How often have you heard an interview with a politician where, despite repeatedly being presented with a straightforward line of questioning, they manage to avoid giving a single relevant answer?

Instead of a sincere reply, somehow there emerges a saccharine slew of pre-packaged promises and carefully planned diversions. It's not quite lying, but it certainly doesn't ring true, leaving the listener in a kind of linguistic purgatory where the question serves only as a platform to discuss what a politician wants to talk about, completely avoiding what they don't. It can be excruciating to hear someone locked in a cyclical conversation with an interviewer, one refusing to budge until they are satisfied with the answer, the other adamantly refusing to offer anything other than irrelevant waffle reeking of propaganda and an inability to think on their feet.

Robust media training used to be the hallmark of a great politician, now it often just rings false. In an era where interviews can be clipped, posted and viewed by just about anyone, contact with the press has become more frequent, and important than ever. One misstep through a field of wheat and you're a laughing stock, one out of touch interview and the people you rely on to vote for you feel alienated and ignored.

Nobody can identify media training like those working in the media, and it can be incredibly entertaining, albeit morbidly, to see a tenacious interviewer refusing to relent while their subject squirms. An ability to sit in the tension is a very difficult skill to learn, and people might not want to risk upsetting or alienating a high profile interview subject, so there is often not room to dig deeply enough for the truth. When, however, the interviewer doesn't mind making their subject uncomfortable, the results can be excruciating.

The Herald: Sir Keir Starmer refused to answer drug questionsSir Keir Starmer refused to answer drug questions (Image: free)

Take Sir Keir Starmer’s recent interview in which he was asked about his alleged consumption of drugs. His reply was short, saying he, “had a good time at university”. His reasoning was clear, to admit to any kind of illegal activity might risk undermining his credibility as a potential country-leading voice, and for whatever reason he clearly felt unable to deny outright any involvement with drugs.

This is the kind of noncommittal, evasive answer given by politicians when they're put on the spot, which shouldn't get them into trouble so long as the subject is quickly changed. Unfortunately for Starmer, this didn't happen, the interviewer wasn't satisfied and asked again, and again – seven times until Keir seemed to bristle, lose a little of the practised cool and said, “I'm not going down that road.”

This wasn't even the first time he'd been grilled on the subject. During an interview with Piers Morgan he was asked 14 times if he had ever taken drugs, responding, "We worked hard and played hard." It's an interesting case study in what happens when evasive tactics don't work, and it exposes one of the key questions media training is designed to address: I don't want to speak about this, how can I avoid doing so in an undetectable way?

There are many reasons why a politician might not give a straight answer. They might simply not have a reply, after all regardless of how prepared someone might be there will always be gaps in their knowledge. Particularly when a question is incredibly specific, or relates to facts and figures it's often more professional to avoid comment than to say something demonstrably incorrect. As the old saying goes: better to shut your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

They might also be unable to comment due to the nature of the question and the impact a response might have, professionally or personally. Often, though, politicians skirt around the answer because telling the interviewer what they really think would make them, or their party look bad, and they don't want that to happen.

It can be such a difficult balance to walk, trying to reconcile relatability with professionalism, truth with agenda. Every party will train their representatives to speak to the media, they all have a mission statement, a message to push and sometimes questions serve only as a distraction from their agenda, an obstacle to be overcome in order to convey what they actually want to discuss.

READ MORE LENNIE PENNIE

What a pair of Twits! Greg James and Chris Smith's ableist comments

Coeliac disease isn’t a fad, or a preference, it’s a serious condition

Lennie Pennie calls for criminal justice system to put victims first

At its core, media training isn't nefarious and it's not just for politicians either, all it's designed to do is help you feel more in control when you're being asked questions. I received some training before going on my book tour – writing about trauma often invites personal and potentially invasive questions and learning how to remain calm and focused in stressful environments was something I needed help with. I learned a technique called “bridging”, where you recognise the question in a brief acknowledgement, then you move swiftly onto a related topic you're actually prepared, and willing, to discuss. This only works if you do the first part, otherwise people feel as though they're not being listened to, and rightly so. If your audience feel as though you're deliberately ignoring or avoiding their points, the issue is arguably not media training or a lack thereof, but an inability or unwillingness to listen and empathise.

It's no longer enough for politicians to be good at politics, they must also be good with people – every interview, every soundbite can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion. Personality can make or break a public figure and what once might have proven an effective means of shifting the narrative to suit political goals, now often comes across as evasive and impersonal.

The disparity between the earning potential of politicians and the average citizen is stark, we are being led by people who will most likely walk through life unscathed by the legislation they often callously impose on their constituents. When it comes to the UK, the Prime Minister is a billionaire, the leader of the opposition a millionaire, and in Scotland, those in the highest office can expect to earn over £100,000 every year.

For better or for worse people in such privileged financial positions are often not best placed to relate to those they're trying to lead. The public knows when they're not being listened to, or when their questions aren't being answered, and they don't often take kindly to lip service or having important subjects glossed over with meaningless slogans and buzzwords.

A key part of public service – after all that is what politics should entail – is to be able to listen and respond with relevant, empathetic and constructive replies. In an era where real change is needed, politicians need to change their approach or risk losing any hope of being seen as relatable, competent and well-informed. The next time you hear any politician answer a question, listen out for tactics designed to avoid accountability and shift blame, to stop you from getting to the heart of the matter, or root of the problem.