the speechwriter may 2013

May 2013 | Volume 12

The Speechwriter

WelcomeWelcome to the twelfth

edition of The Speechwriter newsletter. The purpose of this publication is to circulate examples of excellent speeches to members of the UK Speechwriters’ Guild. We do this by picking out openings, closings, one-liners and quotations and other topical extracts from newspapers and the internet to identify techniques, stimulate your imagination and provide models which you can emulate.

This newsletter appears quarterly and is available to anyone who is a Standard Member of the UK Speechwriters’ Guild or the European Speechwriter Network.

ContributeEvery quarter we award

the Demosthenes Pebble (£25 Amazon token) for an outstanding speech. Please send your speeches to:

[email protected]

W W W. U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K • I N F O @ U K S P E E C H W R I T E R S G U I L D . C O . U K

Former White House speechwriter, Peggy Noonan,

wrote a book called How to Give a Good Speech. She has some unusual recommendations for speechwriters.

An appropriate speech is one that doesn’t call particular attention to itself. There’s the Coco Chanel story - she said that if a woman walks into a room wearing one of her dresses and everyone says: ‘What a dress!’ then she has failed. But if the woman walks into the room and people say, ‘Oh, you look fabulous,’ then she has succeeded. You want people to say after hearing you, ‘She’s very intelligent, she made some really interesting points,’ Not, ‘Oh, what an interesting speech.’

Once you’ve finished a first draft of your speech - stand up and speak it aloud. Where you falter, alter.

No speech should last more than twenty minutes: Hubert Humphrey’s wife is said to have advised him: ‘Darling, for a speech to be immortal it need not be interminable’.

Don’t be sophisticated. Be commonsensical. Speeches actually have to say things. And great speeches are great because they say great things. Speeches that consist merely of the stringing together of pretty words and pretty sentiments are not great, and never live.

“A great speech is literature”

Good hard simple words with good hard clear meanings are good things to use when you speak. They are like pickets in a fence, slim and unimpressive on their own but sturdy and effective when strung together.

People like short digressions, they’re a short stop on a long drive.

Use humour where you can. Why? Because it makes people laugh. No one ever left a speech saying, ‘He was too witty,’ or ‘I hated the way she made me laugh out loud.’

Reading is the collection of intellectual income; writing the spending of it. You need to read to write, you need to take in other people’s words and thoughts and images. If you want to be a good conversationalist, you must both talk and listen; if you want to be a good writer, you must both read and write.

MASTERCLASS by Peggy Noonan

EUROPEANSPEECHWRITERNETWORK

UK Speechwriters' GuildNewsletter of the incorporating


Most provocatively, Shosky claims that great speeches “bring out the best in the audience”. I think his book demonstrates a more equivocal truth. The outstanding speeches here certainly “channel thinking,” in his words, “moving it into new territory.” Some are uplifting: Havel, Robin Cook (his magnificent 2003 resignation speech), Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (of whom I was shamefully ignorant before opening this book). Some offer shared enlightenment: Michael Bear, Slavoj Žiżek on

the Occupy movement, Douglas Alexander. But others work more viscerally: Mitt Romney’s conflation of religion and politics; Obama’s breathtakingly daring eulogy for the victims of the Tucson shootings; Hugo Chavez’ notorious, exhilarating tirade in 2006 at the UN, with its reference to Dubya and the smell of sulphur.

Elsewhere – and he has written a good set of blog posts for Total Politics – Shosky talks about “the healing power of language”. I’m not sure I buy his thesis that great speeches by definition “make our community and its citizens better”.

The outstanding speeches here weld their audiences together with a surge of linguistic energy; but they don’t always “appeal to our better instincts”. They compel our attention and our (maybe temporary) acquiescence, despite our more rational intentions. Some “keep doing their job” (Shosky’s final characteristic of ‘greatness’); but their real claim to greatness is that they did what they aimed to do, at the moment of their performance, stunningly.

Maybe it’s this indefinable ‘kick’ – which every speechwriter searches for – that makes great speeches spellbinding. And Shosky, albeit reluctantly, seems to agree. For good or otherwise, he recognises that “these words won’t leave us alone.”

The Words of Our Time: speeches that made a difference 2001-2011by John ShoskyBiteback Publishing, 2012, £20

This new collection gathers 50 speeches that,

in John Shosky’s view, have made history: speeches that “won’t go away”. It’s a useful album of insights into the shocking decade we’ve just left behind.

Many of these texts would be significant, even if they hadn’t been speeches. I’d have welcomed a broader cultural range: despite nods to religion (Pope Benedict) and science (Diana DeGette), the themes are predominantly political and economic. (And do we really need four speeches by Cameron?)

