In case anybody wondered, all parties survived Tuesday’s “Exam” quite well. I doubt if many votes were moved but it was a fun and well-attended arrangement. When people have the chance to meet a political leader, they will take it.
So, were there any surprises? Well, not really. As we concluded, Vestager is an intelligent politician, she’s very dedicated to her work and definitively generally well-prepared.1 We should, however, also remember that she was playing on her home ground, i.e. in front of an audience of academics and others with a higher education. Even if they wouldn’t vote for the Social Liberals, the audience would still get what the party’s basic approach to politics is: A highly analytical one.
We might have stressed this aspect further and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of this approach as well as the possible conflict between the party’s very analytical stance on the one hand and its representation of the interests of a certain segment of the society (urban, highly educated, etc).
Okay, this was my first attempt at Being Jeremy Paxman, so a bit of training might do the trick.
- This is not a royal “we” as I shared the honours with my colleague Lene Rimestad [↩]