What's in a speech?
- 27 Sep 06, 07:53 PM
Once, politicians used to practise their speeches by filling their mouths full of pebbles to practise voice projection. Things have changed a bit since Demosthenes' time.
Nowadays politicians practise on autocue the night before in the conference hall. One year we all got a preview of Iain Duncan Smith's speech which was accidentally broadcast on our ringmain. The quiet man had cranked up the volume by mistake.
So as a form of political communication have speeches dated a bit over two and half thousand years? An old fashioned tub thumping style doesn't work well on television. Neil Kinnock who was one of the country's best orators in a hall was often disastrous on TV. His delivery was once compared to a tortoise trying to reach orgasm. And you must remember the Sheffield rally.
The knack is to hold the attention of the live audience while sounding relaxed enough for television. That was what Gordon Brown attempted on Monday according to his spin doctors, rather than his usual evangelical preacher style, but that meant the speech felt much more low-key in the hall. Tony Blair's speech was much better received. He was able to move between a serious analysis of globalisation to adlibs about his sons.
Of course the main rhetorical focus has been on the Tony and Gordon show but this year's Labour conference (like the Tories' last year) has also been a beauty contest for possible leadership contenders.
There was David Miliband this morning and Alan Johnson this afternoon. Neither really shone - not in any way damaging performances but certainly not enough to create a buzz round a campaign to challenge Gordon.
So the focus has now moved to John Reid who is speaking on Thursday. A good performance could add momentum around Reid as the Anyone-But-Gordon candidate.
Today also saw the man who wowed the conference four years ago - the delegate from Arkansas CLP, Bill Clinton. I remember interviewing delegates as they emerged from the hall totally lovebombed - even left wing MPs like Alan Simpson despite Clinton's support for the 鈥渨ar against terror鈥. Clinton's speech today wasn't on quite that form but the audience lapped up his homespun style.
I do sometimes wonder if the weeks, months even, of work which go into a speech is really worth it. Politicians would argue they can set out their ideas without interruption from annoying interviewers (what Newsnight?) but unless you are a spellbinding orator, will an audience really engage with a speech? So what do you think? Would you go out on a wet Thursday night to hear a politician make a speech? Perhaps you'd rather stick pebbles in your mouth.
Comments Post your comment
Clinton's Charisma cannot mask that the USA is in danger of becoming a failed state if there is NO Political Opening towards alternative political parties.
Complain about this post
I thought the pebbles were for some quite other voice issues. They certainly weren't part of the training I got in public speaking. But who needs voice projection when the microphones are inches from the speaker's face and a huge, live image of the speaker is up on the wall behind? Aren't the audience in a situation like that being provided with an experience crossed between the overwhelming impression of the cinema and their familiar experience of listening via television at home? A huge mental barrier to heckling I would think. Not very much related to the orator's / preacher's art.
Why would months honing a speech be any more wasted than with honing a book or an essay, especially when the text is released and it is broadcast?
Would I go out on a rainy night to hear a speech? I have done many times in the past, and often it was a very interesting, illuminating experience, but it now seems very, very rare, in England, for politicians I would want to have such an opportunity to assess to make speeches, or even personal appearances that are publicised and open to other than the safest, invited supporters. Well, not unless there's a large ticket price. We, and they, seem to rely upon the written word, television, and increasingly the Net. Or maybe now it's just a London thing.
But then, what did such public speaking skills have to do with good governance? Sometimes you could easily tell that someone's rabble-rousing abilities were barely hiding their unreliablity as decision makers.
Complain about this post
"Clinton's speech today wasn't on quite that form but the audience lapped up his homespun style."
Americans often study political argument or oration at university, and of course thy now have so many firebrand preachers, so a top US politician speaking at a UK political conference has a huge advantage in that respect. But I sometimes felt ex-President Clinton was on the verge of losing his track, he had gone so far towards an easy style, which I, at home, found distracting.
And his excessively false praise of New Labour jarred terribly. They certainly are not the only force for change in our country, and change can often, as are many of their "reforms", be misconceived and harmful of those they claim to care about. But then he, despite being a great man, too harmed some he professed to be protecting whilst in office. When he signed the Defence of Marriage Act, for example, and he, as with Blair, failed to take effective action to protect democracy from financial corruption, rising extremism, and the huge dangers of a political vacuum in his wake.
Complain about this post
"...this year's Labour conference (like the Tories' last year) has also been a beauty contest for possible leadership contenders. There was David Miliband this morning and Alan Johnson this afternoon. Neither really shone - not in any way damaging performances but certainly not enough to create a buzz round a campaign to challenge Gordon. So the focus has now moved to John Reid who is speaking on Thursday. A good performance could add momentum around Reid as the Anyone-But-Gordon candidate."
The declared possible challengers to Gordon Brown, who, I'm afraid has less political charisma, or even ability to deliver a talk, unsupported, than even Al Gore, all seem dire. Stolid, untrustworthy, too tainted by Blair.