The stylistic range is broader than the thematic. So what does such a varied collection reveal about how speeches work? Shosky provokes the question by offering nine characteristics of great speeches. How do his choices measure up? For a start, he sees speeches as literature. Great speeches, he suggests, are “well written”. In which case, at least three speeches here noticeably fail: Ang San Suu Kyi (14 November 2011), Ronald Jan Heijn (6 November 2011) and Sarah Palin (6 February 2010).

Great speeches are “simple” (Pope Benedict?); they “tell us something authentic about the speaker” (Putin?); they “change the world” (Sarkozy? Dan Hannan? Almost any of the speeches by British politicians?).

The Biteback Dictionary of Humorous Political Quotationsby Fred Metcalf Biteback Publishing, 2012, £9.99

A good book of quotations is like a box of superior

chocolates. You enjoy one, and before you know it...

Fred Metcalf’s collection of political quotations is among the most superior. His range is remarkable, historically (from Cicero to blog postings from 2012) and stylistically. He includes one-liners and slow-burners of up to 60 words; he quotes real people and fictional characters (The West Wing is well represented). Some of the humour is broad (including – perhaps a few too many – American stand-up comedians); some traditionally witty; and some satirical (Yes Minister is here). You’ll find writers, actors, activists and plenty of real politicians, many of them with their own entries: quotation collages that deliver caricatured, often surreal pen portraits.

The entries on national characteristics brazenly celebrate their own political incorrectness. Metcalf is happy to include Anon, and its more recent descendant, the bumper sticker (“GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE. ABORTION CLINICS KILL PEOPLE.”) “That’s humour at work,” chuckles Metcalf in his introduction; “ever ready to undermine your most precious and long-held beliefs. It thinks it’s funny!”

One quibble. The dictionary is arranged by subject, including issues, movements, philosophies and political parties. My pedantic side would have welcomed an index of authors. Use this book in two ways. Reach for it when you want to add the sharp tang of a ready-made quotation to a speech. And study it closely to discover the secrets of being quotable.


BOOK REVIEWS

The Speechwriter

Newsletter of The UK Speechwriters’ Guild

2

by Alan Barker



The Speechwriter


3

a programme of ‘nation building’, that means creating institutions and rituals that bring the different interests: religious, academic, political and scientific together to remoralise the country.

Luuk van Middelaar isn’t a rabbi, but he has rabbinical gift for telling good stories and making ideas accessible. He has written a book describing how several tribes have come together over the past 60 years to build a ‘European’ community, state, union or nation, depending on how you want to see it.

He lists three forms of European co-operation: ‘The Europe of States’, ‘The Europe of Citizens’ and ‘The Europe of Offices’.

The ‘Europe of States’ is the principle that European politics has most to gain from co-operation between governments. There is no need for institutions. Sovereign governments pursue peace and prosperity for their peoples through diplomatic exchange.

The ‘Europe of Citizens’ is the principle that state powers need to be transferred to a European government, parliament and court paving the way for a federation. The model is the American republic, where central bodies exercise power over citizens directly.

The ‘Europe of Offices’ is the principle of transferring functions to a European bureaucracy. A rational bureaucracy will steer the ship. There doesn’t need to be a visionary goal.

The European Union has applied all three principles in its development of its key institutions: the Council, the Parliament and the Commission.

Middelaar’s book poses the question, how has the idea of Europe evolved? And what path will it pursue in the future? He enumerates three conceptions of the Union.

Where Do We Belong? A Review of Luuk van Middelaar’s The Passage to Europeby William Cohen

One of my favourite speakers is the Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks.

He’s also a trenchant political thinker. One of his preoccupations is his fear that our societies are falling apart. He wrote a book called The Home We Build Together, which analysed British national identity and the challenge of multiculturalism.

He says the British define themselves with static images - long shadows over the county ground, spinsters cycling to Evensong, warm beer etc. And he explains how British values emerge in schools, universities and regiments, where enthusiasm and effort are frowned upon. The Chief Rabbi compares this unfavourably with America, where there is a national purpose. America and Israel are nations built on covenants - powerful stories about belonging, like the building of the Tabernacle or rituals like the Inaugural Address invoking the blessing of God upon the people.

The Chief Rabbi thinks that Britain as an idea is at risk. He proposes

The German way: this is based on promoting shared destiny. The tools to do this include a flag, symbolic coins and pantheon of dead ‘founders’. The mechanism works in the same way as Italy was created. The Italian parliamentarian Massimo d’Azeglio, shortly after national unification in 1860 said, ‘We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians’.

Then there is the Roman way: this builds a union based on rights and freedoms and material benefits like security, opportunities and money. When Margaret Thatcher stated we want ‘our money back’ she broke a taboo about calculating net receipts. The concept of ‘our’ upset the notion of a ‘European’ we. A Dutch Parliamentarian has argued: ‘Money makes Europe visible to residents’ and is therefore, ‘a fine way to generate a European consciousness’.

