Newsflash: Prescott is PM
By Graham Davies
Congratulations to Gordon Brown. He wins the monthly John Prescott Memorial Prize for Unintelligible Speechmaking for the following sentence delivered yesterday:
"Or we could view the threats and challenges we face today as the difficult birth-pangs of a new global order, and our task now as nothing less than making the transition through a new internationalism to the benefits of an expanding global society, not muddling through as pessimists but making the necessary adjustment to a better future and setting the new rules for this new global order."
My Rules of Presentation Order state that the more complex the issue you are talking about, the more simple the speech has to be. Essentially: Say it, Support it, Shut it.
Not all of us have Gordon’s academic background. We shouldn’t need one to be able to follow what our Prime Minister is saying.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Barack's 24hr Transformation
By Graham Davies
The dust has settled: time for a measured judgement on Barack’s speech.
He had to show that he was a Doer as well as a Dreamer. And he just about managed it.
After only just surviving the plot initiated by George Bush and executed by the Chief Justice to make him fluff the oath, the speech got off to a stiff and slow start. We knew that he had to dampen high expectations just a little, but the first minute or two was very bland fare indeed.
But then the Obama Presentation Machine kicked in. This time he had decided he was driving a Bentley, not a Ferrari. The pauses were long and his voice tone was lofty. The intimate style that he uses in front of small audiences (300,000 or less) was gone. It’s hard to be engagingly warm with each member of an audience of 2 million people.
His real achievement was in being specific. This was an exercise in practical prose, not soaring poetry. He had some clever phrases (“we will reach out our hand if you will unclench your fist”) and he avoided “Yes We Can” platitudes. His micro-message was deliberately business-like: “it is time to get up, dust ourselves down and get on with the business of re-building our country”.
The key moment for me involved quite a pointed dig at his immediate predecessor, when he said “we reject the false choice between our safety and our ideals”. The real test for this speech was whether the noble ideas could translate into practical actions. When he suspended trials at Guantanamo Bay the very next day, he made an unequivocal statement of intent. Barack, man of vision, immediately became Barack, man of decision.
Now all he has to do is end two wars, broker a settlement in the Middle East, fix the economy, rescue the environment and create a credible Health Service.
By Graham Davies
The dust has settled: time for a measured judgement on Barack’s speech.
He had to show that he was a Doer as well as a Dreamer. And he just about managed it.
After only just surviving the plot initiated by George Bush and executed by the Chief Justice to make him fluff the oath, the speech got off to a stiff and slow start. We knew that he had to dampen high expectations just a little, but the first minute or two was very bland fare indeed.
But then the Obama Presentation Machine kicked in. This time he had decided he was driving a Bentley, not a Ferrari. The pauses were long and his voice tone was lofty. The intimate style that he uses in front of small audiences (300,000 or less) was gone. It’s hard to be engagingly warm with each member of an audience of 2 million people.
His real achievement was in being specific. This was an exercise in practical prose, not soaring poetry. He had some clever phrases (“we will reach out our hand if you will unclench your fist”) and he avoided “Yes We Can” platitudes. His micro-message was deliberately business-like: “it is time to get up, dust ourselves down and get on with the business of re-building our country”.
The key moment for me involved quite a pointed dig at his immediate predecessor, when he said “we reject the false choice between our safety and our ideals”. The real test for this speech was whether the noble ideas could translate into practical actions. When he suspended trials at Guantanamo Bay the very next day, he made an unequivocal statement of intent. Barack, man of vision, immediately became Barack, man of decision.
Now all he has to do is end two wars, broker a settlement in the Middle East, fix the economy, rescue the environment and create a credible Health Service.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Jonathan Who?
By Graham Davies
I was going to write something about whether Jonathan Ross said something offensive about someone old on some radio show he was presenting.
However, I've just re-decorated my kitchen wall, the paint's drying, and I want to watch it. Far more stimulating.
Perhaps one day soon, the BBC will realise that JR continually commits the cardinal crime of anyone who is too pleased with his own persona, and even after an involuntary break, he still isn’t funny.
By Graham Davies
I was going to write something about whether Jonathan Ross said something offensive about someone old on some radio show he was presenting.
However, I've just re-decorated my kitchen wall, the paint's drying, and I want to watch it. Far more stimulating.
Perhaps one day soon, the BBC will realise that JR continually commits the cardinal crime of anyone who is too pleased with his own persona, and even after an involuntary break, he still isn’t funny.
