Dissecting Donald Trump's Speaking

As a public speaking coach, I'm devastated that we're coming to the end of Obama's tenure as president; he is one of the most elegant, eloquent and erudite speakers in history. Now it seems inevitable that Donald Trump will carry the Republican nomination and that makes it an appropriate time for our technical analysis of his speaking. As always, I'll steer clear of commenting on the political content of his speaking and base this entirely on the technicalities of his communication.

Always perfectly groomed, with his tie in a full Windsor, Trump always wears low-cut jackets with extremely padded shoulders. Clearly, the conveyance of physical strength is a key driver in his image. Is his hair being parted so far to the left part of an effort of boost his masculinity?

Vocally, his resonance placement is slightly prejudiced to the tinny-sounding head placement, although the presence of some chest placement ensures that his emotional conviction is communicated in his voice. Some heavy graining in his voice may be the result of scarring on his vocal folds -sometimes an indication that a person frequently raises their voice. Whilst this sounds quite nice now and compensates for his head resonance placement (graining can create weight in the voice), it is irreversible and will probably get worse unless he learns to support his voice correctly. The head resonance placement is super-efficient with air and I can't hear any problems in his breathing.

Trump uses his inflections very aggressively. His speaking is littered, even saturated, with held inflections. These are normally used to prevent another person from interjecting. Even at the lectern, where the chance of an interjection is near-zero, almost every sentence ends without vocally completing the thought. On the occasions that he does complete the thought, he tends to do so with a horrible minor inflection. There are parts of the US where this has become a characteristic of the accent but New York is not one of them -in fact it has especially heavy use of the downward major. I think he uses minor inflections through fear that using the downward major is inviting retort. What it really does is give the impression that he doesn't entirely believe what he is saying.

In recent weeks, Trump's use of eye-lines has deteriorated more then any other part of his skill-set. On 16th June 2015, when he gave his campaign announcement speech, his eye-lines were sustained and moved naturally on the change of thought. More recently, his eye-lines have become fleeting, rapidly moving from focal points at the back of the audience. This looks insecure and implies rapid or chaotic thought shifts.

His gesturing has also deteriorated, although it was really a mess from the start. Certainly, his gestures are bold -I'll give him that- and he uses good width in his movements, which communicates status very effectively. However, frequently his gestures are completely inappropriate for what he is saying. His love of precision gestures, where the index fingertip (or all the fingertips) are brought to the tip of the thumb, will communicate that he is being precise and accurate but destroy any conveyance of care or empathy when he is saying “I love our soldiers”. He does this again and again and it must in part account for the “not nice person” image that he complains about. Then, when talking about “our enemies” he uses open-handed gestures, such as the 'encompass', which is about the most welcoming of all gestures. He also uses lots of beat gestures, punctuating the language with hammering movements of his hand. Beat gestures work well when used with controlled speed and slight curve (think Clinton thumb!) but such staccato movements are pushing him onto the plosive consonants and his vowels are suffering. If there is a single part of his skill-set that is damaging his speaking more than any other, it is his lack of vowels. We show our feelings through the length of our vowels (think words “amaaaazing” and “beeeaaaatiful”) and Trump is all consonants. He must avoid leaning back and pouting childishly when he takes criticism -it looks hurt.

It isn't all bad news. He is bombastic and entertaining, as a speaker, and his wide gestures certainly make him memorable. Whilst these would be positives in the business world, as a President he runs the risk of becoming more memorable than his content. He needs more containment and a certain poker face -two things he lacks at the moment.

Election Debate 2 - We don't review it, we dissect it. 5 leaders, 5 dissections.

So, here we go. Once again, this is purely our opinion, based entirely on technical delivery. We leave the politics to the clever people.

Ed Miliband

At the first debate, Miliband showcased a major developmental step forward in his speaking. Yes, it looked over-coached, overtly dramatic and contrived at times, but it was the first time I've seen him exhibit control of his speaking disciplines. This time around, he made an even larger evolutionary jump -he succeeded in bringing his new-found skills into his natural speaking skill-set and comfort zone. Indeed, this was a more relaxed and commanding delivery than any I've seen him make before. So let's get a little technical...

