That's the question asked by Peter Barron, Newsnight Editor, in his latest column. Mr Barron reflects on the recent Tory leadership interviews and (in addition to an 'aren't-we-so-very-important' side-swipe at corporate lawyers) his column betrays some annoyance at the way Jeremy Paxman's sneering interviewing style has been covered.
He talks about a "pre-match psychological skirmish of which Jose Mourinho would have been proud". In his mind is Michael Gove's brilliant spoof of a Jeremy Paxman interview of Jesus Christ. Mr Gove, a regular on Friday's Newsnight Review, appears to have got under Newsnight's skin. "The point Michael Gove misses," writes Barron, "is that, despite their undoubted charms, neither Mr Davis nor Mr Cameron has descended from heaven to become leader of the Conservative Party. They are standing for high public office and it's right that they should be subjected to detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies."
But does Jeremy Paxman really subject politicians to "detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies"? Take last night's DC versus JP encounter. Was JP really interested in finding out what DC believed or was he interested in catching him out on some barely relevant detail? He was very interested in talking about whether or not DC has used Class A drugs in the past but failed to subject him to any detailed questioning on his policy views on cannabis or ecstasy. This interest in personality over policy is a problem throughout the media. JP wanted to shout about inconsistencies in David Cameron's position but he didn't want to find out why he might have changed his mind. Constant interruptions barely allowed David Davis to deliver any kind of message last week. Mr Cameron handled Mr Paxman's interventions very well but he was still subjected to a bombardment of tangential questions.
Part of Mr Barron's justification for Jeremy Paxman's style is that "he'll face withering exchanges at the dispatch box". But that, too, is part of the problem of the British system. Tony Blair rarely puts a foot wrong at PMQs. He is a good interviewee. But he's a lousy Prime Minister - all big ideas and clever spinning, but no delivery. Many politicians "perform" well at PMQs and in Paxman interviews but we need to find much better ways of really testing their abilities to govern.
American voters prefer Governors over Senators when it comes to electing Presidents. They like the idea of electing someone who has shown that they can administer a budget and implement reforms. Debating and TV abilities matter, too, of course but experience of life and CEO-type skills are also highly prized. If Conservatives are serious about localism a new generation of city mayors might emerge over the next twenty years. An ability to run a city might be a better way of identifying future cabinet ministers and leaders... better, even, than a Snoozenight interrogation.
Recent Comments