When the pressure is really on body language is usually an accurate indicator of who is really up for it and who is not.  We saw this last week!

Winners include  David Cameron  and George Osborne. Both have visibly grown into their new roles. Cameron already looks and acts the part on the world stage, exuding confidence. Osborne handled the toughest of budgets, the speech and the interviews, with genuine poise and control. Impressive.

Two relatively unknown tennis players, Iszner and Mahut, handled eleven hours of unbelievable competitive pressure, one with a deliberate high energy demonstration, the other in energy conservation mode.  But both, as the close-ups showed, were  in their own  zones of focused unyielding determination. Unreal!

Compare this with the week’s (very big) losers.

Capello a few short weeka ago looked like a winner. Strong, silent, standing tall with arms folded, a man in command. Since arriving in South Africa he has been a changed man. Angry words, increasingly manic, and mystified, body language. He no longer looked a winner.

Much the same happened to the team. They never looked as if they were thrilled or delighted to be taking part and that was before they went on the pitch. The words spoken were either unpleasant petulance, Terry, or subdued mumbles, Lampard. The only one who looked positive was James once reinstated!

On the pitch you did not need to know the score to tell they were losers.

It has just been reported that both Cameron and Brown are hiring consultants who helped Obama to help them as they face  the TV debates, potentially more vital as the gap narrows. Help!

 Their ‘joint’ decisions influenced presumably by the fact that America has done more of it for longer and by the power of ‘brand’ Obama.  But are they both right?

Taking Obama first. His truly great performances have been as orator, calling for very different skills to those of the live debate. No one is challenging, the audience is ‘out there’ ready to be captivated by virtuoso performance, two teleprompters his best friends.

Incidentally, Cameron’s own best so far performance was his famous, leadership winning, ‘no notes’ speech at Blackpool. But the debate calls for something different and although Obama won his against McCain, the competition was not up to much.  Since then his more intimate television interviews have not impressed.

America and Britain being divided by a common language is another reason to treat with caution the Obama victory-claiming consultants. And we still do not know the format for the debates as all sides seek to negotiate the least risky formula.

Given these caveats what should our three reality show contestants be seeking from their learned consultants? Basically, how to be both relaxed and confident enough to be themselves, allowing us the viewers to feel we have met them.

This may well be easier for Nick Clegg. He needs to inject an element of surprise but he  comes across naturally and more conversationally than his rivals.

 For David Cameron it has become more difficult as his constant exposure has left the impression of  someone whose only communication mode is one of  ’finger wagging’ over-emphasis, where charm and the art of conversation come second.

Gordon Brown has survived the bullying barrage and if anything the polls suggest he has benefitted, perhaps because of a glimpse of the real person, however many warts.  As ever when he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good then the others should look out.

Perhaps he would do better with Piers Morgan as his consultant.

 With the general election now in sight, our three plucky contestants are gearing up for the ultimate TV reality show.  It could be better than anything from Simon Cowell. For them, it is the pitch of a lifetime and who better to help them in their preparation  than Pitch Coach!

This, the first in a series of pitchcoach precepts for our aspiring leaders, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg,  looks at how we the viewers will be judging them. How will we be assessing who is the right one to lead us out of the abyss?

Well, it won’t be on our evaluation of their policies. It will be on our assessment of their performances.

Following Obama’s victory over McCain, in the presidential TV debates in America,  a report in the Sunday Times evaluated them against these  eight criteria: 

1. MASTERY OF POLICY,

2. REBUTTING AN OPPONENT,

3. BODY LANGUAGE,

4. ADAPTABILIY

5. LIKEABILITY,

6. TONE,

7. GAFFE AVOIDANCE,

 8. HUMOUR

Only one of these relates to policy, the content of their answers!  The others are all functions of the way they perform,  of their attitude and of their personalities-or rather as they come across on screen.

As with any pitch, or interview, it will be a question of:  Do we like them? Have they connected with us emotionally?

 But, unlike ‘any’ pitch, millions will be watching. Unlike ‘any’ pitch they are in direct confrontation with their competitors. A single gaffe can undo years of campaigning!

Ideas on preparation,  rehearsals, candidate characteristics,  the interviewers, classic gaffes are all to come in later posts. Meanwhile reader input to the big pitch countdown is welcome!

Yesterday at around 7.30, coming out of my local newsagent,  I  had to  pause to avoid an early morning jogger.  In his now trademark black shorts and vest, it was David Cameron, looking fit and moving at a good pace.

This was not, it seemed to me, someone running for the photo opportunity.  There was no entourage. This was someone, like many in high pressure jobs, running to stay fit.  The fitter you are the more energy you have and right now Cameron, and his team, exude more of it than Gordon Brown’s team.  One of the reasons they are more attractive to more people.

In one of the best practice guides on this site, Managing Energy, I look at ways at ‘amplifying’ energy.  One of them reads: “Consider introducing ‘hybrid vigour’, the concept of cross-fertilisation for enhanced performance in breeding.  In teams, changing the mix of people can re-invigorate.”

Could the introduction of Peter Mandelson be an experiment in hybrid vigour?  However much he polarises opinon,  he will undoubtedly bring new energy to the Cabinet, something sorely needed.

When times are tough, and the financial climate could not be tougher, strong leadership is called for. This is as true in the commercial as in the political world.   In both, leadership can be defined by the ability to inspire confidence.

In the US, Bush fatally ‘wounded’ by virtue of being yesterday’s man, is failing to lead.  Here Brown despite,for him, a strong conference performance, is not inspiring confidence.

Cameron, on the other hand, the “novice” is pre-empting the leadership role.  Yesterday, at the Tory party conference, he made an unexpected platform appearance.  Here are some of the words used by Quentin Letts, a master of ‘body language’ observation.

“…….he not only gently removed the political initiative from Gordon Brown……..but also showed himself a supremo of tone and steady-the-buffs composure.”

“He did not produce any single, platinum phrase yesterday.  He did not need to.  The art - the duty - of the national politician is to find the delivery, the performance, to match the audiences expectations”.

Is this not the art, the duty, of all who pitch?

PITCHES AND TROUGHES. 100 BEST STORIES.

Last week in Glasgow, in the lead up to the by-election, David Cameron delivered what has been described as a taboo-breaking “moral leadership” speech . As reported it was a speech of real substance, with strong uneqivocal messages, for example “….we prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgements about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour”.

It contained powerful messages which will register and which will drive the Tory agenda. However it is not this speech but his speech at the Tory Party conference in Blackpool in autumn 2005 that merits being included in the 100 Best Pitch Stories.

It was a five-way pitch. The two favourites going in  were the big beast Ken Clarke, an experienced and  fluent platorm speaker, and, in the lead, the bruiser David Davis, (now somewhat bruised by his by-election activity?) The other three were Liam Fox, Malcolm Rifkind and David Cameron. 

All five spoke for roughly the same amount time, to the same audience of party faithful and no one can remember what any of them said!

Quite simply the political landscape changed on that day. Not because of what Cameron said but  because of the way he said it.