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...