And then there is the Greek way: debate, drama and democratic representation. We all need to have a say. They created a parliament, direct elections and a conception of citizenship to promote these ideals. We do see drama on the European stage. National politicians have to square agreements at the European table and then their electorates back home. British MEP’s rant and rave at the high and mighty of the Commission. The British referendum, should it happen, will be an important test of the Greek model. What will happen if a nation state decides to leave the Union?

Luuk van Middelaar– speechwriter to Herman Van Rompuy

May 2013 | Volume 12The Speechwriter


4


Is there a European identity? Is the association durable? It wasn’t something that emerged as a result of the will of the peoples, it has been built by politicians. What it is has in common with the founding of Israel, is that the peoples have a habit of backsliding and complaining that they were better off with the fleshpots of the past.

The Chief Rabbi states often that Europe is dying. A culture of “consumerism and instant gratification” has led to falling birth rates. He says what we need is a creative and dynamic purpose. Since Europe is formed from the conflict of interests among nation states perhaps it does have a destiny. Maybe it’s like the Biblical Tabernacle - the sheer fact of bringing together the creative gifts of 27 nations: German fiscal responsibility, French bureaucratic dexterity, British institutional pragmatism, creates something greater than the sum of its parts.

This is a beautifully translated book, rich in ideas and reflections. It’s a meticulous chronicle of the vacillations, setbacks and compromises that have characterised the European project. Luuk van Middelaar writes with panache. He talks of Europe being a campfire, with the member states having to shuffle across to accommodate new members. He compares the evolution of Europe with the C12th conception of Purgatory as an idea, just for fun. He speculates on what might constitute a European identity, mentioning that a writer once claimed to be able to tell blindfold whether he was in Europe or somewhere else. It turns out Europe can be heard and smelt: barking dogs, church bells and children playing outdoors.

As a British person I’m grateful to Middelaar for writing an accessible history, a valuable reference book and an antidote to Eurosceptic newspaper prejudice.

I want to react to what has been said earlier.

Especially by Commissioner Rehn, when he came up with this quote from a professor. I don’t remember his name, but he said:

‘What has Europe ever done for you?’ And I was reminded of Monty Python’s Life of Brian

and ‘What have the Romans ever done for you?’ We’re in the same situation here.

The emotion is: we’re being occupied. And the reaction to that emotion is: rational arguments why things that are being done are good for you. That, in politics, will never work. That is one of the problems Europe’s facing today. That those who are in favour of European cooperation and integration, when they are criticised on a fundamental emotional level, their reaction is always rational arguments: ‘But they gave you a lower roaming fee’. You will not win the argument for Europe by stipulating once more that you got a lower roaming fee. You’ll have to make the argument on exactly the same emotional level. Like those who argue that Europe’s at its end, that Europe’s turning into a new dictatorship.

I believe in Europe because it has brought peace. I believe in Europe because it is the best instrument to protect our citizens against the negative effects of globalisation. And to help our citizens profit from the positive elements of globalisation, we need the size of Europe.

We as member states individually do not have the size to confront the challenges society faces. But

Europe’s challenged on a fundamental level.

Why? Because the social contract which underlies our societies and which underlies European integration is being challenged today. Because for the first time in a couple of generations, people are now looking at

their societies, be it in the UK or in the Netherlands or elsewhere, and are thinking: are our children actually going to be as well off as we are? Are we not heading for a certain decline? Isn’t the social contract to which we contribute out of order? Is it not a reality that those who are asked to pay for solidarity see that others benefit from solidarity, but doubt themselves when they need others to be grateful for their contributions they will not get the same solidarity in return?

I think this is one of the fundamental problems in Western European societies. The welfare state is no longer seen as something we all contribute to and we all profit from. It is seen as something we contribute to and others profit from. And that is why the crisis between the North and the South in Europe has resonated so strongly with the European population. Because it’s a reflection of what is happening within societies.

In the North people will say: look, we have to pay for people in the South who don’t even bother to go to work. Who retire at fifty. And live easy lives at our expense. And people in the South are saying: look, we have to go through these austerity programmes not because it is necessary. The programmes are killing our economies because the

SPEECH GIVEN BY THE DUTCH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FRANS TIMMERMANS Policy Network, The Guildhall, London, 28 February 2013



5


Or yourself.

I think that Europe today needs to look at itself and needs to reform itself. That is quite clear.

