CentreRight

Being a gentle soul and a fan of Radio 4, I’ve struggled for years with the problem of what to do with the ten past eight interview problem. They’re so full of conflict – creating more heat than light - however, the interviews and subjects are often too important to miss.

I dislike the hostility of the Today interviewers who interrupt and ignore their guests, many of whom are elected by us listeners. I don’t like hearing a guest being crudely caricatured or having their words twisted to create a more extreme position, and I certainly don’t want to listen to the interview and arrive at work feeling in a worse mood than when I got up.

However, the interviewees are at least as culpable for these problems as the hosts. Prevarication has become an art form and shamelessly answering the question you’d hoped to be asked (however different) seems to be acceptable and applauded as good technique. Another approach is to dominate the airwaves with a long monologue answer that reduces the numbers of hostile supplementaries.  I suspect that the guys from Just a Minute may be offering interview coaching – certainly anyone who can get through a minute of content without interruption has achieved something of note.

There is someone who’s missing form this verbal combat – the verbal jousting of the interviewer and their guest. Yes us, the listener – who is not only the consumer of this programme but also (if the guest is an MP) pays for both sets of salaries from our taxes. We should have a view – a perspective that both Today and our MPs should consider.  Wouldn’t it be lovely to have some short, concise and relevant answers – and courteous and relevant questioning? Is there the smallest chance that offices around the country would be slightly happier first thing because its workers weren’t being managed by someone whose blood pressure had been artificially elevated by John Humphries?

I offer two possible remedies:

Tim Montgomerie's article in The Independent the other day prompted me to drop a few lines which rehearsed why we shouldn't only talk about the change the country needs - but also level with the public about the scale of the task any Government will face in the next few years. It strikes me that there are three other reasons why talking more frankly about the size of the challenge in advance of the General Election will help build stronger foundations for the challenges which will face the Government afterwards.

The first is that a large section of the population is still too insulated about how bad the current position is. Anyone under 40 was too young to remember the winter of discontent - but it was crucial in giving the incoming government in 1979 a mandate for change. In  consultancy we sometimes call it the 'burning platform' - clients often need to see the compelling reason for change. Quite often the guys at a top of an organisation can see the need for it - but those lower in the organisation can be hostile - or just act as 'roadblocks to reform' - so we'll sometimes need to help the senior team to create and communicate the compelling reason for change. This is so relevant right now because in contrast to 1979 the rubbish isn't piling up in the streets and the dead are being buried. If you have a safe job you might actually feel quite  affluent right now - mortgage interest rates are cheaper than ever and all is right with the world. If you have a public sector final salary pension scheme so much the better. In short, a large number of our population don't see the need to fix the economy because they can't see its broken.