What is the point of big election speeches?
It's good to see that big speeches haven't died out in election campaigns, though they may no longer always take place at big evening rallies in town halls around the country.
And it was interesting that David Cameron took time this morning to expound on his Big Society theme.
I've expressed scepticism recently about whether this slogan works, and also about whether, given his centralising track record as a party leader, Cameron will really deliver "power to the people".
I've only read , but Cameron does give a serious, important explanation of the philosophy behind his politics, and I felt it was more coherent and persuasive than his party conference speech on the same theme last year.
It was remarkably free of political jibes about his opponents, and interesting in that the two figures he cited are not usually considered to be great heroes of the right - the former Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone, and Barack Obama.
Whether it will make much difference in how people vote, I doubt. But that's not always the point of big election speeches.
I was told by one of Tony Blair's former advisers the other day that Blair used to put an extraordinary amount of effort into his set-piece speeches during campaigns.
Part of the purpose, I imagine, is for the leader himself and his party colleagues to gather their thoughts amid the tiring hurly-burly of an election campaign. And also to act as a philosophical route map if one does achieve power.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 27th Apr 2010, barriesingleton wrote:TRIUMPH OF STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE.
If one has something to say, that an audience wants to hear, no speech is necessary. Unfortunately, if you have the trick of delivering strings of words, in a way that makes people feel 'glad they were there' then, as Tony Blair demonstrated on many occasions, people can be led to hear, even that which was not said. It is in the nature of the archetypal Westminster politician, to laud this ability, term,ing such vacuous charlatans 'consummate parliamentarians'.
The fault, of course, lies in ourselves.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 27th Apr 2010, stevie wrote:not many hecklers around is there? I mean funny one's not just oiks with nothing to say just rants or downright abuse and that is not heckling...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 27th Apr 2010, Ben G wrote:Has a politician ever given a little speech?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 28th Apr 2010, JunkkMale wrote:2. At 4:24pm on 27 Apr 2010, stevie wrote:
not many hecklers around is there?
There have been a few, but in keeping with the tenor of the campaign even these seem to have been pretty much stage managed.
There was that bloke who was on about schools who Mr. Brown couldn't scarper from quick enough.
Then the chap who button-holed Mr. Cameron with his disabled son, but as the exchange seemed better for the the media ratings without the knowledge of the full facts ( - scroll website to para well down to find out the back story to broadcast news story), I am only now finding is a fully fledged activist and partisan supporter of other parties. At least Mr. Cameron acknowledged the man's son, who the father seemed to feel better served as a prop.
In fact, these days, when a member of the public, 'guest' or especially 'expert' is introduced by our media, I tend first to head to Google to find out their actual provenance, as the tribal agendas of today' MSM means they will certainly not tell you and spoil a good rant with actual context.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)