Death of the Dynasty?
By Graham Davies
Americans love royalty. This is a country which is only 230 years old, so people yearn for a sense of history and a feeling of continuity.
They can’t have kings, queens, princes, princesses, lords and ladies and all the pomp and circumstance and in-breeding and strange rituals that attach. So they’ve evolved the next best thing: the dynasty.
At one point last year, the presidency from 1988-2012 could have ended up as the revolving possession of just two dynasties – Bush and Clinton. It turned out that Clinton Mark 2 was considered too petty and aggressive to be President. So she has been appointed Secretary of State instead.
Now we have news that another dynasty has failed in its attempt to maintain profile, popularity and power. Caroline Kennedy (the only surviving child of John and Jackie) will NOT be the next Senator for New York.
She withdrew from consideration, apparently, for “personal reasons”. More relevantly, she has a shy manner, a weak voice that gets weaker under pressure and a Palin-like inability to answer tricky questions on TV. Her presentation skills are just not up to it.
It’s nice to see the American establishment realising that suitability and competence are more important than surname.
If only they’d had the good sense to think that way in 2001. The world would have been a very different and probably a far safer place.
By Graham Davies
Americans love royalty. This is a country which is only 230 years old, so people yearn for a sense of history and a feeling of continuity.
They can’t have kings, queens, princes, princesses, lords and ladies and all the pomp and circumstance and in-breeding and strange rituals that attach. So they’ve evolved the next best thing: the dynasty.
At one point last year, the presidency from 1988-2012 could have ended up as the revolving possession of just two dynasties – Bush and Clinton. It turned out that Clinton Mark 2 was considered too petty and aggressive to be President. So she has been appointed Secretary of State instead.
Now we have news that another dynasty has failed in its attempt to maintain profile, popularity and power. Caroline Kennedy (the only surviving child of John and Jackie) will NOT be the next Senator for New York.
She withdrew from consideration, apparently, for “personal reasons”. More relevantly, she has a shy manner, a weak voice that gets weaker under pressure and a Palin-like inability to answer tricky questions on TV. Her presentation skills are just not up to it.
It’s nice to see the American establishment realising that suitability and competence are more important than surname.
If only they’d had the good sense to think that way in 2001. The world would have been a very different and probably a far safer place.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Dear Barack
By Graham Davies
I know you don’t read my blog every day. But if you get a moment, it’s crucial that you read the following before you do that speech tomorrow:
Dump ALL references to Lincoln. His second inauguration speech was blandly spineless. He said he had “neither the power nor the inclination to disturb slavery”. You have to break free from past mistakes. Don’t associate yourself with feeble compromise.
Do not quote Kennedy, Roosevelt, St Francis of Assisi or ANYONE else. If you’ve got something important to say (you have), then say it in your own words. The US people elected you to sort out their future, not to wallow in the past.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you try to start any audience participation. The "yes we can" massed chanting routine is embarrassing and demeaning for the leader of the Western World. You do not want to sound like 1992-vintage pre-election rally Neil Kinnock (“awright! awright!). This is not the time for Karaoke Speaking.
Include a highly specific plan of immediate action to give pragmatic reality to your lofty vision.
Speak for no more than 15 minutes because (a) otherwise you and everyone else will catch pneumonia and (b) that’s the maximum attention span of an audience of a million people who are all standing up. For a speech to be immortal, it does not have to be eternal.
Anyway. Best of British.
(PS - I will send the invoice under separate cover, if that’s OK. Usual terms).
By Graham Davies
I know you don’t read my blog every day. But if you get a moment, it’s crucial that you read the following before you do that speech tomorrow:
Dump ALL references to Lincoln. His second inauguration speech was blandly spineless. He said he had “neither the power nor the inclination to disturb slavery”. You have to break free from past mistakes. Don’t associate yourself with feeble compromise.
Do not quote Kennedy, Roosevelt, St Francis of Assisi or ANYONE else. If you’ve got something important to say (you have), then say it in your own words. The US people elected you to sort out their future, not to wallow in the past.
Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you try to start any audience participation. The "yes we can" massed chanting routine is embarrassing and demeaning for the leader of the Western World. You do not want to sound like 1992-vintage pre-election rally Neil Kinnock (“awright! awright!). This is not the time for Karaoke Speaking.
Include a highly specific plan of immediate action to give pragmatic reality to your lofty vision.
