A Cringe Interview with the UK Justice Minister

Going on television to defend indefensible government policy is all part of the joy of being a politician.

But, it has to be said, that the UK Justice Minister, Shabana Mahmood, had a particularly difficult time the other week on Good Morning Britain.

The topic du jour? Why, the government is releasing 1,100 prisoners early from prison - including the violent ex-husband of a woman called Elizabeth Hudson, who assaulted and held a knife to her throat.

While this interview was never going to be easy, Ms Mahmood had the double misfortune of being interviewed by the indomitable Richard Madeley, who has mastered moral outrage to a fault.

Here are three quick lessons we can take away from this lively exchange.

Lesson #1

Ruthlessly take control of the frame

The emotionality of this topic meant it was never going to be difficult to seize the moral high ground.

And Richard did so unashamedly, setting the agenda for the rest of the interview. After detailing the shocking case, he asked: “How could this not be a question of domestic abuse?”

The interviewee naturally had to concede that yes, this is an obvious case of domestic abuse, putting herself on the defensive from the get-go

She then argued the point on legal grounds, which came across as clinical and uncaring concerning such an emotive topic.

The inteviewer’s use of pathos in language to appeal to the audience’s emotion, exposed the minister as not having properly thought through the policy and its impact on the public.

Lesson #2

When your opponent is weak double down

Shabana Mahmood’s main mistake was to attempt to take control of the narrative by blaming the last government for the prison system being on the point of collapse.

In other circumstances, this may have worked. But, in this case it wasn’t a good move.

The interviewer simply doubled down:

“What you just said there is shorthand for “he’s getting out on a technicality.” He’s clearly a domestic abuser. That woman is not far short of being terrified. She doesn’t seem to count at all”.

The minister then starts talking about the rational reason for letting violent prisoners out of gaol, with Richard retorting:

“You talk about it being a matter of law. Then, to quote Dickens: ‘The law’s an ass’”.

At this stage, Richard sounds exasperated, calling his guest out for repeating herself and trying to “talk her way out of the clock” – scolding her like a naughty schoolgirl.

He appealed to her gender and position – using the rhetorical concept of ethos (character) to clarify his point:

“As a justice minister, as a woman you can’t be comfortable with this man being released early”.

By doubling down when his interviewee was weak, the host upped the outrage, with the goal of showing that the situation was morally inexcusable.

Lesson #3

Present a united front to isolate your opponent

When there’s a two-person format, it’s not unusual for one interviewer to be softer than the other - or even to take a different opinion altogether.

In this case, while Richard was undoubtably the dominant voice, his co-host, Susanna Reid, made it clear that she was unequivocally on his side, leaving the interviewee with zero allies.

This was made worse by the fact that the interview was down the line rather than being in-studio, where there may have been another guest to ease the impact.

Like Richard, Susanna also took on the teacher tone, telling Ms Mahmood off when she once again talked about legalities:

“As Richard says, it’s really important we don’t repeat information…the point is that the government said it was going to exclude domestic abusers from early release. Clearly you are not excluding domestic abusers from early release”.

At this stage, the guest repeated the point again, clearly wanting to emphasise the impossibility of the situation from her point of view.

Some of you may have some sympathy by now. After all, it probably wasn’t intentional for a prisoner of this level of risk to be released.

But, technicality or no technicality, there’s not much that can be said to defend the choice to release 1,100 prisoners into society when many of them could pose a threat to public safety.

So, how could Shabana Mahmood have presented her argument instead?

Rather than doubling down on the legal technicalities, Shaheen Mahmood could have shown more empathy - not only to the woman in question, but also to others who could be affected by this oversight.

While she did indeed say she’d go back and look at the case and gave an apology of sorts, it wasn’t enough.

A simple: “I accept that this situation isn’t acceptable. I will go and speak to Elizabeth Hudson personally and do everything in my power to ensure this release does not go ahead. I will also check if there are any other similar cases and do my utmost to make sure that women everywhere are kept safe from dangerous men. You have my word – and apology.”

We’ll be waiting a long time for this kind of humility from a politician – but wouldn’t it be nice?

Until next time,

Hannah