For me it's such a shame all of "Blair's Babes" are such silly poodles. It seems Labour hasn't got the knack of finding, and retaining women candidates with decent brains of their own, as they once had with Barbara Castle, Shirley Williams, etc..
Has anyone considered Kim Howells? At least he spoke out for human beings in Lebanon whilst being a UK Foreign Office minister actually within range of Israel's munitions. And as a former college lecturer he presumably can cope with stroppy, contrary opinions without losing his cool and getting vindictive. Which would be a nice change. His record is of speaking his mind, and apologising when wrong. I would vote for him, and go out on a rainy evening to take the opportunity to hear him speak too.
Complain about this post
Yes, Demosthenes trained to overcome his speech impediment by putting pebbles in his mouth - BUT the real glory of this fact is that the Greek word for pebble is psephos, and the Greeks used psephoi, pebbles, as voting tokens, which fact gives us our words psephology and so forth - I can just imagine the orator spitting the pebbles out into the voting urns. These days, you can't deliver spit with your vote.
Complain about this post
Ref Labour Conference, enjoyed & related too John Reid's speech (even as a liberal conservative) it made sense & was well delivered & received.
Think its very ironic giving that speech in the Party which has acted as home of the Left & the Liberal Left, who have been so unhelpful regarding Islamic Extremism, in all its forms (pre & post 911).
We should be reminded about REAL & TOTAL responsibility/culpability (all round, not just the favourite bogeymen of certain cliques).
ISLAMIC EXTREMISM - the 'enemy within'
For example, why was it the Left & many of the Liberal left, pursued beliefs & policies which enabled Islamic Extremism to take root pre 911 within progressive democratic societies.
Post 911 they have been equally absent from the debate, refusing to take sides against such terrorism (& at times acting as PR Commissars & apologists for such) given their moral equivalency & mixed message arguments, which has confused & thus helped to radicalise the vulnerable.
Pointedly, the Left & the Liberal Left have failed to side with the very progressive democratic societies that enables the rights they take for granted (& in many cases have helped to establish). Rather its all been about anti-war & the other bolt on issues & agendas [0] intentionally ignoring the continuing significant societal threat in our midst - why?
- unable to admit they got it wrong (again) on society, people & politics e.g. multiculturalism [1]
- egos before pragmatism?
- other 'right on' agenda?
Rather they look to legitimise & promote the 'we started it' argument which they argue inflames terrorism, instead of asking why is it non indigenous sections of our society are so vulnerable & combustible (culturally speaking - 'tinder box dry') & how did that come about since these communities are relatively so new in these shores.
A welcomed revised British view [2a] [2b]
A welcomed revised American view [2c]
THE LIBERAL LEFT & THE LEFT v ISLAM (voices of dissent)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali a good example about when the Left & Liberal Left does decide to take a view on Islamic Issues, as commented on by The Daily Telegraph in 2002 [3].
The Guardian (often great but when not its really bad) as usual was trying to have it any & all ways in 2002 [4a] then in 2005 [4b] then changed gear in 2006 [4c] before issuing its 'coup de grace' 2006 [4d]
The world has suffered Islamic Terrorism [5] the litany of actual atrocity & thwarted attacks (in court & under investigation from the US, UK, EU, Australia etc) 鈥 so does the Liberal Left now have an opinion?
Yes, even the Left & Liberal Left on occasion does have a view on radical Islam & that view is 鈥︹ [6a] 鈥ven The Guardian promotes one [6b]
SUMMARY
Does the Left & Liberal Left intend to wake up, mature & recognise the very real present threat in our societies - Islamic Extremism.
Or do they intend to stay in the wilderness, self excluded from the real debate, which have hitherto have played an important part.
With no relevant & revised guidance/view from the left or centre, to this pervading Islamic threat, no wonder people are turning to the right in ever greater numbers.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[0]
[1]
[2a]
[2b]
[2c]
[3]
[4a]
[4b]
[4c]
[4d]
[5]
[6a]
[6b]
Complain about this post
Hi Newsnight,
I admire Jenny, she is some superwoman... Why does she not go into politics, and shake them up a bit!
Bedbugs are certainly a horrible thing to find, when you are in a situation reasonable clear of war.
Regards, Jennifer.
Complain about this post
Speeches(conference wise) are the flavour of the month, week, day... It seems a good speaker can get away with all manner of things...the good ,bad & downright ugly. "Call me Dave" Cameron made a good speech.. but even the converted such as me must be asking"Whats it all about"! I'm aware that if they release too many policies too early Blair will pinch them!... but we should be at least 20 points ahead of Labour..who are so damaged the Lib Dems could overtake them.The Tories must be more positive, at least allowing the activists MATERIAL to fight "the good fight"on the doorsteps..rather than hearing "what does he stand for" repeatedly & hearing weasel worded answers. So come on Dave, we are the best...but translate that into language people understand & are waiting to hear!
Complain about this post