It was great to see Jeremy Paxman back and biting like a bulldog last night and his interviews with David Cameron and Ed Miliband made for compulsive viewing. Blows were traded and hands were waved. But who came out of the first leaders’ showdown as the best communicator?
David Cameron, with everything to lose, looked startled and rattled as Paxman laid into him on the rise in food banks and zero-hours contracts. Ed Miliband, meanwhile - if you could ignore his huge, flailing, kung-fu novice’s hands - took the red bull by the horns and made a real effort to show everyone what a genuine, trustworthy and, ‘hell yes’, tough guy he was.
As far as good communication goes, I think Miliband won. David Cameron looked like a man on the backfoot. Proud of his performance on the economy, yes. But very aware that his political rivals believe they’ve caught him with his trousers down on everything from broken pledges on immigration to the lack of working rights for the low-paid in society.
Cameron was reluctant to accept fault or concede mistakes. Looking irritable and taking regular sips of water, he came across as a man who was sick of defending himself and his record. Not a good thing to communicate when you’re trying to convince the nation that you’re the man to captain the ship in the face of future challenges.
Before the interview, I thought Miliband was a liability for Labour. I remain unconvinced that he’d make a dynamic PM, but I do think he came across as an effective communicator. By focusing on connecting with the audience, speaking with intent and seeming rather genuine, he did his campaign no harm.
He clearly knows his weaknesses and has realised it’s better to be yourself than pretend to be something you’re not. He fought back against Paxman, stuck firmly to his message and smiled at the questions that were supposed to make him squirm.
In simple terms of communicating his message, Miliband gave Cameron a sweet left hook.