The most sharply-dressed speaker on the stage was positioned at the extreme stage-right lectern. He placed his left foot slightly forward (sometimes even stepping onto the base of the lectern), bringing his left shoulder back and angling his body into the debate. This confident looking posture conveyed assertive alertness. Ocassional moments, where his left hand slipped into his pocket, had a slightly diminishing effect on his status, as he skirted the line between relaxed and care-free. When speaking, he tended to reduce the angle slightly, always removing his foot from the lectern base, ensuring that the posture wasn't too expressive, as expression in ambient posture can reduce the motivation to gesture (the body's compulsion to communicate being satisfied by the posture). This natural posture change made his eye-line shifts, between the studio audience and the camera, seem far less forced than two weeks ago. Speaking pace was well measured, demonstrating status-building ownership of time, allowing him space to find emphasis through vowel elongation, rather than by hitting the plosive consonants. At the previous encounter, Miliband found the length in his vowels through very long, quite speedy, beat gestures, in the form of downward strokes of the hand, hinging at the elbow. This time around, he reduced the length, quite dramatically, whilst slowing the movements down to support the same elongation in his vowels. This steady, controlled beat gesture was far more pleasing to the eye and was precisely the adaptation that I suggested in our last analysis (no, I didn't work with him!). At the end of his beat gesture was a clasp of the finger-tips. This is a form of precision gesture, communicating an attention to detail and accuracy in thought. It's a strangeness that gestures, as well as conveying a mind-set, can encourage one. Try bringing your finger-tips together and moving your hand up and down in slow, controlled strokes, and feel how it focuses your mind. Gestures are a physical manifestation of a thought and their benefit is mainly to the speaker, not the audience. Gestures with longevity and control, tend to hold a speakers mind to the thought -it's difficult to drop a thought when physically holding it. The bizarre, haunting minor inflections that littered his previous delivery weren't entirely eradicated but were reduced in frequency.

This is the most commanding delivery to date for the Labour leader. He must be careful to avoid looking self-satisfied (long blinks of the eye, as he steps back from speaking, can look smug), but technically, from a delivery stand-point, this was his evening.

Leanne Wood

For me, the greatest pleasure of the evening was seeing Leanne Wood free herself from the humbling hand-clasp, at navel level, that devastated her previous delivery. Ocassionally, she found her way back to it, but on the whole her hands were free to impact her speaking rhythms. Actually, her gestures were still small and lacked longevity but they were improved and some of the beautiful, lyrical vowels that populate her lovely dialect were allowed to exist. She is still forced onto the plosive consonants at times, and she makes quick, jutting movements of the head when this happens, but this was a step in the right direction. Her pace was far more controlled, this time around, which gave platform for the vowel elongation to exist and served to build status, to a degree.

Indeed, in my opinion, status must be the focus of her development. Growing nicely, as it is, her delivery is just too small, too limited in the physical space around her. She must find more width to her movements and allow deictic gesturing to occur. Deictic gestures are movements that populate the space around us, when physical areas can come to represent thoughts, ideas and even people. Pushing an idea away, as it is mentioned (or, indeed, a person, as their name is spoken) will communicate a negative relationship with it; drawing an idea towards the body, or simply placing it in close proximity to the body, will commuicate an affinity to it. By not having any width to her physical communication, Wood is losing the ability to use this precious skill. Putting deictic gestures aside, a confident person will fill their space and a low-status individual will try to disappear.

Wood's page skills are awful. She must try to avoid finishing a sentence at the page -it is immensely weakening. When she drops to the page, before a new point or subject, as she frequently does, she must do one of two things.

• Begin speaking at the page and then lift the eye-line 3 or 4 words into the sentence.

• Lift the eye-line before speaking, take a moment to engage and then speak.

To come up from the page whilst speaking the first word is weakening, amateur and lacks grace. Actually, at this level, there is little excuse for so much time at the page, which takes us on to Natalie Bennett.

