Interviewing people for a job is always a challenging process and often the success of the interview depends on the context and the interviewer as well as the qualities and temperament of the candidates. In the application to be Prime Minister, our two major parties claim that only their current leaders are contenders. Having just watched the interview by Andrew Marr with Ed Miliband and remembering back to last weeks interview with David Cameron I am left with the firm conclusion that neither are suitable for the post. This is not a matter of Politics, on that I am more favourably disposed towards Ed Miliband but that merely reflects my own views, it is not an objective judgment. However based on the two 30 minute grillings on the comfortable chairs with an audience of several million, all capable as I am of remembering what was said, neither man is appointable, which is very disturbing as according to their acolytes, there are no other contenders!
The implications of appointing either of these men is that our nation is diminished in the eyes of other nations for whom we turn for support and help and in the eyes of people who run many of our own large businesses who may decide to take their enterprises elsewhere, and ultimately that our own confidence in democracy is further reduced!

Interviews are known to be imperfect tools for selection. Personal chemistry and charisma skew the process too much. The only real test is actually doing the job. Cameron’s had that and failed.
I agree with you on both counts. However I have to say that I am not convinced that Miliband will be much better. I think his failure to respond to the questioning was very dispiriting (although he was a bit stronger on that than Cameron).