Poor DD. He's just been 'Paxmaned'.
I don't think DD, sporting a new tie, turned in a good performance but he remained dignified as he resisted JP's attempts to cover him with the usual effluent.
The questioning on the difference between a promise and a strategy and a guarantee was tortuous. And although DD committed no howler he couldn't keep still. His body language was very defensive. He perspired quite a bit. He was clearly uncomfortable with the tirade of insults that JP threw at him at the beginning of the interview. Insults like 'shit of the year' said to come from his Conservative parliamentary colleagues were greeted with a slightly hurt expression.
Tonight won't have helped Mr Davis although many viewers and voters will have felt some sympathy for him and dislike for Jeremy Paxman and his sneering style. Those interviews aren't designed for enlightenment but to showcase Paxman. The 'interviewer is star' is a bit like most 8.10am Today programme interviews. The interviews are blood sports - not a search for truth.
DC's decision to delay until next Thursday looks wiser tonight. 10% or so more voters will have cast their ballots by this time next week. DC can't be looking forward to JP's questions about his past etc. It was grim tonight; it could be grimmer next week...
I can't wait to watch this on the online repeat, as I was watching Question Time instead (newfound respect for Caroline Spelman - comes across very well indeed)
Will it be as tough for DC? Well he can't pin him down on specifics as he could DD, and I doubt he'll find any insults as bad as 'shit of the year'. Any interview with Paxman is not about whether you come badly out of it, but how badly you come out of it. No-one looks good when he interviews them, but a few look absolutely awful. Perhaps it was to neither candidates' advantage to accept these interviews.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 10 November 2005 at 23:31
David Davis was beaten by Paxman - but that's forgivable. The important thing will be how Cameron fares in comparison.
As an aside, Caroline Spelman is putting in a typically well-received performance on Question Time. She may not be a bruiser, but the new leader would be well-advised to give her a high-profile position if they want to connect to more voters.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 23:34
Paxman treats politicians with the respect they deserve - none.
We need more interviewers like him - why should we let politicians getting away with dissembling and spinning. Is David Davis committing to £38 billion of tax cuts or not? Is it an aspiration, a hope, an intention or what? "Its a strategy" - what does that mean? Its not a guarantee or a promise, so what is it?
But I do think Cameron would be best off getting a sick note from him mum next Thursday. Paxman is going to demand an answer to the "Were you a coke-head?" question.
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | 10 November 2005 at 23:36
Apologies for making the same point on two threads, but this seems more appropriate in this new topic...
'Working mothers are worse mothers’ is unacceptable and from another age.
I wish I’d never mentioned any of Davis's other misdemeanors – this is proof positive that he will further alienate the majority of the female vote.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 10 November 2005 at 23:36
Caroline is great. This is an example of women getting on in the Tory party (see Brooks Newmarks Platform piece). Caroline stood in Bassetlaw three elections (I think) before me.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 10 November 2005 at 23:41
"This is proof positive that he will further alienate the majority of the female vote."
No it isn't. If he'd actually said 'working mothers are worse mothers', you might have a point but he didn't actually say that did he Mark? But let's not let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to produce some more cheap anti-Davis spin eh?
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 23:45
I dont think Paxman interviews help politics in general at all - but thankfully only political anorkas watch him.
He just confirms the aggressive type of politics which make people switch off.
I always thought the most dangerous interview is the one where the interviewee is relaxed and is expecting an eays ride. Its in those situtaions when someones guard is down that you can get some real answers to questions.
Posted by: Jonathan Sheppard | 10 November 2005 at 23:46
You think so Guido? In general, journalists are a lower form of life even than politicians.
Posted by: Sean Fear | 10 November 2005 at 23:47
"Working mothers are worse mothers"? Did he really say that? Christ...
Posted by: Cllr Iain Lindley | 10 November 2005 at 23:47
Daniel, if stay-at-home mums are better, working mums are???
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 10 November 2005 at 23:47
""Working mothers are worse mothers"? Did he really say that? Christ..."
No he didn't say that at all.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 10 November 2005 at 23:49
There was no comparison to working mums.
