SIA is a simple framework for structuring answers to political questions. It works at a hustings, in a media interview, on the doorstep, in a selection panel.
The idea is to lead with the human moment, then the policy point, then what you'd actually do. Three steps, in that order, every time.
Story comes first
Start with the human moment. A personal connection, an experience, a person you've met, a thing you've seen. This is what stops you sounding like a politician. People remember stories far longer than they remember policy positions, and they trust people who lead with humanity.
Insight comes next
This is the policy point. What's actually wrong with the current situation? What's the analysis that explains it? This is where you show you understand the issue, not just that you feel strongly about it.
Action comes last
What would you do about it? What would the Liberal Democrats do? Be specific. Be concrete. Give the listener something to hold you to.
Why it works
Most political answers go straight to policy and skip the human moment, which makes the speaker sound like a press release. SIA forces you to lead with story, which is what humans connect with. The insight gives you credibility, and the action gives you accountability.
How to use it under pressure
SIA is short enough to remember when you're nervous. Three letters, three steps. It's also forgiving. You don't have to weight each part equally. Sometimes the story is two sentences and the action is one. The order is what matters.
When to break the order
SIA is a default, not a straitjacket. It's the right structure for most political communication, where the job is to connect, explain, and commit. But there are moments when leading with a story is the wrong move, and it's worth knowing them. When someone asks a sharp factual question, answer it first. "How much will that cost?" or "Will you rule that out, yes or no?" If you open with an anecdote here, you sound like you're dodging, and you hand the questioner the chance to say you didn't answer. Give the answer, then add the why if you need to. When you're being attacked or misrepresented, rebut first. If someone has just landed a damaging claim about you or your party, the first job is to correct the record clearly and quickly. Lead with a story and you've let the claim stand while you warm up. Set it straight, then pivot. When the room is genuinely hostile, sometimes you lead with the action. In an angry room, a personal story can read as making it about you, when what people want to know is what you'll actually do. Occasionally you have to give them the action first and earn the right to the story afterwards. The point isn't that SIA fails in these moments. It's that the order is yours to control. Knowing when to lead with the answer, the rebuttal, or the action, and when to lead with the story, is the difference between using a framework and being used by one.
Where it came from
SIA was developed by Ed, adapted from an older framework called FACE (Fact, Additional information, Comment, Example) that Ed came across in Penny Haslam's book So You Want to Be a Little Bit Famous. FACE works well for informational clarity. Ed found that for political rehearsal, where the goal is to connect with the listener as much as to inform them, leading with Story rather than Fact made the answer land harder. SIA is the version he's used and refined over many years of leadership coaching and political campaigning. The tools on this site use SIA as the coaching scaffold.
Where to use it
SIA works for hustings answers, interview answers, doorstep conversations, selection panels, podcasts, conference speeches. Anywhere you need to answer a question in a way that connects with the listener and earns their trust.