I watched this on the night and I made a decision as to how it went.
I however watched it back today and I picked up on the nuances that I missed and realised there were more hard policy questions to one of them than the other. I fully appreciate others will disagree but this was my conclusion.
It was all in all pretty crap.
I did not see any bias on Paxmans part as eluded to!. The problem with Paxman was his questions were either rude, reasonable or worthless. Cameron had the dinosaur question of class warfare and Ed Miliband had the pathetic questions re stabbing his brother in the back and his appearance. Anybody truly concerned in trying to decide who to vote for wouldn't find either point interesting or even worthy of adult questioning.
I thought the time was wasted by trying to belittle BOTH Cameron and Miliband rather than concentrating on policy and finances. It confirmed to my mind I would have preferred a head to head debate where the questions were fired at both of them at the same time and the questions were not loaded to benefit either of them. I appreciate that was Cameron's doing but I think he made a mistake .
Why did the format change ? Cameron had the Paxman monstering first and settled down with the audience whereas Miliband was calmer with having the audience questioning first and Paxmans monstering second.
Buying fresh peaches and nectarines