What irritates me – and I say this openly – is the fact that Brussels especially, the Brussels bubble – and I would agree with Prime Minister Cameron on this – is very good at telling others to reform and to change. But it’s very reluctant to reform and change itself. We have just had our multi-annual budget debate over the last couple of weeks. And I’m really, truly disappointed. That on heading 5, administrative expenses of the European Union, we have a 9% increase. Most of which will be spent on people working in Brussels. Whereas almost all of us at national level have to go through very difficult austerity programmes, limiting the salaries of our officials. Limiting the number of civil servants, etc. So I think if Brussels wants us to reform – and I think they have some strong points there – I think they should also lead in reform. And not, you know, raise their salaries that have always been talked about, with some justification. Not go onto the streets and strike because they want a pay rise, when the rest of the civil servants in Europe have to accept cuts in their pay.

I think we need to solve two problems. First of all, and this was debated in the first round, we need to bring back economic growth and jobs. For this we need to foster innovation and competitiveness. We need a better functioning internal market. We need to control the debt crisis and reform our welfare state. I think the left, especially in Europe, should come to terms with the fact that there will be no welfare state in the future without reform.

We cannot spend ourselves out of this crisis. We have to make sure we do reform our welfare state. There is a lot of room for reform of the welfare state. And it can become a good

North wants to impose its vision of society on us.

And this is arguably the biggest challenge European integration has ever seen. The fact that this idea of shared destinies is being put to the test at a very fundamental level. Not just of North and South, but, if I may say so, metaphorically, North and South within every society in the European Union.

Now turning to the subject I was asked to speak about. I was asked to reflect on a speech by a conservative prime minister in the United Kingdom. And I must say, if you read the speech, it is rather pro-European. Margaret Thatcher in Bruges in 1988 certainly had a number of things to say that were pro-Europe. They would probably not be said today by most prime ministers in any European nation. But one interesting point she made, warning against Europe, was listen, we want to stay British. Just as the Dutch want to stay Dutch. And the French want to stay French. We don’t want Europe to sort of take away our identity.

Now if you look back 25 years, and you look at the situation today, I think one could argue our identities are more pronounced, are clearer on a regional and on a local level than they were 25 years ago. I don’t think anybody is less Dutch than they were 25 years ago. Even in the region where I’m from in the south of the Netherlands. A region where local identity has amplified, has increased over the past 25 years. Not diminished. I think that this Europe, at the level of identity, regionally and locally, is not less than 25 years ago. I think it is stronger than 25 years ago. Of course, what happened in the last 25 years does not have to be repeated in the future. But I think it’s good to realise that you can have increased European integration, you can have increased European cooperation, without losing your identity.

welfare state that attends to the needs of our population. Especially, and this was also said in the first round, we need jobs. We need our younger generation to see light at the end of the tunnel. And in many European countries that is not the case today.

Secondly, we have to show that the EU can actually really help us. Provide for protection in this era of globalisation that also comes with a lot of risks for our populations. I think in many European countries, also in mine, working people especially see Europe as an agent of globalisation and don’t see it as a protective force against globalisation. We need to change that paradigm. In that context, too, it’s necessary for Brussels to reform itself.

The fundamental question of ‘why Europe?’ is never answered today. We’re always talking about ‘how Europe’. And ‘how Europe’ will never win elections. Only ‘why Europe?’ will win elections for Europe. I think too many people today think that the Commission and other institutions in Brussels are a justification in and by themselves. What they do, they do for Brussels, not for us. I think this is echoed not just in the UK, but in many EU member states.

And we do have an obligation. To clarify that the institutions we’ve created in Brussels are there for the people. Not for themselves. If we talk about the democratic deficit, we see this at three levels. First of all, there is an output deficit. Europe overpromises and underdelivers.

We need to change that. Secondly there is a throughput deficit. Nobody understands how Brussels works. Very few Europeans have – let me put it this way – an affectionate relationship with the European Parliament. And people do not understand the mechanics of the decision-making in Brussels. Thirdly, there is an input deficit. In most of our states, we don’t know



6


what happens with what we decide in Westminster or in the Dutch parliament, and then it’s presented in the European Council or elsewhere. Where is our voice going? Where is our position going? What’s coming out of it? We don’t see that.

So we need to fix the democratic deficit at three levels. And because this is so intricate, the simple solution of more power to the European Parliament will not fix it. We need national parliaments to become much more involved. To take the responsibility we need national politicians to stop blaming Europe for everything. And to stop claiming success and avoiding mentioning sometimes that the success – believe it or not – can really be attributed to Brussels.

Now, does this mean we need different forms of integration? I would say that we already have many different forms of integration and within the existing treaty we can have as much flexibility as one would like. This has changed recently, because this flexibility was always intended to accommodate people who wanted to travel at different paces. Those who wanted to travel fast could do that. And to join later – Schengen is one of the prime examples of that. I think this is a very important, very powerful model. And we need to work with that. The eurozone in fact works like that. And I think people would be under an illusion if they believe that the eurozone will remain at its present membership. Very few countries in the future will stay out of the eurozone. By choice, of course, people can stay out, but I think most of them will want to join. This is a good model.