Natalie Bennett

I'm afraid that this is a review that requires me to choose between being kind to Natalie Bennett or honest with you.

Unfortunately, Bennett's communication style and speaking skill-set made for an abrasive and cold delivery. At times, this seemed more like a hard-sell from an angry, desperate door-to-door vendor, than a delivery made by the leader of a political party, who wants to engage and compel.

Bennett's resonance placement is almost entirely in her head, almost lacking any trace of the chest resonance register. The head resonance is metallic sounding and harsh on the ear (think darleks). It is superb at conveying cold, intellectual prowess and cerebral, statistical, data-driven content, but it is far less able to communicate our feelings and passions than the weightier, warmer, chest resonance. Yes, too far into the chest register and a speaker sounds like a hippy (a stereotype that I'm sure the Green Party are committed to resisting), but such extreme use of the head resonance is damaging to any leader, in any political party or any organisation. If you'd like an example of how powerful the effect of resonance can be, make an “eee” sound behind the nose. Now, holding that resonance placement, say “I love you” to your partner and you'll see just how much negative effect it has. Bennett's resonance balance has nothing to do with her native dialect, which uses both registers across it's variations. This is an idiosyncrasy in Bennett's delivery style that can be eliminated and it must be her main focus.

Bennett used her neck to punctuate her speaking, making sharp jutting movements with her chin. This forced her onto the cold, hard, plosive consonants, as she sought emphasis. Our emotions are in our vowels, through elongation of the vowels (see earlier post for detailed explanation of this), and we tend to use the consonants when speaking about something that we have only a cerebral relationship with. This exaggerated the effect of her head resonance. She must use fluid, controlled and curving gestures to find the vowels in her words.

Bennett's use of the page is dreadful (see Leanne Wood's review, above, for the detail on how it should be done). She must know her content better that she did last night. The debate began and concluded with one-minute prepared deliveries from each of the speakers. Surely, with this much at stake, she could spare the time to know the content of these.

For the reasons above, this delivery lacked grace and came over as a hard-sell. Her cold, emotionally detached delivery style was totally out of sync with her content.

Nicola Sturgeon

From a delivery stand-point, Sturgeon was probably the winner of the previous debate. This time around, she brought many of the same skills to her delivery, whilst (excluding the last question) playing a quieter, more controlled part in it. This showed that Sturgeon is as comfortable in careful debate as she is in the verbal dogfights that she was involved in last time and in the closing part of the debate last night.

Crucially, putting her nervous first minute aside, she freed herself from the hand clasp that worked against her in the first debate. Indeed, last night her gestures were bigger, bolder, more deictic and had better longevity. Freeing up her hands had a wonderful impact on her speaking rhythms. If her vowels were good at the first encounter, they were excellent last night. She must still be wary of side-to-side movements in her upper body, as her powerful synergy, that binds her skills, will work against her, pushing her onto the consonants. Crossing her legs, which was ocassional, limited her ability to find width in her gestures, as her body was finely balanced, with a higher centre of gravity, and it must be avoided.

Actually, from her political stand-point (and I'm not going to get political), the evening played in her favour, with the questions having increasing relevance to her and allowing her to build in intensity and drama, as the evening progressed. This is a structure that many try to achieve and in some respects, it was a gift of chance.

Her nicely balanced resonance allowed her to speak from the heart and the head, in equal measure, ensuring that she held our interest, throughout the evening.

So it was much of the same, last night, with some nice adaptions to the skill-set, as she found a more measured delivery style. In the closing minutes, when she went toe-to-toe with Miliband, she returned to the powerful controlled beat gestures and strongly elongated vowels that won her so much success in the last debate.

Nigel Farage

Well, the content analysts are all talking about strategic mistakes, but from a technical delivery view-point, this was Farage back at his best.

As always, the quick hammering beats of his hands created punctuated, staccato rhythms in his speaking, destroying all hope of vowel elongation and pushing him onto the abrasive consonants. Jutting movements of the head created harsh lexical stresses and there was no hope for the more powerful, emotive, prosodic stress, as he sought emphasis. However, there was one crucIal difference in his performance last night...

