When David Cameron got up yesterday morning and ate his Shredded Wheat (however many he managed) he had a very different sort of a day planned. It was his mate William’s last day at work and they’d planned a little going-away wheeze to get rid of that troublesome speaker. Then he’d go on telly and win the country by being pretty good at being prime minister.

It didn’t work out that way. Instead, Hague’s last wheeze blew up in his face – under fire from all sides. Labour MPs left parliament with their tails up and their spirits high. Tories left in disunited disarray.

Then came the first non-debate. And now we know why Cameron won’t go face to face with Ed Miliband.

From the off it was clear that Cameron’s lifelong avoidance of serious scrutiny has not led him to develop a skin thick enough to cope with Jeremy Paxman’s hairdryer treatment. He looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights as Paxman quizzed him on food banks, his predilection for defending rich wronguns, zero hours contracts and much more. Cameron stammered, spluttered and failed to answer to the end.

He did better with the audience. He didn’t say much and he took a long time not saying it, but this, plus Kay Burley’s almost obsequious deference, got him through. He appeared at times genial and affable in a way he hadn’t with Paxman.

Ed’s session with the audience was tougher. The questions were harsher right from the off, Burley was far more combative right down to a fairly nasty interjection about Ed’s ‘poor mother’. He handled it well – he likes this format – though he still has a few verbal tics he should iron out. My non-partisan colleagues have jokingly started every sentence this morning with ‘Shall I explain’. Don’t tell us you’re going to tell us Ed. Just do it.

The tell for me that he was doing well was the reaction from some of the audience members, especially the woman who asked the second question about Ed not being on the side of the successful. She seemed both happy with the answer and the performance Ed gave overall. Every time the camera cut back to her she was nodding.

Ed probably did best in his session against Paxman. Ed’s sort of already known as quite an affable bloke. In part, that’s where some of the concern about him comes from – a sense that he won’t be tough enough. So baring his teeth right back at a snarling Paxman probably did him more good than his genial mauling from the general public. Paxman was just as tough on Ed as he was on Cameron but Ed wasn’t having it. He got right back in Paxman’s face which was as refreshing as it was unexpected.

As an aside, there is a real division over how Paxman is seen and I think it might be generational. Again those young voters in my office were united in one response to him – disgust. They want a journalism that illuminates politics – not sullies it. I was quite shocked at the levels of vitriol they all displayed. If this is true among other young people, then again, Ed will have done himself no harm in standing up to the once untouchable beast.

I am biased. We all are. So I try very hard to make sure I don’t allow that bias to override my objectivity. I thought the clear winner last night was Ed Miliband, but then I would, wouldn’t I? So I try to get the opinions of those whose biases are the opposite of mine. The Tory pundits all gave the debate to Miliband – even after the snap polls gave it to Cameron.

The gap between Ed and David in those polls has narrowed significantly. Given where they started the day, that was a good day’s work from Ed Miliband. He is now seen as a contender after all. That must have left Cameron munching mournfully on his muesli this morning wondering where it all went wrong. If he’s doing the same come 8 May, it might be this non-debate – a format almost explicitly designed to favour him and from which he has still come away somewhat battered and bruised – that gives him some initial answers.

———————————

Emma Burnell is a political blogger and campaigner. She tweets @EmmaBurnell_