Grand Inquisitors
One of the most interesting events of Mrs Thatcher's career was when she gave an interview on Soviet TV before the end of communism.
The interviewers went for her but had not thought through what would happen.
Mrs T had spent her political career in a country where politicians and journalists are allowed both to sharply criticise each other and to fire back.
Pravda, Tass and Radio Moscow were used to throwing easy shots to politburo members. They were not used to throwing difficult questions to someone who could answer back.
When they tried to criticise someone who was used to dealing with hostile interviews, Maggie completely wiped the floor with them. Most British MPs could probably have done the same.
And yet the most devastating interviewers of my lifetime, IF you were interested in seeing the truth come out, were NOT the most aggressive. The Paxmans of this world are not and never have been as effective as those who draw politicians out with questioning which starts out friendly and constructive and then, when and only when a rapport and dialogue has been established, start on the really difficult questions.
That's why the late David Frost was rightly regarded as one of the most brilliant interviewers of all time, although in my opinion Brian Walden was even more effective.
Iain Martin correctly predicted in the Daily Telegraph here that the interview of energy bosses by a parliamentary select committee would be conducted in an overly aggressive manner and generate more heat than light. As he put it, Show trials make for bad government.
There are two sides to this argument. It is important that sometimes people in power, people responsible for running a public service, and people who are running companies which may have a big impact on people's lives should be accountable and should face transparent questioning, sometimes harsh questioning.
I never resented being held to account in Full Council or an Overview and Scrutiny Committee when I was a council portfolio holder running an important public service.
You can't always tell what style of questioning someone may or may not be able to cope with. I remember one incident when an aspiring parliamentary candidate who I was worried might be a very bad pick nevertheless sailed easily through very sophisticated questioning at a selection committee and Executive stage, but completely self-destructed in front of far more basic questioning at the Special General Meeting.
And the questions from ordinary members didn't start out hostile - they just wanted straight answers to some fairly simple questions about where the candidate stood on Europe, and could tell that they were not getting them.
I don't think it's entirely a bad thing when MPs play grand inquisitor, especially when they are expressing frustrations which are undoubtedly shared by the public, but in an important way, Iain Martin is right.
Sometimes less is more. You can often bring out far more of what is going on with polite and constructive questioning than with a "show trial" style. Perhaps the MPs who serve on the House of Commons public accounts committee and the Energy and Climate Change committee should be encouraged to watch a few hours of Brian Walden's interviews.
The interviewers went for her but had not thought through what would happen.
Mrs T had spent her political career in a country where politicians and journalists are allowed both to sharply criticise each other and to fire back.
Pravda, Tass and Radio Moscow were used to throwing easy shots to politburo members. They were not used to throwing difficult questions to someone who could answer back.
When they tried to criticise someone who was used to dealing with hostile interviews, Maggie completely wiped the floor with them. Most British MPs could probably have done the same.
And yet the most devastating interviewers of my lifetime, IF you were interested in seeing the truth come out, were NOT the most aggressive. The Paxmans of this world are not and never have been as effective as those who draw politicians out with questioning which starts out friendly and constructive and then, when and only when a rapport and dialogue has been established, start on the really difficult questions.
That's why the late David Frost was rightly regarded as one of the most brilliant interviewers of all time, although in my opinion Brian Walden was even more effective.
Iain Martin correctly predicted in the Daily Telegraph here that the interview of energy bosses by a parliamentary select committee would be conducted in an overly aggressive manner and generate more heat than light. As he put it, Show trials make for bad government.
There are two sides to this argument. It is important that sometimes people in power, people responsible for running a public service, and people who are running companies which may have a big impact on people's lives should be accountable and should face transparent questioning, sometimes harsh questioning.
I never resented being held to account in Full Council or an Overview and Scrutiny Committee when I was a council portfolio holder running an important public service.
You can't always tell what style of questioning someone may or may not be able to cope with. I remember one incident when an aspiring parliamentary candidate who I was worried might be a very bad pick nevertheless sailed easily through very sophisticated questioning at a selection committee and Executive stage, but completely self-destructed in front of far more basic questioning at the Special General Meeting.
And the questions from ordinary members didn't start out hostile - they just wanted straight answers to some fairly simple questions about where the candidate stood on Europe, and could tell that they were not getting them.
I don't think it's entirely a bad thing when MPs play grand inquisitor, especially when they are expressing frustrations which are undoubtedly shared by the public, but in an important way, Iain Martin is right.
Sometimes less is more. You can often bring out far more of what is going on with polite and constructive questioning than with a "show trial" style. Perhaps the MPs who serve on the House of Commons public accounts committee and the Energy and Climate Change committee should be encouraged to watch a few hours of Brian Walden's interviews.
Comments
I tend to comment on this blog as a member of no party. like i said before i have sympathy with grass roots torys and Ukip, but i would tend to try and put that aside.
I judge each policy on its feasibility, and it was quite right for me to go for the jugular when DC blamed Red Ed for the "climate change act" When DC himself voted in favour of it.
its why i critisise the "help to buy scheme" so much. If the government do make a good decision then I state that, like i did with
the "back to work scheme"
sadly the uk government does not have an opposition worthy to be there in the houses of parliament, so i have to do it here.