What has changed in the debate is that now we’re not just talking about travelling at different speeds in one direction. We’re now starting to discuss the possibility of starting travelling in different directions. And sometimes when I follow the British

debate, it’s like a person in a car who hears a message on the radio saying: there’s a ghost rider on the M1. And the person in the car says: One? I see about a thousand here.

We will not head towards the united states of Europe. That’s one of those images that is always adopted in this debate. We will not lose our cultural identity. But what will happen then? I think in the next couple of years, we will concentrate especially on fixing what needs to be fixed. That is creating a banking union. And fixing the holes in the Economic and Monetary Union. These holes were created at the outset in Maastricht. Because the French didn’t want increased economic coordination. So what happened was that the idea became that convergence would automatically lead to the closing of those gaps in the Economic and Monetary Union. We had never imagined this crisis between the periphery and the centre. Which has increased the holes in the Economic and Monetary Union rather than closed them. So we need to fix that.

I believe we can fix that within the existing treaties, the limits of which will be explored in the next couple of years. And probably the limits will be indicated by other institutions such as the Constitutional Court in Germany. And if there the outcome is: what we can do cannot be done within the treaties, we might get a debate on treaty change. But I believe – and I have some experience with treaty change – that we would do everything to avoid treaty change. If we can fix it within the existing treaties – and I believe this is the common opinion in almost all member states today; if we get out of this crisis – and as you heard in the first panel, people are rather optimistic about this – the call for treaty change will not reoccur. I think that if we can fix it within the existing treaties, we will. Which is going to be an interesting case for the British government if they still

want a referendum. One would ask a referendum on what, if you don’t have treaty change.

This brings me to the speech of this other prime minister. A recent speech. If you look at Dutch foreign policy over the last seventy years, there’s one consistent element in our Europe policy. We want the Brits on board. From the very first discussion, on European cooperation between France and Germany, a central point, a pivotal point in Dutch foreign policy was to enlarge Europe by getting the Brits on board, because in our view, that would create a better balance. Between those countries who have, shall we say a protectionist inclination, and those countries who are oriented towards trade.

And this has served us well. Served the Netherlands well, and I honestly believe it has also served the United Kingdom well. I wonder what profits there would be in the UK leaving the European Union. I can’t really see them. It is an emotional thing. It is an internal party discussion. I understand all of those elements. But if I try to see, will it make Britain stronger? Absolutely not. Look at the position of Norway. Norway spends arguably more per capita on the EU and still has no say in the decision-making in Brussels. It can only adopt what is decided there. The EU can provide protection. We saw it in the case of salmon from Norway. It was creating a problem in Scotland. The EU took measures to prevent the Scottish economy from suffering too much. The UK might be in a completely different position. That salmon from Scotland creates a problem elsewhere in the EU. And if you’re not a member of the EU, you know what’s going to happen.

I think it is also an illusion to believe that you can leave the EU and still be part of the common market. The common market is not a static thing. It will develop under the influence of the decisions we will take on improving the euro. When

we fix the euro, this will create a new dynamic. Not just for the financial sector, but especially for the internal market. This is what we want. This is what the UK wants. This is what we need to do in the next couple of years. The danger is, if you’re not part of the EU you will create this dynamic, but will no longer be part of that dynamic.

I think it would be a grave mistake to believe that you can leave Europe and then still profit from the internal market. To my mind what we need to do in the next couple of years is reform the European Union. The chances of reform in the European Union are so much bigger with the UK on board, than with the UK outside. You will never reform the European Union by leaving the room. You will only reform the European Union by sitting down with your partners in Europe and the institutions and talking about the reforms we need.

I think there is a good case to be made for reviewing Europe’s competences. I agree with the British government on that. But do it together with your partners in Europe. Do it together with the institutions. Also the institutions. President Barroso has made remarks to that effect. He wants to look at their competences. And you can call it repatriation. You can call it what you like. But I think there is a case to be made on several issues. Where you can come to an agreement within the existing treaties. To say yes, the Commission might have this competence. But it’s not effective, not useful for the Commission to exert this competence.

We could rather give it back to the member states and have them exert it themselves. In my view you can do this in a common agreement with your partners in Europe and the institutions without looking for treaty change. In my view that is not necessary.

The other thing I would advise in using that approach is that you have to give a positive answer to at least three basic questions. First, will it strengthen the working of the internal market? Aiming for a highly competitive social market economy, which is crucial for creating European competitiveness and is possibly the greatest added value the EU has to offer for its citizens.

Secondly, does it respect the political essence of the EU as a common project of states and people?

Thirdly, does it ensure that the institutional set-up of the union remains balanced with its carefully constructed roles for the Commission, Parliament and Court of Justice?

Incidentally, as someone who has worked in these fields for more than 25 years, arguably the best people in the institutions are from the UK.