Speak for no more than 15 minutes because (a) otherwise you and everyone else will catch pneumonia and (b) that’s the maximum attention span of an audience of a million people who are all standing up. For a speech to be immortal, it does not have to be eternal.
Anyway. Best of British.
(PS - I will send the invoice under separate cover, if that’s OK. Usual terms).
Friday, 16 January 2009
Emergency Update: Flood Warning
By Graham Davies
Disturbing news for top fashion designers. Dolce & Gabana, Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Versace, Yohji Mamamoto and the like have just over one month to get together a range of stylish waterproofs.
Kate Winslet is up for two Oscars. Anyone in the vicinity will have to take precautions to avoid being drowned by gushing from the stage and vomit from the audience.
My eminently practical suggestion for the organisers is to print a programme featuring a full list of all the people each nominee would like to thank. On-screen subtitles should also be made available.
Then the winners will not have to say anything. And the audience can enjoy a basic human right: Freedom from Speech.
By Graham Davies
Disturbing news for top fashion designers. Dolce & Gabana, Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Versace, Yohji Mamamoto and the like have just over one month to get together a range of stylish waterproofs.
Kate Winslet is up for two Oscars. Anyone in the vicinity will have to take precautions to avoid being drowned by gushing from the stage and vomit from the audience.
My eminently practical suggestion for the organisers is to print a programme featuring a full list of all the people each nominee would like to thank. On-screen subtitles should also be made available.
Then the winners will not have to say anything. And the audience can enjoy a basic human right: Freedom from Speech.
Thursday, 15 January 2009
The Challenge for Obama
By Graham Davies
On Wednesday at 5pm GMT, Barrack Obama will walk the taughtest tightrope in the history of political public speaking.
His unique brand of personal presentation won him more votes than his policies. His speeches have inspired something in the American imagination that has not seemed recently possible: hope.
There is something about him that transcends cynicism. You can almost sense hard-bitten journalists wanting him to make their hearts melt. The Third Estate seem prepared to cut him more slack than they were any other incoming President.
But his delivery has not been matched by his specifics.
Of course, the shivering throng in DC will not want to listen to a list of tax proposals or a finely-calculated breakdown of Federal Infrastructure projects. But any lofty visions provided by his large team of writers will have to be brought down to earth by something memorable that will actually get done and not merely said.
This is not the time to out-do Kennedy’s vision that a man would walk on the moon by the end of the decade. Obama needs to be able to say that people will still have jobs at the end of the week.
“Yes we can” has to very quickly become “Yes we will definitely do this.”
By Graham Davies
On Wednesday at 5pm GMT, Barrack Obama will walk the taughtest tightrope in the history of political public speaking.
His unique brand of personal presentation won him more votes than his policies. His speeches have inspired something in the American imagination that has not seemed recently possible: hope.
There is something about him that transcends cynicism. You can almost sense hard-bitten journalists wanting him to make their hearts melt. The Third Estate seem prepared to cut him more slack than they were any other incoming President.
But his delivery has not been matched by his specifics.
Of course, the shivering throng in DC will not want to listen to a list of tax proposals or a finely-calculated breakdown of Federal Infrastructure projects. But any lofty visions provided by his large team of writers will have to be brought down to earth by something memorable that will actually get done and not merely said.
This is not the time to out-do Kennedy’s vision that a man would walk on the moon by the end of the decade. Obama needs to be able to say that people will still have jobs at the end of the week.
“Yes we can” has to very quickly become “Yes we will definitely do this.”
The Memorabilaciousness of Bush
By Graham Davies
On his retirement, George Bush will definitely not be joining the professional speaking circuit. After all, the words “Bush”, “professional” and “speaking” do not sit comfortably in the same sentence.
This is a man leaving a linguistic legacy more memorable than his political one.
His war on terror has been a lot less successful than his war on grammar, and whilst people might want to dispute whether he rode roughshod over human rights in Guantanamo Bay, there can be absolutely no disagreement that he is unequivocally guilty of slaughtering English syntax and pronounciation. There was always the suspicion that he only suspended Habeas Corpus because he couldn’t pronounce it.
But let’s not misunderestimate the Bush legacy. Dubya may disappear from view entirely (please god) but his mystic words will live on. In other people's after dinner speeches. And not in a good way.
By Graham Davies
On his retirement, George Bush will definitely not be joining the professional speaking circuit. After all, the words “Bush”, “professional” and “speaking” do not sit comfortably in the same sentence.