Time ownership. Last night he avoided the temptation to say as much as possible in his allocated one-minute slots, and instead, embeded some stunning dynamic pauses into his speaking. A dynamic pause is a moment where the thought and the eye-line are held, forbidding the audience to disengage. Farage seems to thrive under pressure and it was in some of his most pressured moments, when he slowed his pace and imbued the delivery with moments of silence, that his delivery was most impressive.

Interestingly, Farage moved his resonance placement much closer to balance, as he introduced more of his chest register into his voice -I suspect this was not consciously done. The introduction of more chest register conveyed passion and commitment in his speaking. This became more noticable when he entered a vicious spat with Miliband. Not getting political, speaking purely as a communication coach, a speaker must never use the words “liar” or “lying” in a formal debate, as it undermines the legitimacy of the event itself. “Misleading” is as far as an accuasation should go, in a formal debate -the audience will make the translation.

Still present, albeit to a lesser degree, was Farage's use of non-verbal communication, as he dramatically reacted to other speakers words, as they spoke. He should bring this under his control. His non-verbal communication is becoming non-verbal leakage. Grinning so wildly when others speak, a speaker runs the risk of becoming the class clown -or worse still, the village idiot.

Still idiosyncratic, this was a better, more confident delivery. If Farage wanted to communicate passion, he succeeded.

David Cameron

The political analysts all have opinions on Cameron's absence from this debate. Speaking purely from a communications point of view, screen time is everything and every second counts.

Nick Clegg

As above but worse. To quote Oscar Wilde:

“There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about and that is not being talked about”.

So, there we have it. I hope you enjoyed our analysis. Roll on the next debate...

Tonight's Election Debate

Indeed, I can hardly contain myself with excitement. Do check back tomorrow, as we will, once again, be putting the deliveries under intense technical scrutiny. I hope that round two is as fascinating as the first!

For those who wanted our analysis of the Leaders' Debate explained. What is it with vowels?

I've been asked by a few people to explain the vowel vs consonants references in the Leaders' Debate analysis below. So, here we go...

Imagine looking out of a window and seeing something big-ish, not huge, just sizeable. However, you use the word "enormous" to describe it. So you say:

"It's enormous."

Now imagine seeing the biggest thing you've ever seen -it's mind-blowingly large. You use the same word to describe it but this time you might say:

"It's enoooorrrmous."

You bump into someone you know. You don't want a conversation. You're just being polite and you say:

"Hi."

 You see a long-lost friend and it's the best moment of your month and you say:

"Hiiiiiiiiii"

Something is "amazing" or it's "amaaaazing".

So, the duration of the vowel is directly proportional to the emotional commitment we are making. We find emphasis through vowel elongation. However, we can also find emphasis by hitting the consonant...

We can make the word "superb" more dramatic and place more emphasis on it by placing a hard plosive stress on the "p".

"suPerb"

Or we could choose to use the vowel sound, by elongating it:

"supeerrrb"

Vowel elongation is a far more elegant and emotive form of emphasis. A good speaker must learn to find emphasis through vowel elongation, rather than through hard hitting of the plosive consonants. 

Quick beats of the hand, such as those that Nigel Farage used in the Leaders' Debate, will encourage consonant stress. Fluid, smooth, longer or controlled movements of the hand will draw out the vowels. 

Try saying a sentence and making jerky movements with your hands and you'll see how staccato rhythms develop in your speaking. Now say the same sentence and move you hands in curved or fluid movements and you'll find that the vowels are elongated.

We call the force that connects the way we move and the speaking rhythms we use "Synergy". Synergy is critical in a good speaker but it can be your best friend or your worst enemy. A speaker with strong synergy bears a responsibility -if the movements are bad, the voice will follow suit; if the movements are smooth and controlled, the speaking will be too.

2015 Leaders' Debate - We don't review it, we dissect it.

I've been asked by a number of our clients for our opinions on the Leaders' Debate. Well, without further ado, here it is... Oh, of course this is purely based on our opinion of the deliveries. We don't talk politics amongst friends. 