Your nationals in the EU institutions are arguably always among the best professionals in those institutions. Working for the EU and for Britain. Yes, that is possible at the same time.

And it would be a great loss to Europe, to those institutions, but specifically to the United Kingdom, if those people were forced to leave those institutions. That would really weaken all of us.

Therefore I call upon the British government to join us with other countries to reform the Union from within. To force the Brussels bubble to look at itself. To make sure we clarify the three issues with the democratic deficit. In output, throughput and input. We can do this.

We can do this at a national level and we can certainly do this at a European level. We have to do this, because otherwise we will

permanently lose the support of our population.

I think the strongest part in the speech made by Prime Minister Cameron is exactly about that democratic deficit. He is absolutely right. Across the continent we’ve lost the support of parts of our population for the European project. We need to regain their support. We can’t build Europe without the support of Europeans. And this can be not just the argument of lower roaming fees, but also, especially, arguments based on a common shared destiny. Based on a shared idea of what a social market economy should be.

Finally, Prime Minister Cameron called for the application of the principles of fairness. I agree. But fairness is a two-way street. You can’t just claim fairness from your partners in Europe. You have to apply fairness to your own attitude. Saying to the rest of Europe: give me what I want, or I’ll walk away will lead to the reaction we’ve seen from certain corners saying well, we’ll roll out the carpets. Be our guest, walk away. And I would advise my British friends to look who’s saying this. And whether they have the best interest of Britain and other partners in Europe in mind when they are saying it.

I would not be saying anything else as a Dutch foreign minister, because it’s part and parcel of what we believe in, but I want to repeat it finally once again. We need Britain in Europe. We need a strong and convincing argument for Europe in Britain. Because as Winston Churchill said, if you feed the crocodile of euroscepticism – my addition to his quote – if you feed the crocodile, the only thing you will achieve, is that the crocodile will eat you last.

Thank you very much.



7



second to roll off his tongue, which, while sounding attractive, did nothing to help keep us on schedule.

Despite my initial excitement, the actual speech writing process was fairly typical. However big the name the procedure is always the same. A first draft was sent through to his team in America; changes were made to reflect his natural style of speaking and sent back for approval. This process was repeated only twice before the speech was signed off and delivered.

Although I would love to take credit for a carefully constructed speech with compelling content, the reality is I was simply in the right place at the right time. Nevertheless, watching President Clinton deliver the speech I wrote for him has been my personal career highlight and, however it came about, it still has pride of place on my CV.

Celia Jarvis is a new member of the UK Speechwriters’ Guild


The Speechwriter


8

(from the University of Sheffield) considered the flamboyant oratorical style of the politician tipped to be the next leader of the party, Boris Johnson.

As with the Labour event held last year, the conference organisers, Andrew Crines (University of Huddersfield) and Richard Hayton (University of Leeds), plan to develop the proceedings into an edited book with a leading academic publisher. Together with the volume on Labour politics, they hope that the books will make a significant contribution to the study of oratory and rhetoric in British politics.

For more information on the PSA Specialist Group, please visit: www.psa-conservatism.org.uk or contact Richard on: [email protected]

This was the second highly successful conference built

upon the Labour Orators conference held at the University of Huddersfield in November 2011. Last year the focus was on the use of oratorical skills deployed by Conservative Party politicians, from Stanley Baldwin to the present day.

The conference was organised through the Political Studies Association Conservatives and Conservatism Specialist Group, convened by politics lecturer Richard Hayton.

Members of the group, who are specialists in the study of Conservative politics, delivered papers on significant figures from the party’s history, including William

Hague, Michael Heseltine, and Margaret Thatcher. Lord Norton of Louth, who both sits on the Conservative benches in the House of Lords and is an active Professor of Politics at the University of Hull, took on the challenge of analysing Enoch Powell, who used his powerful oratory to sometimes devastating effect.

Professor Kevin Theakston (University of Leeds) discussed the man commonly held up as the greatest orator in British political history – Winston Churchill. Huddersfield’s Emeritus Professor of Politics Brendan Evans gave his insights on Harold Macmillan – who, he confessed, he could well remember as Prime Minister. Meanwhile Dr Katharine Dommett

ORATORY IN CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLITICS

Working for a Nigerian Governor was never going

to be a nine-to-five job. During campaign season 18 to 20 hour days were the norm, temperatures regularly topped 40 degrees Celsius and the culture of ‘African time’ meant morning meetings would begin mid-afternoon, if at all.

However, amidst the chaos, there were also wonderful opportunities.

Perhaps the greatest was being asked to write a speech for Bill Clinton, former President of the United States, and now a committed humanitarian worker with a keen interest in developing countries and improving women’s rights.

