Answer the question - yes or no?

By James Landale
BBC Deputy Political Editor

Politicians have different reasons for giving a direct yes or no

Do politicians always answer the question? Yes. Do they always answer the question in the way we want? No.

Is that the question? Yes.

Where do we find the answer?

On Radio 4's iPM, where three brave MPs are interviewed on the condition they answer only "yes" or "no" to every question asked.

iPM is the BBC Radio 4 show that starts with its listeners, and one of them, Brett Hanlon emailed to express his frustration at the failure of many politicians to give straight answers to straight questions.

The programme persuaded Grant Shapps, Tory housing spokesman; Norman Baker, Lib Dem transport spokesman; and Labour MP Stephen Pound to answer ten "yes-no" questions, each posed by other listeners.

Listen in to hear their answers but I can tell you they acquit themselves rather well - although Mr Baker does get into a muddle over whether or not he eats sausages.

Case for the defence

People often moan about politicians refusing to answer questions.

And often they are right.

Politicians wish to get their message across; they do not want to acknowledge weakness in their argument.

There are some politicians - I name no names - who hardly tip their hat at the question before reciting the party slogan or that day's "line to take".

This infuriates the interviewer and audience alike.

But let me briefly make the case for the defence.

None of us answer all questions truthfully.

We exaggerate, skirt round difficult issues, fail to tell the whole story. We all on occasion are deceitfully charming white-liars who tell Mrs Miggins how lovely she looks when in fact she is a Gorgon.

Who has never said how nice it is to see unexpected visitors when all we wish to do is collapse in a sofa with a strong whisky?

So do not expect sainthood from politicians; they are just like the rest of us.

Candid politicians are popular with the public but less so with colleagues

Remember too that politicians do not operate in isolation. Candour may win them friends in studios, but it could make them enemies in Cabinet.

Politicians have many constituencies of which the public are only one.

So a minister might skirt an issue because he does not wish to make life difficult for a colleague who could be a vital ally on another issue.

You, the listener, are not his only audience.

Candid politicians like the Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke are popular among the public but less so among their colleagues.

Peace by deceit

Successful politics can sometimes require politicians to be less than open.

In Northern Ireland, something called "constructive ambiguity" was used repeatedly throughout the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement.

All the parties agreed to park more contentious issues by refusing to acknowledge the difficulties, by refusing to be specific about their positions, by fudging and ignoring questions from the media.

For example, often the parties refused to acknowledge who among them had or had not been a terrorist in the past. This allowed them to reach agreement on easier issues and make progress.

In other words, peace was helped by deceit.

And remember too that many contemporary Labour politicians came of age politically when the media did nothing but attack their party when it was led by Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.

They learned to be cautious, disciplined, very aware that a word out of place would be blown up as a gaffe on the next day's front pages.

So they learned to be safe and boring and ultimately elected.

Verbal combat

Let us be frank too. Most journalists are looking for a new line in a story.

So we try - through vigorous, rigorous questioning - to wheedle out a confession, a slip, a gaffe, a nugget of information.

All that is right and proper and what we journalists do on the audience's behalf.

But do not blame the politician for putting up a defence.

Interviewing is often verbal combat. Do not expect either side to come to the table without a shield.

The problem for politicians today is that the electorate has grown more sophisticated.

A safe and boring refusal to answer the question is frequently more damaging than taking a risk and saying what they believe.

So now candour - or at least apparent candour - is the best technique for interviews.

It will do Messrs Shapps, Baker and Pound no harm in their political careers to come on iPM and burnish their reputation for being open.

The trouble is that yes/no answers are only sometimes useful.

If the question requires it, as in: "Did you decide to go to war in Iraq months before you finally told the public?", then a yes/no answer is effective.

But often, as someone who interviews politicians more often than is perhaps healthy, I do not want a yes/no answer.

I will tend to know already what position a politician would or has taken.

What I want to learn is why and how?

I want to know their thinking. So a question that prompts a yes/ no answer is no use to me or the audience.

I want them to be forced into explaining themselves.

Few questions can really be answered in a black or white yes or no.

Reality is grey. But if you want to hear at least some questions answered with a yes or a no, then tune in to iPM.

You can hear iPM on BBC Radio 4 at 0545 on Saturdays.

The programme is also available as a podcast and via iPlayer

You can leave your comments on the story on the iPM blog here .