Natalie Bennett

It’s never easy to go first, particularly on a debut performance, but her opening words were strongly delivered, although fleeting glances to the page seemed to be moments of pacification, rather than actual information grabs. Vocally, her resonance placement is heavily prejudiced to her head, creating a metallic sound. Whilst this resonance is superb at conveying cerebral prowess and communicates the logic in her argument with clarity, it is less able to convey passion and emotional conviction than the weightier chest resonance. A touch more chest register and she will strike the balanced resonance. Jutting movements of her head, as she sought emphasis, pushed her onto the plosive consonants, rather than the more elegant vowels, and created staccato rhythms, breaking up her sentences into bite-sized, punctuated chunks. Although her opening statement was delivered to camera, the rest of her speaking was delivered into the stage-right side of the studio audience. This slightly detached her from the rest of the leaders and the fixed eye-line gave the impression that she was inwardly thinking as she spoke. Certainly, with her position on the far stage-right, a stage left eye-line would have been a better choice. Gesturing improved, becoming bolder and less staccato, as the debate progressed. More fluid movements softened her choppy speaking rhythms and more vowel elongation developed. Open handed gestures, often palm up, lifted her inflections and more colour developed in her speaking. In moments of sincerity, she used palm-down gestures, such as the inverted globe, sending her inflection to the base major and bringing weight to her words. She must avoid patting the lectern with her fingers –it is a distraction and the quick beating rhythms will send her back onto those consonants.

Nick Clegg

Following the Cleggmania that swept Britain after the 2010 debates, it was inevitable that Nick Clegg would stick to the same formula in delivery. However, this time, he took it too far. Five years ago, his relaxed, casual style seemed a refreshing break from the rigidity of political oration and the menace of spin, this time it seemed nonchalant and irresponsible –and was totally out of sync with his moments of heated debate. Most people wouldn’t stand with their left hand in their trouser pocket when presenting to their boss and in doing so, for much of the debate, Clegg gave the impression that he has forgotten who he works for –the people. It was a shame to see the most talented speaker on the stage throw it all away through a simple misjudgement in style. Technically, he was the strongest of the night. He speaks with a perfectly balanced resonance and his use of vowels (after his opening statement) was lovely, as he found emphasis through elongation and specificity. His gesturing was far superior to anyone else on the stage. OK, so I grew a little tired of his central Box Gesture but he moved it with steady control for emphasis. He had good stillness at core in his posture (probably the element that spawned such motivated gestures), although placing his weight over his right hip was expressive –the motionless version of a swagger. His eye-lines were excellent –held with perfect longevity, moving on the change of thought and favouring the studio audience over the camera (although switching between them effortlessly). Technically, there is little to fault. Style and tone were inappropriate. Maybe he was trying to emulate Mark Antony: “I am no orator, as Brutus is, but as you know me all, a plain, blunt man… I have neither wit, nor words nor worth, action nor utterance, nor the power of speech to stir men’s blood. I only speak right on”. The difference is that Mark Antony was actually speaking at full tilt. Nick Clegg, talented as he is, forgot to speak.

Nigel Farage

Opening with some big 'encompass' gestures, it was clear the Nigel Farage was coming out fighting. However, his gesturing quickly descended into hammering, staccato movements, accompanied by sharp, jutting head movements, producing lots of short vowels and hitting the plosive consonants. His use of short vowels allowed the build-up of pace, which was to have a devastating impact on the rest of his skill-set. In speaking, the currency of status is time. A powerful speaker will speak with a controlled pace and the world will wait; a weak speaker will rush because the world will not wait for them. OK, so each speaker was restricted to short, limited periods in which to speak but the rules were evenly enforced and Nigel Farage seemed desperate as he tried to say as much as possible. This lowered his status and gave the impression of a speaker who is on the back foot. Indeed, for the first time in my memory, he looked nervous. For me, the most damaging part of Farage’s performance was not his speaking, per se, but his non-verbal communication. Time and time again, he grimaced and grinned theatrically whilst others spoke. Although such a strategy can buy screen time and (to a certain degree) sneakily pass comment on an opponent’s words, it is playing with fire. Facial expression is far more subjective in perception than words, which have clearer intent and meaning. Facial expressions are deemed to be a more truthful indication of a person’s real intent (it is easier to lie with words than with facial expressions), yet they are far more easily misinterpreted than words. With his hammering gestures, lack of vowels, rapid pace and theatrical reactions, this just seemed desperate. If a politician has been accused of being divisive and dangerous, by their rivals, then they must convey calmness and reason. Content aside, his delivery style was anything but calm –it looked anxious.

