Select committees are generally faced by those at the very top of their game: high-flying CEOs, powerful executives and industry experts. Why, then, do the very words send shivers down the spines of even our most senior representatives? Perhaps it is the unblinking eye of the television cameras, the hawkish interrogation of the committee chair or simply the knowledge of those Goliaths who have fallen before. After twenty years of advising big-name clients on how to take on this gruelling ordeal, Scott Colvin argues that it needn't be this way. Based on interviews with those on the front line, he offers a fresh perspective on how the process could be improved for committee members and witnesses alike. Steeped in exclusive inside knowledge and expert tips, and with a step-by-step manual on how to prepare for a hearing, this is the essential guide to not only surviving but thriving in the hot seat.

In recent decades, we have seen an explosion in expectations for greater accountability of public policymaking. But, as accountability has increased, trust in governments and politicians has fallen. By focusing on the heart of public accountability--the reason-giving by policymakers for their policy decisions (i.e. deliberative accountability)--this work offers an empirical route for understanding why more accountability may not always deliver more public trust. The focus is on the British Parliament, where both the Treasury Select Committee and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee hold hearings on monetary policy, financial stability, and fiscal policy. The intent in these hearings is to challenge policymakers to explain their decisions, and thus the dialogue is expected to be deliberative. But how do we judge the quality of this deliberative accountability? Three metrics are explored and measured: respect, non-partisanship, and reciprocity. The approach is multi-method, including (1) quantitative text analysis to gauge the verbatim transcripts in committee hearings; (2) qualitative coding combined with an experimental design to gauge the role of nonverbal communication in the hearings; and (3) interviews with the MPs, peers, central bankers, and Treasury officials who participated in the hearings. The first method measures the content of 'what' was said, the second examines 'how' the words and arguments were expressed, and the third provides a more reflective 'why' component by asking participants to explain their motivations. This merging of the 'what', the 'how', and the 'why' offers a novel template for studying both accountability and deliberation.