This is a man leaving a linguistic legacy more memorable than his political one.
His war on terror has been a lot less successful than his war on grammar, and whilst people might want to dispute whether he rode roughshod over human rights in Guantanamo Bay, there can be absolutely no disagreement that he is unequivocally guilty of slaughtering English syntax and pronounciation. There was always the suspicion that he only suspended Habeas Corpus because he couldn’t pronounce it.
But let’s not misunderestimate the Bush legacy. Dubya may disappear from view entirely (please god) but his mystic words will live on. In other people's after dinner speeches. And not in a good way.
The Chicago Blagger
By Graham Davies
There is something rotten in the State of Illinois, and even an intervention by Obama himself can’t get rid of the smell.
Last week, we saw the comically awful Governor Blagojevich appointing diminutive Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat. Burris exuded the smug smile of someone who knew that he was utterly unqualified for the role but still thought “bollocks to all of you, I’ve got the job anyway”. It took a quiet word from the President-Elect before anyone else on the Hill would even speak to him.
A little later, we saw the even more bizarre sight of Blagojevich swearing in the Illinois senators who will effectively serve as his jurors at his impeachment hearing on counts of federal corruption. Once they’d been sworn in, he slipped out a back door, and the senators immediately set to the task in hand – voting 58-0 to run the impeachment according to a certain set of rules.
Finally, the Blagger called a press conference. As props, he pulled in a couple of dozen of the halt, the lame and the impoverished. Without Blagojevich’s sterling legislative work and personal interventions, apparently, these folk would be even more disadvantaged. Impeach me, Blagojevich was saying, and you will be throwing such people to the dogs.
He quoted Tennyson, Jesus and Abraham Lincoln as he communicated a messianic passion for … er … himself. Naturally, he walked off without answering any questions. Had I been there, I suppose my first one would have been “Can you give me the names of anyone who actually voted for you?”.
A little presentational advice for any politician about to go on trial: if you still look ridiculously guilty after invoking the aid of a Romantic Poet, the Son of God, and the founding father of the United States of America, then no mere lawyer will be able to help.
By Graham Davies
There is something rotten in the State of Illinois, and even an intervention by Obama himself can’t get rid of the smell.
Last week, we saw the comically awful Governor Blagojevich appointing diminutive Roland Burris to fill Obama’s Senate seat. Burris exuded the smug smile of someone who knew that he was utterly unqualified for the role but still thought “bollocks to all of you, I’ve got the job anyway”. It took a quiet word from the President-Elect before anyone else on the Hill would even speak to him.
A little later, we saw the even more bizarre sight of Blagojevich swearing in the Illinois senators who will effectively serve as his jurors at his impeachment hearing on counts of federal corruption. Once they’d been sworn in, he slipped out a back door, and the senators immediately set to the task in hand – voting 58-0 to run the impeachment according to a certain set of rules.
Finally, the Blagger called a press conference. As props, he pulled in a couple of dozen of the halt, the lame and the impoverished. Without Blagojevich’s sterling legislative work and personal interventions, apparently, these folk would be even more disadvantaged. Impeach me, Blagojevich was saying, and you will be throwing such people to the dogs.
He quoted Tennyson, Jesus and Abraham Lincoln as he communicated a messianic passion for … er … himself. Naturally, he walked off without answering any questions. Had I been there, I suppose my first one would have been “Can you give me the names of anyone who actually voted for you?”.
A little presentational advice for any politician about to go on trial: if you still look ridiculously guilty after invoking the aid of a Romantic Poet, the Son of God, and the founding father of the United States of America, then no mere lawyer will be able to help.
Free Speech? No Chance.
By Graham Davies
As Tony Blair basks in the glory of receiving his Presidential Medal from the man whose political decision-making he influenced so highly, it’s good to see that he still believes in Freedom of Speech. As long as there is a hefty invoice attached.
He has clearly decided to widen his portfolio now that his job as Special Envoy representing the Quartet of Middle East Mediators (Russia, the US, the UN, and the EU) is going so well (only 1000 Palestinians dead so far).
On the speaking circuit, he commands up to £157,000 for a 90-minute appearance. That’s £29.07 per second. Put another way, what someone on the minimum wage earns in an hour, Tony takes in one fifth of a second.
