Political speeches can still make a big difference - like changing the date of an election


A few days ago, I posted some of the reasons why I think that current British politicians and media underestimate how important speeches can be (the 'Snakes & Ladders Theory of Political Communication').

So today, I was fascinated to see confirmation in the serialisation of a book by Peter Watt, former Labour Party general secretary of the Labour Party, in today's Mail on Sunday of something I'd long suspected - namely that David Cameron's speech at the 2007 Conservative Party conference was critical in deterring Gordon Brown from calling an election (which he announced two days after the speech):

On Thursday, Cameron called our bluff. He made a spectacular speech demanding an end to the weeks of frenzied speculation about the Election. ‘So Mr Brown, what’s it to be?’ he taunted. ‘Call that Election. We will fight. Britain will win.’

A panicky Gordon summoned Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Spencer, Douglas, Deborah Mattinson – Gordon’s pollster – and Sue Nye – Gordon’s senior adviser and trusted ‘gatekeeper’ – for a crisis meeting.

On Friday morning, Douglas called me. ‘Peter, Gordon’s not going to do it,’ he said quietly. ‘When’s he going to make an announcement?’ I asked. ‘Tomorrow’ (my emphasis).

Given that Labour was 10% ahead in the polls at the time, Cameron's decision to ditch his original script, speak from notes and challenge Brown to call an immediate election was a high risk strategy.

But, in terms of the 'Snakes and Ladders' theory, it was a crucial 'ladder' that paid a handsome dividend to the Conservatives - not just in the favorable media reactions it generated, but in the two extra years it gave the party to reverse the polls in their favour - time they wouldn't have had if Brown had gone ahead and called the election when everyone (including, we now know from Peter Watt's book, the Labour high command) was expecting it.

You can watch the full speech above, or see a BBC report on it with video highlights HERE.

Andy Burnham declares his candidacy for the Labour leadership

Political blogger Guido Fawkes has posted a video with the 'Guy News' take on last week's failed plot against Gordon Brown, the full version of which can be seen HERE.

Given my recent posts about the significance of speakers delaying before starting to speak (e.g. Jeremy Paxman) and pre-delicate hitches (e.g. Gordon Brown), the high spot for me was hearing Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, more or less admitting that he's a candidate for the party leadership.

Suddenly confronted with the choice of saying "Yes" or "No" to the question "You don't want to be prime minister?", he goes for the standard politician's response of saying something other than a straight answer to the question.

But note the delay of one second, and the hitches before starting off again - with a blink and a smile that seem to imply "I know what you're up to but you won't catch me out on that one."

BURNHAM: We've got to get on with the job now of taking the fight to the Tories.

QUESTION: You don't want to be prime minister?

[1 second delay]

BURNHAM: I've got a great job as- (I've the uh-*) - Being health secretary is uh- the best privilege ...
(*Approximate transcription of inaudible words).

'Let there be love' - a case of mistaken identity


Official statement for the benefit of anyone who might have stumbled across the above on YouTube:
  1. I am not the artiste.
  2. I've never heard of him before.
  3. I can't sing either.
Gravity Calling:

However, I do admit, with some considerable pride, that one of my sons is a professional musician, who can be seen and heard here playing keyboards on Flipron's latest album:


... more of which can be enjoyed HERE.

Two more straight answers from Mandelson - about failed coups and the PM's rages

Following up on the recent post about Lord Mandelson's two straight answers to Paxman's questions in the Newsnight interview after the failed coup, I've noticed two more - the meanings of which are quite revealing:
  1. Yes, this was another attempted coup and I've saved him again (without having to do a great deal), and
  2. yes, the prime minister does go into rages, but not on this occasion.

Brown & Harman: cabinet makers!


Checking on claims in some of the media that Harriet Harman might have been involved in the latest failed coup against Gordon Brown's leadership, I typed "Brown Harman" into Google - and made the astonishing discovery that they are in fact cabinet makers!

Mandelson gives two straight answers to two of Paxman's questions!

Only six months after posting a rare video clip in which a politician (Charles Clarke) gave a straight answer to an interviewer's question, I was amazed to see yet another example last night- twice in quick succession - of the same thing happening in Jeremy Paxman's interview with Lord Mandelson on Newsnight.

Interestingly, both Clarke and Mandelson were both answering questions about Gordon Brown - in marked contrast with Clarke's comments on Brown after the loss of the Norwich North by-election and the day when Mandelson's response to a similar question about Brown was to walk out of the interview altogether.

Evidence that a straight answer surprises interviewers?

Apart from being please to add another exception to my small collection of politicians actually answering questions, I was also struck by the delays before Paxman managed to come up with each of his next questions.

As you'll see, Mandelson's "Yes" came instantly after the end of the first question, but there was a gap of more than a second before Paxman asked his next one, to which Mandelson instantly came up with another straight answer - followed by a delay of about half a second before Paxman carried on.

These might seem slight pauses, but we know from research into conversation that silences as long as one fifth of a second are not only rare, but also tend to be noticed by other participants (and/or observers).

A blast from Mandelson's past?

This particular sequence reminded me of Brian Walden's interview with Nigel Lawson, just after the former chancellor had resigned from the Thatcher government in 1989.

When Lawson gave remarkably straight answers to the first few questions, Walden looked visibly perplexed and, perhaps for the only time, seemed to be struggling to keep the interview going long enough to fill the scheduled slot.

Before going into politics, Mandelson used to work for LWT as a producer on Walden's Weekend World programme - which is, perhaps, where he learned that even top interviewers can find straight answers to questions quite disconcerting.

RELATED POSTS:

· A Tory leader's three evasive answers to the same question

Gordon Brown's interview technique: the tip of a tedious iceberg

A prime minister who openly refused to answer an interviewer’s questions

Why it's so easy for politicians not to answer interviewers' questions - and what should be done about it

Why has Gordon Brown become a regular on the Today programme?

Interview techniques, politicians and how we judge them

Gordon Brown's plotting comes home to roost again

Today's news about more plots against Gordon Brown by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt is only the latest reminder that Brown himself had spent years plotting to remove and replace Tony Blair.

A slightly more subtle reminder was the extraordinary speech he made in November 'supporting' Blair's candidacy for the presidency of the European Council. 'Supporting' is in inverted commas because his 'support' was preceded by no fewer than seven pre-delicate hitches in quick succession.

Regular readers will know that pre-delicate hitches are things like 'uhs', 'ums' and false starts that often come just before a speaker says something that he/she thinks is rather delicate - e.g. when Brown was defending former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, or when Hillary Clinton was threatening North Korea with consequences.

In this case, the question is: what was so delicate about it his support for Blair that he prefaced it with so many hitches?

Was it that he was finding it difficult to 'support' the very person he'd been plotting and briefing against for years?

Or was it that he that, given his well-known hostility towards Blair, he knew that no one would believe him - however 'clearly' he said it?

BROWN:
Uh-
let-let me say very very clearly that we
uh-the British
uh-government
uh-believe that
uh- Tony Blair would be an excellent
uh-candidate and an excellent person to hold the job of president of the Council …