Stay at home mums are better than - being brought up by a non family member such as a nanny
or
Stay at home mums are better than... sending your child to boarding school....
A wide range of answer Mark
Posted by: Jules | 10 November 2005 at 23:52
It was classic theatre. The vitriolic start to the interview meant that although I was going to record it and watch question time, I decided to do the opposite. DD kept as calm as possible in the circumstances, but he was clearly a little shocked by the opening tirade. He was certainly tied in a few knots by the question of whether his tax cuts were guaranteed. I gave it as a win for Paxman on points. But DD deserves some credit for keeping his head.
Posted by: Derek | 10 November 2005 at 23:55
Sorry, to save repeating to much from the empty chair thread, I abbreviated my posts there, which accidentally made things unclear.
Paxo asked something very similar to "do stay at home mothers make better mothers". Davis replied "yes, mostly they do". Effectively 'working mothers are worse mothers'.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 10 November 2005 at 23:56
DD kept his head...but the stutter..the umms and arrs came flooding back. This performance on QT was good last week....this has basically demonstrated that his communication skills are not up to standard. I hope Cameron does better and gets rid of those rumours who say he's an IDS.
Posted by: Jaz | 10 November 2005 at 23:58
Unfortunately, I didn't see it. Will watch it online later. You never do well or express yourself properly with Paxman, but the question is: did he survive? What do y'all think? Not 'did he do well' but 'did he survive intact'?
Posted by: buxtehude | 10 November 2005 at 23:58
I believe that DD has made a personal statement here and in the perfect world all mums would be able to feel satisfied at home and be able to have a good standard of living supported by their partner.
I know many 'wage slave' mothers who are excellent parents (I include myself of course) and I also know many stay-at-home mothers who are appalling, drinking in pubs at lunch time with their kids in tow, living off the state at a standard of living they couldn't earn for themselves, only on Wife Swap a couple of weeks ago there was an example of a mother of four who let them bring themselves up - feeding themselves, choosing their own bedtime, no boundaries, and no directions.
I wonder whether DD's wife worked outside of the home or not, perhaps this helped to form his opinion but I certainly wouldn't hold it against him.
Posted by: a-tracy | 11 November 2005 at 00:00
Paxman's opening question was out of order. DC's team must prep him well.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 11 November 2005 at 00:02
DD was also said that parents should know if their daughter is having an abortion - as DC did on R5 this am. Good on both of them.
Posted by: Editor | 11 November 2005 at 00:03
"DD was also said that parents should know if their daughter is having an abortion - as DC did on R5 this am. Good on both of them."
No doubt Feminist Fulford will be treating us all to one of his diatribes about male chauvinist pigs in response to this ;-)
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 11 November 2005 at 00:07
Agreed editor (assuming that she is under 16). They should also have the power to stop the abortion and adopt the child if they want to.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 11 November 2005 at 00:08
Davis was good. He wasn't great, but he was good. He kept his head. He answered the questions. Paxman didn't get his kill.
I chalj that as a triumph for an interviewer whose aim is obviously to destroy his interviewee.
The big mistake was the setting. Why did DD sit in fromt of that awful Thatcher portrait?
Never mind. Paxo has Cammybabes for canapes...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 November 2005 at 00:09
"I chalj"
Should say "I count". I apologise for the abject failure of tough typing.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 November 2005 at 00:11
""Working mothers are worse mothers"? Did he really say that? Christ..."
No he didn't say that at all.
Indeed he didn't. Are the Cameroons here sinking into fantasy, or are they swept up by the cult of the Paxman?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 11 November 2005 at 00:13
James, since I'm so inaccurate, perhaps you'd repeat what he did say.
Feminist Fulford has a sister, wife and two daughters and cares passionately that they should have the same opportunities for challenge and fulfillment that I do - without being judged by men.
On the U16 abortion front - I believe that parents normally should know but, under exceptional circumstances (and more than the judgement of a single GP), it can be kept private. There are parents who would beat their children...
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 11 November 2005 at 00:16