[Oxford don’s cap on]
Of course Tony Blair is not considered an idiot. This is because is not a Tab.
[Oxford don’s cap off]
Being a brit I see a hell of a lot of Blair speeches. And I can’t remember ever seeing him look down at a script. I am not saying you are a liar (I didn’t see the HCC speech) just that This must be an anomoly.
Blair comes across to me as very commanding and a good leader. His speeches may be written by a speechwriter, bit he gives them well IMO.
From my politicaly naive point of view he seems like the best PM we’ve had since Winston C. I don’t know if he’s done a good or bad job so far but he certainly seems like a good leader. Heck it probably takes a lot for Americans to praise a foreign leader. He must have something going for him!
The obvious answer is that he is unused to reading his speeches from a paper script. There are, in fact, several points here.
The first is that British Prime Ministers tend to make far fewer public speeches of this sort than US Presidents. Most, including Blair, confine themselves to a big speech at their annual party conference, a speech (usually an overview of foreign policy) at the banquet for the new Lord Mayor of London and a few others at specially selected events. Moreover, speechmaking is no longer a central feature of British elections. Blair, even more than his predecessors, realises that a setpiece speech may not be the best way to get his views across.
The second point is that British PMs are now just as reliant as US Presidents on Teleprompters. Authenticity doesn’t come into it. Blair’s advisers would doubtless have made sure he used one on this occasion had one been available. Its absence presumably hampered his style.
The third point is that reading a prepared script is not the same skill as off-the-cuff debating. As has already been pointed out, Blair is very good (although by no means outstanding) at Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons. The whole point about that is that it is not pre-packaged. Blair almost never speaks in debate in the Commons, but when he does so, he doesn’t read from a prepared script. (The major caveat here is that the rules about reading speeches in the Commons have been relaxed and he usually uses extensive notes, but it’s still not the same as giving a setpiece speech to an audience of polite listeners.)
No one has ever claimed that Blair is a great orator, but then none of his immediate predecessors as Prime Minister were either. Given that one of his main concerns has been to show that he isn’t Neil Kinnock, that’s probably an advantage.
I doubt he could find Mexico, let alone a burrito 
I hate laughing out loud for no apparent reason in work 
Thanks
If you will read my original quote I NEVER claim Bush to be a better leader. Or a better speaker, for that matter.
I merely noted that in this particular speech Mr. Blair seemed utterly incapable of saying anything that was not in his notes.
Mr. Blair, because of his utter dependence on his notes(again, in this particular speech)seemed extremely insecure and uncomfortable in his speechmaking. To paraphrase what so many have noted about Mr.Bush, he(Blair) did not “Inspire” me as a leader. I know, he’s not my leader, because I’m an American, but hopefully you get my point.
Perhaps Mr. Blair IS brilliant in off-the-cuff debate. I certainly wouldn’t want to condemn the man on the basis of one speech. I am just less than overwhelmed by what I have seen in this instance.
I would thank those who responded to my OP(inane though it is) and would ask that those who critique and respond to it to ACTUALLY READ the darn thing!
Chris W
Well, as noted, you seem oblivious to Bush’s utter dependence on a Teleprompter™ in most of his speeches, and presumably would be just as oblivious if the Human Cloning Conference had been so equipped during Blair’s speech. Which, of course, is the point of the device. I guess in answer to your question, assuming that others use the criteria for establishing idiocy that you ascribe to them, Blair is not considered an idiot because he is rarely seen giving speeches without the aid of a Teleprompter™.
You must be joking. As others have noted, major American political figures all use teleprompters. I attended the Demo Convention 2000 in Los Angeles, and only Jesse Jackson did not use a teleprompter. I know, becuase I sat in front of one of the screens used for this.
No American national politician in the past 20 years has done anything like Questions for the Prime Minister unless you want to count Clinton’s press conferences, and that isn’t really a fair comparison. Reagan and the Bushes didn’t really have free wheeling press conferences. Nixon did, but would prepare for weeks, memorizing technical answers. You definitely need to watch Questions for the Prime Minister, played on C-SPAN in the good ol USA to see how smart Blair, and for that matter Ian Duncan Smith are, how prepared they are and how quick on their feet and articulate they are. It would take years of practice to get this good.
Another reason Blair isn’t viewed as an idiot is because he spends so much of his time standing next to GW Bush, which would make just about anyone appear incredibly well informed and statesmanlike.
Well, since this “Questions for the Prime Minister” is such an amazing thing, could one of you have the courtesy to tell this ill-informed SDMBer when I could catch this masterpiece of orating?
Chris W
C-SPAN, dude. Weekends. Check your local listings.
Ah, Question Period. It’s fun, but up in Canada it has become a bit of a farce; everybody is trying to cook up soundbites for the camera and nobody is really debating. On the other hand, I think a few American politicians could do with the savage attacks that a really harsh QP can conjure up, and it’d probably do wonders for party solidarity. Gotta stand up for your guy, you know.
Been watching it broadcast from London for a few years now–back to the John Major days, and perhaps even before. The PM has this large tabbed binder with him that enables him to pull quippy little zingers out in response to virtually any question. When he gets a question that appears totally unexpected, his joviality quotient just goes up another 60 percent, and he ad-libs; these are often among hte most graceful (and humorous) moments. Very edifying. I’m not particularly a fan of the parliamentary system, but I am always struck by how articulate even the least articulate UK legislator is. I guess they still teach public speaking as an academic discipline over there. Here, I think the schools must start to teach mumbling when the students reach about age 11.
Bear in mind that most questions at Question Time are pre-submitted and the answers researched by civil service staff prior to the actual session. The only real chance an MP has to embarrass the PM is to add a Supplementary Question. The PM does not get advance notice in writing of these.
( from this factsheet, produced by the House of Commons Information Office )
Buggered that up, didn’t I?
LAAADIEES AN’ GENT’LM’N, WELCOME TO THE “WHO HAS THE MORE EXPENSIVE SUIT” SCHOOL OF POLITICAL LEADERSHIP! YEAAAA!
If there has ever been a more superficial subject of debate on this board I can’t remember it. As close as I can recall was the hue and cry about whether Sen. Clinton (D-NY) looked grumpy or not during the President’s address to Congress right after September Eleven. This is not a worthy topic. Wether or not PM Blair is a fool is probably OK, but whether he read a speech from a typescript or from a Teleprompter—please?
Gelding, I think the debate is whether he usually reads or is extemporaneous based on notes as he is usually seen by those in the U.S. who tune in to Questions for the Prime Minister