A couple of days ago, Gordon Brown took time out from local problems, like today’s by-election, to make a surprise appearance at the TED Global conference, and one can’t help wondering if the chance to give a lecture in Oxford marked the official start of his exit strategy into teaching that he was dropping hints about a few weeks ago.
You can see the whole of his TED performance at the bottom of this page and inspect a brief review of Twitter responses HERE.
Readers of my books will know that I give great emphasis to the importance of anecdotes in effective speeches and presentations, and there are two nice examples of this in Mr Brown's speech.
The first one came as he tried his hand at a bit of standup with this story about what Ronald Reagan is alleged to have thought of the then Swedish prime minister, Olaf Palme:
Then, right at the end came another anecdote involving a contrast between the way audiences used to respond to Cicero and Demosthenes. Brown firmly identifies himself with the latter and gets a positive reaction that doesn’t often happen to him outside Labour Party conferences – a standing ovation - and it doesn't often happen to anyone in Oxford either (or at least, I never got one when I worked there).
The whole unedited 16 minute speech can be watched below. And, as you'll see from the first few minutes, someone must have advised Mr Brown that, if you must use PowerPoint, you can't beat genuinely visual slides like pictures:
Gordon Brown's tough decisions and/or rehearsal for defeat
In case you missed Gordon Brown’s last press conference before the Summer recess, here’s the ‘Top Story’ on the No 10 website today:
Government taking “tough decisions” on economy – PM
The Government has taken “tough decisions” to tackle the recession and reduce its impact, the Prime Minister has said.
Speaking at his final Downing Street press conference before the summer recess, Gordon Brown said it was a challenging time for the country, but ministers had put in place “considerable” measures to help British businesses and families.
The Prime Minister also set out what the Government is doing to prepare for an increase in swine flu cases, and took questions on Afghanistan.
Read more: Government taking “tough decisions” on economy - PM
Curiously, if you do click to read more, you won’t find any mention of a question about tomorrow's Norwich North by-election.
Luckily, however, the Channel 4 News website does show us the the question and 'answer' under the headline ‘a rehearsal for by-election defeat’.
Here's how reporter Gary Gibbon introduces the video:
'Gordon Brown at his press conference just now sounded like a man rehearsing his lines for Friday when Norwich North looks like getting a Tory MP.
'He said he thought “people do understand the uniqueness of this by-election” in answer (or rather in reply) to a question about why he deselected Ian Gibson.'
See what you think:
Government taking “tough decisions” on economy – PM
The Government has taken “tough decisions” to tackle the recession and reduce its impact, the Prime Minister has said.
Speaking at his final Downing Street press conference before the summer recess, Gordon Brown said it was a challenging time for the country, but ministers had put in place “considerable” measures to help British businesses and families.
The Prime Minister also set out what the Government is doing to prepare for an increase in swine flu cases, and took questions on Afghanistan.
Read more: Government taking “tough decisions” on economy - PM
Curiously, if you do click to read more, you won’t find any mention of a question about tomorrow's Norwich North by-election.
Luckily, however, the Channel 4 News website does show us the the question and 'answer' under the headline ‘a rehearsal for by-election defeat’.
Here's how reporter Gary Gibbon introduces the video:
'Gordon Brown at his press conference just now sounded like a man rehearsing his lines for Friday when Norwich North looks like getting a Tory MP.
'He said he thought “people do understand the uniqueness of this by-election” in answer (or rather in reply) to a question about why he deselected Ian Gibson.'
See what you think:
White paint, red lights and fuel conservation
Yesterday, I suggested that the country could achieve significant energy savings by the simple and virtually free device of permitting left turns at red traffic lights.
Even greater savings in fuel consumption could be had by replacing as many traffic lights as possible with mini-roundabouts.
A few years ago, for example, there weren’t any traffic lights in the city of Wells, and the worst traffic jam I’d ever been in was one in which there were three cars in front of me (and that was at 8.55 a.m in the morning).
But Somerset County Council, aided and abetted by their highways consultants, W.S. Atkins, soon put a stop to all that by installing numerous sets of traffic lights at as many junctions as they could find.
As a result, Wells now has plenty of traffic jams in which, more often than not, you have to keep your vehicle idling while waiting for no traffic at all to come from any other direction.
In every place where the lights were installed, traffic flow would have worked more smoothly – and have cost far less money – if the County Council had spent a few pounds on white paint to create mini-roundabouts.
As there’s so little traffic in Wells, fuel conservation would have been significantly improved by a reduction in (a) idling time and (b) the number of times vehicles have to move off from a standing start.
Even greater savings in fuel consumption could be had by replacing as many traffic lights as possible with mini-roundabouts.
A few years ago, for example, there weren’t any traffic lights in the city of Wells, and the worst traffic jam I’d ever been in was one in which there were three cars in front of me (and that was at 8.55 a.m in the morning).
But Somerset County Council, aided and abetted by their highways consultants, W.S. Atkins, soon put a stop to all that by installing numerous sets of traffic lights at as many junctions as they could find.
