I agree shouldof, Paxman's "are you OK" at the end to Ed Milliband was below the belt. I'm not sure if EM even knew that part was being broadcast.

For those that missed it

(As lights are being dimmed at end of programme) JP: Are you OK Ed?

EM: (In high squeaky upset voice) Sorry?

JP: I said are you OK Ed?

EM: (In stroppy terse Kevin voice reminiscent of the teenager thread on here) Yeah, Yeah I'm fine (audible sulk)

I haven't seen the incident in question but I agree with Dawndonnaagain on all counts.

I don't like Paxman. I don't like that sneery style of interviewing - I think you get much better results when you ask people stuff politely. They are much more likely to lose their guard. (Eddie Mair is a master at this.)

What really turned me against him was when he was presenting Start the Week on Radio 4 and he was interviewing a very inexperienced academic who had just written a book. The academic was being slightly evasive about the answer (possibly because he didn't know) and Paxman really hectored him and got very nasty leaving the poor guy stuttering and stumbling over his words. There was no need for it.

on no we need someone who can take them on and ask hard questions. he was tough on cameron too, esp zero hours contracts, people do think ed is a geek, so great he can ansa all on national tv and defend himself

I really like him and am truly concerned about the prospect of Ed having any part in the running of the country after last night (I agree, there was way too much "me,me,me") but all the stuff about "your brother is better than you" and "you're seen as a geek" was unnecessary. It doesn't add anything to political debate to go down this route. Whether or not he was prepared to create tension in his family over his career and whether or not he has a good public image is not relevant to his policies.

From my perspective though he was embarrassingly weak. You can't simply say "we got it very wrong last time but I've got lots of ideas, but until I'm in power I don't need to think about how I'll actually put any of this into practice"

Wouldn't it be great if we could simply say "when I'm in power everyone will be given a million pound house, a robot servant and a luxury holiday to the seychelles each year" and then click your fingers and it just happens.

Truly worried that the hate in the country will make people vote labour without thinking things through.

I really dislike Paxman. Smug, arrogant twat imo.

You see my dp says that he's read that Westminster runs scared of debating with ed because he wipes the floor with them. He told me this at least 2 years ago, before all the election debate stuff but I haven't seen much evidence of it. Is paxman a Tory? I don't think Cameron did that well. The food bank and zero hrs contract answers were laughable and obviously illogical. There are more food banks because now the job centre is allowed to refer people to them. How does that make sense? Also we've been referring to them for decades.

Someone posted they are going to vote Tory just because they didn't personally like Ed?

Err policies?

He was a complete twat to Ed last night. Made himself look pathetic.

He did not let him finish questions and got personal. I thought Ed handled it well and I warmed to him much more. Paxman totally fucked it all up, I didn't come away with more knowledge like I expected to.

Kate Burly was even worse. She was a complete idiot.

YANBU

Why are people so hung up on zero hours contracts? They've been around for donkey's years.

I'm an employment lawyer. There are not that many organisations that use zero hours contracts anyway but a zero hours contract is this:

We don't have a permanent role at the moment but we would like to offer you some work if you'd like it because we do have a sporadic need for workers?

Yes please

It won't be regular you understand, but as and when we can give you some work we'd like you. Its like agency work really but you have a contract directly with us.

Yes please

OK well we need a contract with you just so that we're both clear on what you'll be paid etc when you do any work for us. It doesn't guarantee you any hours because we don't know what our requirements will be but as and when you work for us it governs our relationship in exactly the same way as any other contract.

Yes please, can I work elsewhere when you don't have anything for me?

Absolutely, as we said, its just like doing some agency work for us but without the agency in the middle. Its what we used to call a casual contract.

OK.

What exactly is the problem? Clearly we'd all like permanent employment but leaving aside those cases where the worker is put on a zero hours contract but then works like a permanent worker (in which case they'll gain employment rights after two years just like everyone else anyway), its not anything new

What really irritates me is the lazy thinking of judging a party based on two figure heads.

Lazy, conflict driven television (no different to Jeremy Kyle) to patronise the masses.

People should just look at the policies and decide.

I thought he was fantastic and I agree with Dawn I want my
Politicians nailed to the floor too.

Excellent tv.

Exactly, Laurie

But what if the employer is not using for sporadic work requirements. I know people who work at wetherspoons and sports direct and they say everyone is on zero hours. (though they are not management). It messes them around hours wise. I cannot see it is the case that these companies don't have permanent positions? Really? So there has to be a benefit to zero hours. In fact dp was on zero hours and he had a right fight to make them see he had acquired employment rights. Lots of his colleagues did not want to rock the boat (but of course joined in when the company capitulated and have them the same rights!)

Thanks to atticus for making that clearer so that more people might understand. I was employing people on so called zero hours contracts 20 years ago - everyone knew where they stood and not a single person declined a job because of it.

Atticusclaw - I agree.

Some companies have a genuine need for zero hours contracts, and some people are happy to work them.

I agree with DC, that what's important is ensuring that people don't get stuck in an exclusive zero hours contract, with no possibility to also seek other work...which I learned last night has been banned under this Government. Which is bloody good IMO.

This video (once the clips with Portillo and Blair are over) shows why Paxman is great. He asks questions which people would like to ask of politicians, and he doesn't let them get away with not answering.

Because the same job security you have would be nice for many Atticus and because those that run the benefits system which enables people to live when the sporadic nature of the job is such that there is no employment, is completely unreliable.