Ed Miliband

Without doubt, this was the boldest delivery of the night. Ed Miliband has clearly put a lot of time and effort into his preparation for the debate. At times, his speaking, which has clearly seen some heavy coaching over the last few weeks, looked controlled and brimmed with command and status; at other times, it looked contrived, over-theatrical and overtly dramatic. One of the first things that an actor learns, when speaking to camera, is to take an eye-line at the rim of the camera lens. This will still appear as if they are looking at the viewer but will avoid the intense, almost surreal, hypnotic gaze that occurs when a speaker looks straight down the lens. I was wearing my evening pyjamas when I watched this and I started to feel a little self-conscious when Ed Miliband glowered through the glass of my TV screen. When he took an eye-line to David Cameron, he tended to turn his entire body, rather than use the rule of thirds (first third of turn with body, second third with head and last third with eyes) which keeps the body open to the audience. This meant that he spent much the debate (when not staring at my pyjamas) in profile. It’s a weakening position anyway but his profile isn’t his best angle. Miliband used lots of beat gestures –his favourite being a fully reduced globe, a type of precision gesture (communicating precision in thought), which he moved up and down with long strokes. This drew out his vowels nicely and maintained a clear, controlled pace. It was reminiscent of early Clinton, who used these long strokes on the campaign trail. However, when Clinton became President and spent more time inside the confines of the tight, televisual mid-shot, he had only a few inches at the bottom of the screen to play with. He reduced the gesture length to around 2 or 3 inches and slowed the movement down to maintain the length of the vowel –the “Clinton Thumb” was born. Ed Miliband must make the same adjustment, as frequently, his hand popped in and out of frame, distractingly, as we caught only the crest of the movement. Occasionally, he used what is called a creeping minor inflection, which created some strange, dramatic, even creepy moments, where it wasn’t clear whether the sentence had be concluded. He is not Australian and should avoid the minor inflection –it might be cool on the street at the moment but it’s far from the image of a strong prime minister that he is so clearly aiming at. OK, so it had some weird moments but this delivery was a major jump forward for Ed Miliband –for the first time, he didn’t look like a sixth former on the school debate team. If he keeps making such leaps, he might just end up a great speaker.

Leanna Wood

There was certainly a sense of honesty and a down-to-earth nature to Leanna Wood’s performance. This was owing to a lack of experience in speaking on a national platform of this scale and a departure from the technical polish of the other leaders. Yes, it seemed heart-felt and refreshing but it also felt out of place and, at times, she seemed out of her depth, flanked on both sides by seasoned speakers. The humbling hand clasp, at navel level, which was her ambient, default posture for much of the evening, was expressive, satisfying her compulsion to communicate physically, and as a result her gestures were unmotivated, tending to be small and short-lived. John Bulwer, in 1644, recognised that the way in which we move has a profound impact on our speaking rhythms and this was perfect example of that effect. Her speaking lacked fluidity, being highly punctuated and jerky. Her natural vowel use isn’t too bad but the movement in her body, in her waist, shoulders and head, forced her onto the consonants and she tended to hit words hard for emphasis, using lexical stress, rather than the more impactful and elegant prosodic stress. It’s truly fascinating how such a simple idiosyncrasy, such as a hand clasp, can run amok through an entire skillset. Here is the process… The hand clasp physically limits gesturing and the expressive nature of it harms the motivation in gesturing that does occur, the lack of gesturing creates movement in the core posture as the body seeks other ways to express emphasis. These body movements create staccato speaking rhythms, forcing the speaker onto the consonants and finding harsh lexical stresses. These, in turn, encourage more movement in the body (we tend to move our heads as we hit a word) and so the process becomes self-perpetuating. Of all the speakers, Leanna Wood spent the longest at the page, during the debate part of the evening. This is acceptable in the corporate world, when giving presentations but is weakening when surrounded by speakers of such calibre. There is a simple route to better speaking for Leanna Wood. Once she finds more control of her body, more stillness at core and better use of gestures, everything will start to fall into place and her down-to-earth style will make her a very powerful speaker.