I was instructed to write a short speech for President Clinton’s official address during his visit to Nigeria. Due to Clinton’s packed schedule only three minutes had been set aside and within this time he wanted to convey his sympathy over the country’s fractured history, express his hope that there would be a brighter future and thank the relevant dignitaries for a warm welcome.

The timings were strict and President Clinton still possessed a Southern drawl, left over from his childhood in Arkansas. The words ‘Nigeria’ and ‘plunder’ took a full

CELIA JARVIS DESCRIBES HOW SHE CAME TOWRITE A SPEECH FOR BILL CLINTON



9


FROM ANTIPHON TO AUTOCUE – A CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY ROYAL HOLLOWAY, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON by Brian Jenner

On 25 and 26 April, 2013, the Centre for Oratory and

Rhetoric (COR), Royal Holloway, University of London put on a two day conference on speechwriting with the title ‘From Antiphon to Autocue’.

I attended the session on ‘Modern Speechwriting’. UK Speechwriter’s Guild member, Professor Richard Toye, gave a stirring talk about Churchill’s speeches. He quoted from correspondence to show how people perceived Churchill’s speeches at the time. Many of the reactions were less flattering than later myths would have us believe. Office workers and people in the pub were concerned as to whether Churchill was actually telling the truth. Was he was using ‘rhetoric’ to create false hope? It was a reminder of the indifference and scepticism the general public can show to the speechwriter’s art.

Tom Clarke, an Australian academic from Victoria University, Melbourne, analysed ‘The Redfern Speech’, delivered by the Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, on 10 December 1992 at Redfern Park, Redfern. It’s regarded as one of the

greatest Australian speeches. It was the first time an Australian Prime Minister admitted to the crimes that European settlers committed against the Aboriginal communities, and the difficulties they continued to cause.

We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice.

It’s an astonishing speech, which can be viewed on YouTube. It later became even more controversial because Don Watson, the Prime Minister’s speechwriter, claimed authorship. This became the focus of a feud between Watson and Keating, with Keating quoting another speechwriter who summed up the difference in five words, ‘Broke the contract, mate’.

Andrew Tolson, Professor of Media and Communication at the De Montfort University, Leicester, compared the rhetorical techniques used in Tony Blair’s first Labour Party conference speech as leader to Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ conference speech delivered in 2012. He

explained how the theories of distinguished UK Speechwriters’ Guild regular, Dr Max Atkinson were still relevant, but evolving.

Simon Lancaster from Bespoke Speeches talked about his work as a professional speechwriter. He explained how he thought most people’s world view was formed between the ages of 18 and 21. By asking the speaker what they were doing then, it was a good way to work out what their cultural references and ‘story’ was. He was self-deprecating about what a speechwriter does, ‘save the bosses’ time’ and he described a politician’s trick to win over an audience on the doorstep, which is also adaptable for speeches: EVA - empathy, value, action.

The event was organised by Christos Kremmydas, a Greek academic with great enthusiasm for the subject. I also made contact with Professor Jonathan Powell and Professor Lene Rubinstein, who have an ambitious programme of events planned to promote the ‘flowers’ of rhetoric to their students.

LISTENERS LIKE SPEECH PHRASEOLOGY FREE FROM WAX

In ancient days

Roman sculptors sometimes sought to conceal surface cracks in a statue with the aid of melted beeswax.

A buyer deceived into believing that he was purchasing a flawless piece of marble, would place such a statue

proudly in his atrium.

A few weeks later the beeswax would dry out, crumble away, and leave the original cracks exposed.

To such alarming proportions did this practice of wax trickery grow, it finally became the custom of reputable sculptors to guarantee their works as sine cera - literally translated - ‘without wax’.

Our present word ‘sincere’ we owe to a rebellion against wax.

You are not in the business of carving statues out of marble. But you do something basically similar. You carve speeches out of words.

Beware the use of wax!

Beeswax tricked the ancient Romans. But wax never tricked anybody. It is instantly recognised and thoroughly despised by all listeners.

Public Speaking As Listeners Like It by Richard C Borden (1935)



10


When writing in English, I try to temporarily “shut-off’ Lithuanian in my head. It’s like going with a snow sweeper in my brain to clear the road for English constructions. Of course, I need to immerse myself in as much English as I can get being neither a native speaker nor a graduate in English philology. Reading and listening English texts is the only method.

What can you tell us about Lithuanian audiences?

Lithuanians are suspicious of rhetoric. For 50 years it has been used against us, to manipulate us during the Soviet occupation. Therefore if we spot good rhetoric, we sense a hidden agenda. A too good orator might also be seen as being a less good professional. Because Lithuanians value deeds, not words.

As a result people mistakenly

assume that speaking unprepared but “deep from their hearts” is better. But eventually it does not do justice either to the speaker, or for the issue they advocate. It’s grim, isn’t it? But in the end words do make difference here as elsewhere.