As a result, Wells now has plenty of traffic jams in which, more often than not, you have to keep your vehicle idling while waiting for no traffic at all to come from any other direction.
In every place where the lights were installed, traffic flow would have worked more smoothly – and have cost far less money – if the County Council had spent a few pounds on white paint to create mini-roundabouts.
As there’s so little traffic in Wells, fuel conservation would have been significantly improved by a reduction in (a) idling time and (b) the number of times vehicles have to move off from a standing start.
Are you ahead of reading this post?
A few months ago, I posted a 'Jargon and gobbledygook comedy sketch' that was based on various words and phrases in common usage that that I find irritating and/or annoying.
One that baffles me more than most is the ever-increasing preference of writers in the press and broadcast media for using the phrase ‘ahead of’ when they actually mean ‘before’, as in the following recent examples:
‘Man scales plinth ahead of launch.’ – BBC website.
‘Today's co-ordinated attacks came with violence surging in Afghanistan ahead of presidential and provincial elections next month times on line.’ – Times Online.
'Kevin Pietersen will see a specialist about his longstanding Achilles problem ahead of the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston.’ – Sky News website.
In these and the scores of examples you can read or hear every day, wouldn't it sound much more normal and natural if they’d used the good old English word ‘before’.
Is it just me, or did something go seriously wrong with the way I originally learnt to speak (and, as far as I know, continue to speak) my native tongue.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t go to school ahead of going to university any more than I became a father ahead of becoming a grandfather. But I do know that I did both of the former BEFORE experiencing either of the latter.
So can anyone explain to me why is it that so many journalists and editors are so obsessed with using a way of saying ‘before’ that’s not in common usage among any section of the British public (outside the media)?
One that baffles me more than most is the ever-increasing preference of writers in the press and broadcast media for using the phrase ‘ahead of’ when they actually mean ‘before’, as in the following recent examples:
‘Man scales plinth ahead of launch.’ – BBC website.
‘Today's co-ordinated attacks came with violence surging in Afghanistan ahead of presidential and provincial elections next month times on line.’ – Times Online.
'Kevin Pietersen will see a specialist about his longstanding Achilles problem ahead of the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston.’ – Sky News website.
In these and the scores of examples you can read or hear every day, wouldn't it sound much more normal and natural if they’d used the good old English word ‘before’.
Is it just me, or did something go seriously wrong with the way I originally learnt to speak (and, as far as I know, continue to speak) my native tongue.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t go to school ahead of going to university any more than I became a father ahead of becoming a grandfather. But I do know that I did both of the former BEFORE experiencing either of the latter.
So can anyone explain to me why is it that so many journalists and editors are so obsessed with using a way of saying ‘before’ that’s not in common usage among any section of the British public (outside the media)?
When did it start being used, and where on earth did it come from in the first place?
I'd really appreciate it if anyone can shed any light on all this going forward – and there’s another one that sounds just as out of touch with common usage and raises much the same questions.
I'd really appreciate it if anyone can shed any light on all this going forward – and there’s another one that sounds just as out of touch with common usage and raises much the same questions.
Nudging in a more enlightened direction
Rob Greenland has an interesting post on The Social Business about the encouraging reduction in plastic bag use – and the even more encouraging way it’s been achieved:
'It's in the news today that supermarkets just missed their target of 50% reduction in plastic bag use (they got to 48%). I'm not a big fan of supermarkets but I think on this one they need to be congratulated. Remember the reaction against proposals to tax plastic bags, and how, many believed, people would never change their habits.
'Far too many bags are still used but a 48% reduction is a massive improvement. If businesses and the public can get their act together on this issue, what other seemingly impossible environmental problems might we solve? It may also suggest that it's better to nudge people into doing the right thing (like the clever question the checkout assistant was trained to ask), rather than taxing them into behavioural change.'
I couldn’t agree more with his recommendation of the nudge-nudge approach and would like to add a couple of simple but effective options that wouldn’t even need nudge-nudge because they would not only achieve savings automatically, but would also be be virtually free and require no new targets or elaborate regulatory controls.
1. ALLOW LEFT TURNS AT RED TRAFFIC LIGHTS
If you’ve ever driven in the USA, you’ll know that most states allow drivers to turn right on a red light if there’s no traffic coming from that direction.
This was arguably the single most important legacy of Gerald Ford’s administration and saves fuel by reducing (a) idling time and (b) the number of times you have to start off from a complete stop. Apart from reducing overall fuel consumption and emissions, the rule brings the added benefit of instant financial savings for motorists and transport companies.
In the UK, for obvious reasons the equivalent would be to permit left turns at red lights – and could be introduced instantly at minimal cost to the taxpayer.
2. REDUCE ROAD AND STREET LIGHTING
In an age when car head-lights are so much better than they used to be, why do there have to be so many lights on so many miles of motorway – and why do they stay on into the early hours of the morning?
And can we really justify so many street-lights in our town centres, suburbs and villages?
Whereas the first recommendation could be brought in instantly, this one would need a bit of experimentation to get the balance right. As a start, I’d suggest turning off 50% of all road and street lighting and see what happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)