Nicola Sturgeon

Although there were many technical issues with this delivery, Sturgeon was certainly exciting to watch. If Miliband made the boldest decisions in delivery, Sturgeon certainly made the most aggressive delivery. Vocally, her voice isn’t far from resonance balance but is slightly prejudiced to the head register. By introducing more of the chest register she will convey her passion and conviction less cerebrally. Her opening statement was weak. Going down the same road as Leanna Wood, she spoke with her hands in a clasp but on the face of the lectern. Actually, this is less humbling than the clasp at navel but it prevented any gesturing and as a consequence, her body giggled around, bobbing about distractingly, as she sought some way of expressing herself physically. Rapid blinking is often caused by rapid thinking but can also be a product of discomfort. She looked weak and uncomfortable. However, as the debate progressed, Nicola Sturgeon improved –dramatically. The hand clasp was dropped and replaced with a “half-yankee” posture (one hand on the side of the lectern face), one of the most commanding and confident postures at a lectern. This freed up her right hand and the fireworks began. With every gesture came wonderful vowel elongation. Her eye-lines were clean, had great longevity and moved between the audience and the camera smoothly. When turning to the other leaders, she tended to keep her body open to the audience and calmly switched to the opposite half-yankee posture when switching sides. Sturgeon tended to allow (or use) too much expression, in reaction, when other leader were speaking. See Nigel Farage’s speaking review for the reasons that this is damaging and dangerous. Even at her best, there was still some movement in core posture. When she eradicates this Nicola Sturgeon will be a frightening opponent to face.

David Cameron

The Prime Minister had everything to lose at this debate and he was the easiest target for those who wished to score points. Bearing that in mind, it’s understandable that he chose to play safe. As always with David Cameron, it was a very controlled, smooth performance but this time it was dull and forgettable. It’s difficult to fault him on the technical speaking skills that he brought to his delivery, most of which were perfectly executed. His posture, as always, was sublime: neutral, centred and with superb stillness at core. His eye-lines were perfectly timed, moving gracefully and naturally on the change of thought. His vocal resonance is perfectly balanced, allowing him to speak from the heart and the head. Finally, his time-ownership was stunning (as it always is) -he spoke with perfect pace, conveying status and command. However, he made little effort to communicate with his body. His excellent stillness and neutrality at core should have served as the perfect foundation for bold and motivated gesturing but, instead, he spent much of this debate in the French Posture (hands on face of lectern), which usually conveys careful consideration and prudence. It’s possible that this had been a strategic decision (if someone told me that they wanted to convey prudence then that’s the posture that I’d advise them to use) but when it became clear how bold Miliband’s strategy was and how assertive Sturgeon was being in her delivery, he should have adapted to his environment. His sparing use of gestures led to an uncharacteristic failing in his vowel use –the vowel is elongated for emphasis through the journey of the gesture. David Cameron is normally quite easy to read –he raises his eyebrows when under pressure and purses or licks his lips when thinking deeply. Yesterday, he held a poker face when under pressure. That’s not a problem, as long as you break it when you start to speak. There was nothing wrong, per se, in the technicalities of this delivery but there isn’t much to talk about either. That’s a shame, for such a gifted speaker.

So, there it is. I've tried to be consistent and avoid getting too techy -but then it's a bank holiday and the wine is flowing...