IN SEARCH OF BETTER POLITICAL LEADERS

Matthew Guy’s Liberal-National coalition lost Saturdays’ Victorian State election decisively. It was an appalling display that has repercussions for the Liberal party in Victoria and does not augur well for Scott Morrison.

But what does that mean and what are the answers?

I do not explore policy comparisons and positioning, as that’s for others and, in reality, is ‘outside my lane’ as the saying goes.  My expertise and interest is in marrying substance and style, in blending content with presence for a more congruent political result in the electorate. 

“It’s a major problem for a political party that they can not speak to Victorians effectively” says Monash University’s political scientist Paul Strango. 

Ben Potter in the AFR (24-25vNov 2018) describes it as  ‘branding problems’.

Let’s get specific. From the perspective of my work in communication  through body-language, voice and structures of engagement, the meaning behind these statements is palpable.

This is something Nixon learnt in the famous original Presidential TV debate between Nixon (Vice-President at the time and Republican Party nominee) and Kennedy (Democratic Party candidate). Nixon sweating with what looked like a five o’clock shadow and furtive quick sideway glances did not translate at all well on television compared to the relaxed, witty, handsome and urbane Kennedy who controlled his body and eye movements to look in control, stable and calm. He projected authority. Nixon projected fear.

Again, famously, those who listened on radio only, without seeing any vision, scored the debate heavily in Nixon’s favour on policy answers; nevertheless the TV audience, far greater in number by 1960, were swayed by Kennedy’s physical performance demonstrated through his subtle controlled body language. 

The recent debate preceding the State election in Victoria and convened by David Speers of SkyNews encapsulated the contrasting styles of Victoria’s two leaders. Elevating to levels neither deserves: Andrews was Kennedy and Guy was Nixon. Overall the debate was - l have to say - unimpressive! 

That said, Daniel Andrewshas learnt and adapted through his recent years as leader. He is now presenting with an authoritative presence and a sense of control and calm. He is still awkward but that’s a little ingrained and a bit his natural state albeit he now makes it work for him and seems more at ease. 

Indeed, Andrews controlled the ‘stage’ for much of the night being physically taller juxtaposed to Mathew Guy, a much smaller man. l was reminded of Trump physically dominating Hilary Clinton in the debates; particularly the second and third debates where they moved around. Trump’s aim was to both intimidate (in the moment) and signal domination to the TV audience. He largely succeeded although in reality it was not a good look and came off as unpleasant and a bit weird as well as reeking of bullying! In any normal circumstance, a woman would have garnered sympathetic interpretation but the complications of Clinton’s awkward presence and her unpopularity tended to mute the impact of Trumps menace.

Andrews calm was exhibited specifically by his low breath and released shoulders. His gestures were wide. His eye contact was direct and softened by blinks. In addition, his answers were structured, working through stages of acknowledgement (“that’s a good question”) and reflection (“people are concerned about x, y, z”). 

Why Andrews stoops so badly is a mystery of the sphinx. While this could be some genetic problem I am more likely to guess, as a tall man, he is attempting to ‘connect’ to others. Never a good look.

All in all Andrews for me scored 7/10

Matthew Guy, on the other hand, is not a comfortable presenter. To my mind he has performance anxiety.

Guy has performance anxiety and it has to be managed.

Guy’s breath is held, depicted by his arms held tightly to his side and his shoulders high.

He slams his hands constantly back into a fist at the centre of his body, undermining listener trust by concealing his body and giving a distinct impression of aggression.

Guy’s voice breaks constantly mid-sentence (an attribute he shares with Abbott) and he ‘ums’ incessantly – another sign of held breath.

Guy’s major challenge is his fixed eye glance. He does not blink, which is, of course, a trait attributed to  psychopaths. 

Guy also backs away from the audience after finishing his answers and while these habits are not unusual for inexperienced speakers, it is inexcusable in leadership.

Consider the starring eyes, slamming fists and backing away. Now compare this to Mandela’s freedom fighters who held their arms high off their body with a fist. Guy’s stance says nothing of power and fearlessness and a lot about passive aggression and fear.

On answering the questions Guy was short and sharp. Partly it was a consequence of ‘brain freeze’ caused by halted breath, but partly because I believe he and others in the Liberal Party are of the conviction that people want ‘answers’. This is a mistake for young players.

In fact, in the study of emotion, it is so that unemotional people want answers, while emotional people want to be listened to and know there is empathy for their ideas. The Victorian election was full of emotional issues such as crime and violence, security and community safety. While these should, for all intents and purposes, be bipartisan issues, the State coalition parties have sought to differentiate through an aggressive approach. 

Guy’s persona was coloured by agitation borne of anxiety out of fear. Through this he tends to not only exude aggression detrimental to himself, but agitate and unsettle the electorate with the result people turn away or reject him as perhaps not up to the job or as emotionally unstable or even transferring the fear to the audience making for nervousness and anxiety. None of this is a recipe for success and we deserve better.

On election eve afternoon radio l heard various apologia describing Guy as energetic and enthusiastic etc. These may be cover expressions for a year 12 classroom discussion, not for state debate. He failed and he failed badly.

Mathew Guy came across as excessively angry and agitated, even at times rude - all this giving Daniel Andrews the opportunity to look more statesman like and calm and authoritative, whether in reality he was or not. 

Guy scored 3/10

The voter is weary and wary. Playing to fear in an already fearful, cynical electorate that is suffering from disappointment, disconnection and disenfranchised. It must be assumed that cynicism will go even higher. Politicians are perceived as self-interested, corrupt and greedy and it is not a great starting point! Recent surveys on ‘trust’ by Deloitte in 2018 scored politicians just below the Finance industry.

Mathew Guy’s team appears to have failed him and not understood some of the most basic rules of play! 

Fear is a dangerous emotion to play with (in yourself and your audience) unless you’ve mastered its impacts.

Guy needs coaching and coaching fast.

Abbott and Dutton appear to be playing the same game. Misunderstanding the difference between powerful presence and aggression is frightening liberal voters across the ballot page. But, when will the Liberal party learn? How will they learn when it appears there is no recognition of the problem? Proposing Dutton as Prime Minister was, I have to say, one of the most frightening experiences of my adult life, something not specific to me and reflected in the highly cynical and humorous answers to Peter Van Onselen’s tweet questioning that had Dutton been made Prime Minister the Victorian election result would have been different. You bet it would have.

There is no question the Labour party, both at a state and Federal level, are playing the game on a higher plane.

(Why Shorten scores appallingly on our preference for him as PM is the theme for another blog.)

My prediction for the future is that we will be in the hands of independents and women who will drive the agenda of TRUST.

As an example, successful independent, Dr. Karen Phelps has a posture and open position in dealing with questions and the media that stands her in good stead. She is experienced, has credibility and presence. Articulate, serious but likeable, she has the balance right. 

Within the major parties, the only ones who will have a chance are Penny Wong for Labour and Julie Bishop for the Liberals.

So the rise of the independents and women is something to watch for, tomorrow and next year. It’s a rising trend given major political parties are seen through that jaded voter lens. 

On balance, politicians have to marry policy substance and presentation to produce a credible relate-able package or the electorate may get to the point where they go on strike. What then?

If the basis of democracy frays to the extent that no one turns up to play then we’ve all got a problem.

When you hear various people talk in admiring terms about someone like Vladimir Putin then YOU KNOW we have a real problem!