His gigs are handled exclusively by the Washington Speakers Bureau, which is more difficult to negotiate with than Hamas. This is the organisation which unleashed Bill Clinton into the speaking marketplace, where his ability to blag hospitality in general and golf games in particular has become as legendary as his former trouser problem.
It’s tough work. A lot of smiling and hand-shaking. But strangely enough, it doesn’t have to involve any high quality speaking.
No sharply-focused Micro-Messages. No gems of insider insight on world events. These guys can get away with repeating the same sequence of anecdotes again and again, almost as if they were their own tribute band.
You see, in the world of Professional Speaking, ex-Statesman Style, it’s not What You Say….it’s Who You Used to Be. And how much you can charge the mugs for the privilege of listening to it.
By Graham Davies
As Tony Blair basks in the glory of receiving his Presidential Medal from the man whose political decision-making he influenced so highly, it’s good to see that he still believes in Freedom of Speech. As long as there is a hefty invoice attached.
He has clearly decided to widen his portfolio now that his job as Special Envoy representing the Quartet of Middle East Mediators (Russia, the US, the UN, and the EU) is going so well (only 1000 Palestinians dead so far).
On the speaking circuit, he commands up to £157,000 for a 90-minute appearance. That’s £29.07 per second. Put another way, what someone on the minimum wage earns in an hour, Tony takes in one fifth of a second.
His gigs are handled exclusively by the Washington Speakers Bureau, which is more difficult to negotiate with than Hamas. This is the organisation which unleashed Bill Clinton into the speaking marketplace, where his ability to blag hospitality in general and golf games in particular has become as legendary as his former trouser problem.
It’s tough work. A lot of smiling and hand-shaking. But strangely enough, it doesn’t have to involve any high quality speaking.
No sharply-focused Micro-Messages. No gems of insider insight on world events. These guys can get away with repeating the same sequence of anecdotes again and again, almost as if they were their own tribute band.
You see, in the world of Professional Speaking, ex-Statesman Style, it’s not What You Say….it’s Who You Used to Be. And how much you can charge the mugs for the privilege of listening to it.
What Colour are your Shoots?
By Graham Davies
The trouble with many politicians in the House of Lords is that they have not had to go through the tediously effective presentation experience provided by the electoral process.
Most prospective and current MPs have been exposed to an endless stream of media interviews. But a large number of our esteemed Lords and Ladies have lived a more rarefied life, untainted by the tawdry attentions of over-inquisitive journalists.
Hence the “green shoots” from the very green (but now red-faced) Lady Vadera (whoever she is).
She committed the classic ingénue’s mistake of repeating a phrase introduced into a TV interview by the interviewer.
So. Never do that. (And don’t use the same material as Norman Lamont).
By Graham Davies
The trouble with many politicians in the House of Lords is that they have not had to go through the tediously effective presentation experience provided by the electoral process.
Most prospective and current MPs have been exposed to an endless stream of media interviews. But a large number of our esteemed Lords and Ladies have lived a more rarefied life, untainted by the tawdry attentions of over-inquisitive journalists.
Hence the “green shoots” from the very green (but now red-faced) Lady Vadera (whoever she is).
She committed the classic ingénue’s mistake of repeating a phrase introduced into a TV interview by the interviewer.
So. Never do that. (And don’t use the same material as Norman Lamont).
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Wordflood Winslet
By Graham Davies
Poor Kate. For each of the last FOUR years, she went and prepared a faultlessly composed acceptance speech for the Golden Globes. But she had wasted her time.
This year, she thought “stuff the speech, I’m not going to win anyway”, so she did a small amount of fake-smile-training in the bathroom mirror, donned the Yves St Laurent, jumped in the stretch limo and headed off to play her traditional role as glam-also-ran.
At least, that’s the charitable explanation I’d like to provide for Kate’s sphincter-looseningly embarrassing performance the other night.
The fundamental problem for someone making an acceptance speech is that there are only a finite number of variations of the concept of “thank you”. Your audience has heard most of them before. In all likelihood, a significant proportion of them don’t want to hear you saying “thank you”, because they’d prefer to be saying “thank you” themselves, instead.
So. Even if you think you have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of winning, prepare a speech in advance. A short one. Otherwise you’ll end up doing a Winslet (winslet, n: a stream of free-form, structure-less, unadulterated emotional gush). This makes you look like an idiot, and will certainly upset Angelina Jolie if the wordflood includes forgetting her name.
If you’re too idle to prepare the whole thing, at least work out the first and last sentence. Don’t be a human storm drain. It doesn’t matter how sexy a star you are, you will still look a pratt.
