Having suggested yesterday that the Labour Party faithful had withheld applause from some rather important points in Peter Mandelson’s conference speech and that he'd had to use the ‘last resort’ technique for winning applause (the ‘pursuit’) a few times, I was surprised that no one in the media seemed to notice.
I was even more surprised at just how positive most of the media coverage has been - so much so that I've taken a closer both at it and at the speech itself.
What was widely featured both by TV news programmes and newspaper reports were Mandelson's jokes. Given that his departures from Tony Blair's cabinet had been clouded with controversy and that his recall by Brown as an unelected Peer, his use of self-deprecating humour may well have been the smartest thing he did to win over doubters in the audience (and in the media).
But I've had one email that summed the whole thing up as 'pantomime performance' - and these three examples almost make you wonder whether Rory Bremner has has joined the Mandelson speech writng team.
If Mandelson has to struggle to win applause, what are the Labour party faithful saying?
In discussing Nick Clegg’s leader’s speech at the Liberal Democrat conference a few days ago, I touched on the concept of a 'noticeable absence':
“a simple but important concept in conversation analysis. It refers to instances where conversationalists notice that something that had been expected to be (or should have been) said is missing – e.g. if you don’t say ‘hello’ in response to someone who’s just said ‘hello’ to you."
Although speeches obviously differ in various interesting ways from conversation, 'absences' can be 'noticeable' there, as, for example, when audiences don’t applaud when they might have been expected to have done (e.g. after the speaker has just used one of the main rhetorical techniques that trigger applause).
Quite often, speakers not only notice when this happens, but implicitly acknowledge the absence of a response by using a 'last resort' technique, that's been referred to as ‘pursuing’ or going ‘in ‘pursuit’ of applause.
An neat example of this happened in the 1987 election, when Neil Kinnock produced used a three-part list to describe the Labour Party's manifesto as ‘cool, tough and unsinkable’. In the absence of instant applause, he went in pursuit with “That’s our manifesto that we launched today”, whereupon the audience started clapping.
Observation
There were several more examples of 'noticeable absences' and 'pursuits' in the excerpt from Peter Mandelson’s speech to the Labour Party conference that was shown on the BBC website earlier today (HERE or at the bottom of the page).
The first absence came after he’d just used an alliterative three-part list and a contrast between Labour and the Conservatives – to which he responded with a pursuit - “That’s what we’ve got to do” - that eventually got the applause under way.
After that, there were four more contrasts in succession, none of which (surprisingly) managed to prompt any applause at all – which only came after Mandelson had used another ‘pursuit’ as a last resort: “That’s the choice for the British people at the next general election.”
Interpretation
Although it may be of technical interest to note that the Labour Party audience were withholding applause at places were it should have happened, it’s arguably of greater political interest to inspect the content (rather than the rhetorical structure) of the messages that came before each of these noticeable absences. These were:
- the leadership of Gordon Brown
- the party is in the progressive centre of British politics
- the party knows it will have to meet global changes
- the shallowness of David Cameron
Taken together, it’s difficult not to conclude that the Labour party loyalists at the conference are less than enthusiastic when it comes to ‘showing their approval in the usual manner’ for Gordon Brown (1 and 4), being positioned in the centre of British politics (2) or being willing to change to meet global events (3).
If I’d been one of the original architects of new Labour or a strategist aiming for electoral success next year (like Brown and Mandelson), I’d find these particular noticeable absences, coupled with the need to use ‘pursuits’ to get any applause at all, more than a little worrying.
You can see what you think by reading the transcript below whilst watching the video clip on the BBC website or at the bottom of the page.
LORD MANDELSON:
We need to fight back. Of course we do.
But to do so successfully it is up to us to explain – with confidence, and with clarity and conviction – what the choice is between us and the Conservatives.
No applause.
Pursuit: That’s what we’ve got to do.
Applause
(A) The choice between a Conservative party – the choice between a Conservative party whose judgements on the credit crunch were wrong,
(B) or a party providing leadership (points at Gordon Brown) in the toughest of times.
No applause (for Gordon Brown?).
(A) A choice between a party A choice between a party that lurches to the right the second it sees a chance of doing so,
(B) or our party that is resolutely anchored in the progressive centre of British politics.
No applause (for being in the centre?).
(A) A choice between a party that does not understand the new world we live in or even what has happened in the last year,
(B) or a Labour Party that knows the world has changed and we that we have to change with it.
No applause (for the Labour Party?).
That’s the choice, conference, and I tell you too
(A) experience and change with Gordon’s leadership
(B) or the shallowness of David Cameron.
No applause (for criticism of Cameron?).
Pursuit: That’s the choice for the British people at the next general election
Applause.
Why doesn't anyone warn politicians about becoming autocue automatons?
When we were being taught about road safety at primary school, we had to learn a slogan that’s still firmly entrenched in my mind:
“Look right, look left and right again and quick march across the road you go.”
What brought it back into my head this morning was the sight of Alistair Darling speaking to the Labour Party conference, where he seemed to be following a revised version of the slogan:
“Look right for 1o seconds, look left for ten seconds, look right for 10 seconds and turn your head when you get to the end of the sentence.”
In other words, like David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Margaret Thatcher, he has a problem with reading from teleprompter screens.
The commonest one, which you can variations of by clicking on any of the above names, involves spending too much time looking in one direction rather than the other.
Sometimes, it creates the impression that you’re so tied to your script that you daren’t look at the other screen until you get to the next full stop (even though you’re supposed to be pretending you don’t have a script).
Sometimes it creates such regular movements of the head from side to side that the regularity becomes noticeable.
And sometimes it excludes half the audience for very extended periods of time (e.g. Cameron and Brown).
Given the high stakes involved in some of these speeches, I never cease to be amazed that no one alerts the speakers to such an obvious problem, let alone spends a few minutes coaching them to make a better job of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)