So then, today, David Cameron delivered a speech to his party conference without notes. Isn’t it sad that this fact it ranked pretty highly on the list of ‘important things to report’ about this speech?
Opinions about how effective the speech will be appear to be divided (pretty much along the lines you’d expect), but the one thing that every report I’ve read (so far!) mentions is that he went without notes. That should have been a good thing. Sadly it wasn’t.
Why not?
Because although he didn’t have notes, that didn’t mean he didn’t have a script. Watching the video, I’m struck by how limited the range of gestures is – by how formulaic and contrived it all looks…. and by how it’s obviously been practiced within an inch of it’s life.
There’s no joy, no improvisation and no imagination in the delivery. In short, it’s sterile. He’s just reciting a script that’s running in his head rather than by a teleprompter. Is that any better? Really?
Judging by the fact that the ovation afterwards – from the Tory Party Faithful was well under two minutes, it looks like I’m not alone at being under-awed. :)
I agree that this ‘management guru’ style of speaking favoured by Cameron (and aped by Clegg) can come across as a bit phony – but his faith in it probably comes from the fact that it worked for him in the two most effective speeches he ever made: (1) to win the Tory leadership beauty parade, and (2) to deter Brown from calling an election when he (GB) should have done.
A couple of other things baffle me. One is his skewed eye-contact (see http://bit.ly/9JXhmr). The other is the bizarre staging with key members of the audience sitting behind him (see http://bit.ly/bXbk2o).
Actually, I thought it was a very good speech.
Regardless of political persuasion, Cameron’s rhetorical technique was excellent.
His ending with an anaphora “Another 5 years of …” leading us to the end of the speech had the desired effect of the claptrap and rallying the troops.
Your criticism “I’m struck by how limited the range of gestures is – by how formulaic and contrived it all looks…. and by how it’s obviously been practiced within an inch of it’s life.” applies equally to Churchill. He had no gestures to speak of, no vocal colour, and he practised his speeches ad nauseam.
Churchill too used the anaphora to great effect in his “We shall fight them on the beaches” speech.
Would you level the same criticisms at Churchill?
Hi Sal.
Interesting that you take me to task about this – and I must admit I’m resisting the urge to sulk! :)
I’m not sure that it’s reasonable to compare this presentation with those of Churchill (who incidentally didn’t say “we shall fight them on the beaches – that’s a common misapprehension). Essentially, Churchill’s speech had two audiences, I think – firstly there was the immediate audience of the House of Commons where the speech was delivered but – more importantly? – there was the wider audience who could only listen to the presentation by radio, not watch it in the way we can now (don’t forget, there was no television recording or broadcast… or at least if there was, I can’t find it! :) ).
It’s hard, under these circumstances, to see how you can compare the *gestures* made by Churchill and Cameron, which was what I was mainly getting at. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this in my OP! :)
Hi Max – I’m absolutely with you about the odd choice of background.
I wonder if one of the reasons I was so under-awed by this presentation was that very choice of background. It made it so much harder for him to stand out and be clear in his gesticulations. A simple, clean background might have served him better.