By Graham Davies
Poor Kate. For each of the last FOUR years, she went and prepared a faultlessly composed acceptance speech for the Golden Globes. But she had wasted her time.
This year, she thought “stuff the speech, I’m not going to win anyway”, so she did a small amount of fake-smile-training in the bathroom mirror, donned the Yves St Laurent, jumped in the stretch limo and headed off to play her traditional role as glam-also-ran.
At least, that’s the charitable explanation I’d like to provide for Kate’s sphincter-looseningly embarrassing performance the other night.
The fundamental problem for someone making an acceptance speech is that there are only a finite number of variations of the concept of “thank you”. Your audience has heard most of them before. In all likelihood, a significant proportion of them don’t want to hear you saying “thank you”, because they’d prefer to be saying “thank you” themselves, instead.
So. Even if you think you have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of winning, prepare a speech in advance. A short one. Otherwise you’ll end up doing a Winslet (winslet, n: a stream of free-form, structure-less, unadulterated emotional gush). This makes you look like an idiot, and will certainly upset Angelina Jolie if the wordflood includes forgetting her name.
If you’re too idle to prepare the whole thing, at least work out the first and last sentence. Don’t be a human storm drain. It doesn’t matter how sexy a star you are, you will still look a pratt.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Right to Riot?
By Graham Davies
I live in Kensington, a few hundred yards away from the Israeli Embassy. It's not been the most placid place over the past few days, and it's certainly not been an ideal location for coffee-drinking or muffin-eating.
Demonstrators calling for peace in Gaza have been exercising the cherished British "right to demonstrate". In fact, there is no such thing. Just a government and law-makers who normally choose NOT to exercise extensive powers to STOP demonstrations and public gatherings.
But that argument aside, what I witnessed the other day was allegedly a demonstration for peace. It was actually a demonstration of thuggery. To my knowledge, Starbucks has not been vocal in support of Israel, nor does it sell anti-Palestinian coffee, nor does it sponsor the import of arms into Gaza through tunnels dug from Egypt. And even if it did, lawlessly wrecking a branch wouldn't be a justified response.
Down in Hyde Park, a lot of words were said about the inexcusable violence done to innocents in Gaza. I hope those who earnestly and honestly expressed those opinions are just as unequivocal in their condemnation of the yobs who, perhaps encouraged by their words of peace, acted as violently as they did.
Collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable in the Gaza Strip. It's also completely unacceptable in Kensington.
By Graham Davies
I live in Kensington, a few hundred yards away from the Israeli Embassy. It's not been the most placid place over the past few days, and it's certainly not been an ideal location for coffee-drinking or muffin-eating.
Demonstrators calling for peace in Gaza have been exercising the cherished British "right to demonstrate". In fact, there is no such thing. Just a government and law-makers who normally choose NOT to exercise extensive powers to STOP demonstrations and public gatherings.
But that argument aside, what I witnessed the other day was allegedly a demonstration for peace. It was actually a demonstration of thuggery. To my knowledge, Starbucks has not been vocal in support of Israel, nor does it sell anti-Palestinian coffee, nor does it sponsor the import of arms into Gaza through tunnels dug from Egypt. And even if it did, lawlessly wrecking a branch wouldn't be a justified response.
Down in Hyde Park, a lot of words were said about the inexcusable violence done to innocents in Gaza. I hope those who earnestly and honestly expressed those opinions are just as unequivocal in their condemnation of the yobs who, perhaps encouraged by their words of peace, acted as violently as they did.
Collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable in the Gaza Strip. It's also completely unacceptable in Kensington.
Monday, 5 January 2009
Gobby Celebs
By Graham Davies
Bianca Jagger, Alexei Sayle and Annie Lennox have been telling the world that they disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
I can't see this cabaret line-up inhibiting Israel's generals. A model, a comedian and a pop singer? It’s hardly an expert panel of middle eastern political analysts. They should really stick to what they do best: strutting, joking and singing.
Better to leave political commentary to the professionals. Because just occasionally, professional politicians say something which shows just how professional they are. For instance, Ken Livingstone did not say that Israel was wrong to respond to Hamas rocket attacks. But he did venture to point out that what Israel regards as a reasonable kill ratio (100:1) is not. Reasonable. Which is a slightly more nuanced response than Bianca's, Alexei's and Annie's.