What’s your favorite reference book?

Susan Jones’ book was my first read on speechwriting as a separate subject. Then it was Peggy Noonan’s nicely written memoirs with many writing tips. I read it with great pleasure also because it was a thoughtful gift form my previous colleague. Third is Philip Collins latest book, though maybe I liked it because of his impressive presentation at the UK Speechwriters’ Guild Conference in London. His glossary of rhetorical terms at the end of the book was like learning quantum physics. Makes you think

How do you become a speechwriter in Lithuania?

Actually I became one in Belgium. When working in NATO’s public diplomacy team, I had to write speeches for our leadership. Not often, but more often that in any previous job. The feeling that ‘maybe I do it right’ came only at a speechwriting course by Susan Jones and Christopher Jary. They complimented me on my skills, but I took their words seriously only when a speechwriting job offer came along, almost two years later.

A speechwriter is a real ghost in Lithuania. No one admits speaking to it or having any issues, but I guess it’s true for all of continental Europe.

Can you remember the first speech you ever wrote?

Oh, that was at my first job, in a youth organisation, more than ten years ago. I don’t remember the subject any longer, only that my boss came back to me saying “this is a really good one”. I did not see it as breakthrough in speechwriting then, more as recognition of my ability to “make a point”. I never imagined speechwriting as a separate career path, at least not for me.

Are you employed to write speeches in English as well as Lithuanian? How does that work?

you know nothing of speechwriting again.

Did you do debating at school?

No, I did debating at home. With my father, every day. Sometimes a few times a day. Seriously, I consider him as my first teacher in persuasive speaking. A child’s lack of authority forced me to sharpen my arguments like nothing else.

I joined one at University, but not for long.

Who is your favourite English-speaking politician?

I’ll be very boring, but Obama. His way of speaking persuades that the Left is right. I also like that he presents politics as an organic part of our lives, not something happening ‘in the other world’. Politics is about people’s lives. He also denounces the stereotype that political speeches should be either boring or too sophisticated. But as with everything “favourite”, one has to enjoy with moderation.

What did you think of Margaret Thatcher?

I wonder if being her speechwriter would have been a bliss or a curse. Without adding much to what has been said lately, I think that times dictate our leaders too.

What’s your favourite book written in English?

I like Kurt Vonnegut for his irony and J. Saramago for style. He forces us to read as we speak. A parallel with speechwriting as an exercise to write as we speak.

But the first book that comes to my mind is by contemporary

INTERVIEW WITH NERINGA VAISBRODE, A LITHUANIAN SPEECHWRITER BASED IN BRUSSELS

RHETORBORES

EVENTS



11


Lithuanian author – K. Sabaliauskaite “Silva Rerum”. Hope it will be translated in English one day.

Do you have a tip for writing for multilingual audiences?

Simple words, short sentences, sharp arguments and no information overload. The only advantage non-native speakers have when writing to multilingual audiences in English – we do not use words others might not understand. We simply don’t know them ourselves or find them difficult to pronounce. Speeches should not turn into an exercise of checking audiences vocabulary of English language.

How do you present your manuscripts?

Presentably, I guess. I try to add notes explaining why particular angle or word has been chosen. But I still wonder, if they really help. Words need to speak for themselves.

europa|studioTM

Design by

..the Bank will continue to investigate potential improvements to the monetary policy framework, including the merits of alternative frameworks in avoiding and exiting the zero lower bound and the interaction of monetary and other macro policies.

As we meet today, the combination of the difficulty of exiting the zero lower bound and the uncertainty over cost-benefits of unconventional policies underscore the desirability of having a monetary policy framework that will minimise the prospect of its attainment.

One of the core strengths of Canada’s system is the periodic review of our monetary policy framework that leads to the renewal of our inflation-control agreement between the Bank of Canada and the Government of Canada every five years. Further research on some of the issues I have raised in this speech will help inform future agreements and the conduct of policy.

Sentences that don’t bode well for the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who delivered these lines as a peroration to his Eric J Hanson Memorial Lecture, Monetary Policy After the Fall, at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada on 1 May 2013.

The speechwriter is edited by Brian Jenner

Essentials of Speechwriting Training6 June 2013Institute for Government, LondonTo register go to: http://essentialsofspeechwriting2.eventbrite.co.uk/

Autumn Leadership & Communication Conference19 & 20 September 2013Résidence Palace, BrusselsTo buy tickets go to: http://europeanspeechwriters.eventbrite.co.uk/

Essentials of Speechwriting Training18 October 2013Club de la Presse de StrasbourgTo register go to: http://strasbourgspeechwriting.eventbrite.co.uk/

the speechwriter may 2013

Documents

good speech

great speeches

interesting speech

appropriate speech

great things

outstanding speeches

good things

pretty words