Unsurprising really: nuance ("subtle shades of meaning, feeling and tone") doesn't feature too highly in the lexicon of celebrity concerns.
By Graham Davies
Bianca Jagger, Alexei Sayle and Annie Lennox have been telling the world that they disapprove of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
I can't see this cabaret line-up inhibiting Israel's generals. A model, a comedian and a pop singer? It’s hardly an expert panel of middle eastern political analysts. They should really stick to what they do best: strutting, joking and singing.
Better to leave political commentary to the professionals. Because just occasionally, professional politicians say something which shows just how professional they are. For instance, Ken Livingstone did not say that Israel was wrong to respond to Hamas rocket attacks. But he did venture to point out that what Israel regards as a reasonable kill ratio (100:1) is not. Reasonable. Which is a slightly more nuanced response than Bianca's, Alexei's and Annie's.
Unsurprising really: nuance ("subtle shades of meaning, feeling and tone") doesn't feature too highly in the lexicon of celebrity concerns.
Murray's Moody Mint
By Graham Davies
Let’s face it, Andy Murray’s manner is moody, chippy, brusque and rude. I will never coach him how to present himself in a more charming, accessible and likeable way. Although he could afford me.
I am delighted.
Tim Henman, Greg Rusedski and John Lloyd are hugely affable and entertaining individuals, whatever social or public occasion they choose to grace.
But on court, there was something missing, especially at Wimbledon. When the going got tough, they got going ... out of the tournament.
By contrast, Murray’s sheer lack of grace is a key part of what makes him a winner. In Abu Dhabi this week, he beat both Federer and Nadal on his way to winning the Capitala World Tennis Championship crown. It is not the last time he will beat both in quick succession.
He will never learn to present himself properly. He will always project something dour, surly and irascible. But he will also win Wimbledon. And earn a great deal of money.
In the UK, we have a perverse affection for nice losers. I think it’s about time we started liking nasty winners.
By Graham Davies
Let’s face it, Andy Murray’s manner is moody, chippy, brusque and rude. I will never coach him how to present himself in a more charming, accessible and likeable way. Although he could afford me.
I am delighted.
Tim Henman, Greg Rusedski and John Lloyd are hugely affable and entertaining individuals, whatever social or public occasion they choose to grace.
But on court, there was something missing, especially at Wimbledon. When the going got tough, they got going ... out of the tournament.
By contrast, Murray’s sheer lack of grace is a key part of what makes him a winner. In Abu Dhabi this week, he beat both Federer and Nadal on his way to winning the Capitala World Tennis Championship crown. It is not the last time he will beat both in quick succession.
He will never learn to present himself properly. He will always project something dour, surly and irascible. But he will also win Wimbledon. And earn a great deal of money.
In the UK, we have a perverse affection for nice losers. I think it’s about time we started liking nasty winners.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Backwards and Forwards
By Graham Davies
The best political presentations are the ones that deal with the present and the immediate future. Those that focus mainly on the past merely fuel the general public's belief that politicians are more interested in name-calling than problem-solving.
So now for something deeply unfair. I have extracted what I believe are the twenty-odd most important words from Gordon Brown's New Year Statement and George Osborne's reply.
Brown: "Today the risk of attempting to do too little is a greater threat than the risk of attempting to do too much".
Osborne: "He talks of tomorrow, but ignores the role he played in creating the mess of today. (He has) achieved nothing except adding to our National Debt."
Brown attempts a solution; Osborne says “No!” (and not much else). At least you have to admire Osborne’s consistency. He’s been saying “No!” (and not much else) for quite some time (except to the odd Russian oligarch bearing a yacht-party invitation).
Which makes me think that whilst Cameron hopes to mend our broken society, and Brown wants to fix our broken economy, Osborne might want to consider changing his broken record.
By Graham Davies
The best political presentations are the ones that deal with the present and the immediate future. Those that focus mainly on the past merely fuel the general public's belief that politicians are more interested in name-calling than problem-solving.
So now for something deeply unfair. I have extracted what I believe are the twenty-odd most important words from Gordon Brown's New Year Statement and George Osborne's reply.
Brown: "Today the risk of attempting to do too little is a greater threat than the risk of attempting to do too much".
Osborne: "He talks of tomorrow, but ignores the role he played in creating the mess of today. (He has) achieved nothing except adding to our National Debt."
Brown attempts a solution; Osborne says “No!” (and not much else). At least you have to admire Osborne’s consistency. He’s been saying “No!” (and not much else) for quite some time (except to the odd Russian oligarch bearing a yacht-party invitation).
Which makes me think that whilst Cameron hopes to mend our broken society, and Brown wants to fix our broken economy, Osborne might want to consider changing his broken record.
Reasonable doubt for a Reasonable Fee
By Graham Davies
I write today in praise of the two Oldest Presentational Professions: lawyers (of which I am one) and PR consultants. Over the New Year, their position as the Premier Pimps of Misfortune was sealed by various articles printed in several British newspapers.
Actually, "various" is not accurate. The "articles" were virtually identical: solid proof that they were essentially copies of a successful PR press release.
The topic was drunk driving. The person featured was the affluent solicitor who managed to persuade magistrates that a post-celebration Alex Ferguson was driving along the hard shoulder because he desperately, but reasonably, was looking for a toilet.
Apparently, this socially responsible advocate (I will not name him because I refuse to play along with the game) has said that he would like to help the government to draft legislation that lowers the drink-driving limit from 80mg to 50mg.
Well, I have news for him. My 2 law degrees and 14 years of experience at the Criminal Bar tell me that this suggested change merely requires our esteeemed lawmakers to change an 8 to a 5.
So, no need for his expert help. But his press release clearly showed that he was gagging for column inches.
How strange. Why on earth would a solicitor who specialises in defending drunk driving cases want to get in the papers on New Year's Eve?
By Graham Davies
I write today in praise of the two Oldest Presentational Professions: lawyers (of which I am one) and PR consultants. Over the New Year, their position as the Premier Pimps of Misfortune was sealed by various articles printed in several British newspapers.
Actually, "various" is not accurate. The "articles" were virtually identical: solid proof that they were essentially copies of a successful PR press release.
The topic was drunk driving. The person featured was the affluent solicitor who managed to persuade magistrates that a post-celebration Alex Ferguson was driving along the hard shoulder because he desperately, but reasonably, was looking for a toilet.
Apparently, this socially responsible advocate (I will not name him because I refuse to play along with the game) has said that he would like to help the government to draft legislation that lowers the drink-driving limit from 80mg to 50mg.
Well, I have news for him. My 2 law degrees and 14 years of experience at the Criminal Bar tell me that this suggested change merely requires our esteeemed lawmakers to change an 8 to a 5.
So, no need for his expert help. But his press release clearly showed that he was gagging for column inches.
How strange. Why on earth would a solicitor who specialises in defending drunk driving cases want to get in the papers on New Year's Eve?
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Incompetent Bankers - Chapter 36
By Graham Davies
Banks are getting increasingly creative in their incompetence.
Several Barclays customers this week have discovered unexpected deficits on their accounts. An ATM screen told one customer that he was a billion pounds in the red.
Possibly not too far from the truth, in one respect, though unfortunately the bank spent the money on his behalf without telling him.
I have some small sympathy with High Street banks who were too optimistic in their mortgage-lending practices. After all, customers who were naïve or worked the system to borrow beyond their means are at least partially to blame for their own downfall.
But it seems to me that even the most uninspiring, cautious banking enterprise needs to present itself as being able to (1) add up and (2) use a computer.
This week Barclays' score is nought out of two.
Barclays Wealth (the department for super-rich clients) once had the strapline “Wealth: what’s it to you?” to which they might now want to add the rider “Because we haven’t a clue”.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. After all, they were only wrong by a few zeroes. Which is an excellent description of the Barclays Board.
By Graham Davies
Banks are getting increasingly creative in their incompetence.
Several Barclays customers this week have discovered unexpected deficits on their accounts. An ATM screen told one customer that he was a billion pounds in the red.
Possibly not too far from the truth, in one respect, though unfortunately the bank spent the money on his behalf without telling him.
I have some small sympathy with High Street banks who were too optimistic in their mortgage-lending practices. After all, customers who were naïve or worked the system to borrow beyond their means are at least partially to blame for their own downfall.
But it seems to me that even the most uninspiring, cautious banking enterprise needs to present itself as being able to (1) add up and (2) use a computer.
This week Barclays' score is nought out of two.
Barclays Wealth (the department for super-rich clients) once had the strapline “Wealth: what’s it to you?” to which they might now want to add the rider “Because we haven’t a clue”.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. After all, they were only wrong by a few zeroes. Which is an excellent description of the Barclays Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
