No, Improvisation Does Not Equal Authenticity

Q: Does reading from notes during a speech make you “inauthentic”?

A: NO

I’m sharing this irritating post from an irritating person who I won’t promote any further. (Clue: it’s a recently elected MP who won after having been previously rejected by the electorate seven times. So clearly whatever he is doing is not a consistently winning formula…) But I’m sharing these idiotic observations for an important reason. Because it’s about who we trust.

It’s so vital for all of us to realise that there is no one perfect or ultimate way of speaking. And we REALLY need to be suspicious of people who almost ONLY speak off-the-cuff and then insinuate that this is the ONLY way to know that someone is “telling the truth.” Not only is this false and dangerous as a way of evaluating politicians, it also sets a bad precedent for public speaking, making people think that you should only be a speaker if you have the self-confidence (and often self-delusion) to think that whatever you say off the top of your head is captivating and important. (Newsflash: it’s almost always the opposite… This kind of speaking — especially in politics — is frequently dull, empty, self-indulgent and illogical, which is swiftly revealed if you transcribe it.)

There are many different ways of communicating and of expressing ourselves. As many different ways as there are voices on the planet. No single way is best or most effective or most successful or most authentic. In any case, all evaluation of a speech is subjective. No speaker can be perfect for every listener. But every speech from an elected official — especially at a historical moment — should be able to carry enough weight that it works on and off the page, can be fact-checked, makes us feel something and can stand the test of time.

The response (by a political opponent who always speaks off the cuff and wears lack-of-preparation as a badge of honor) is a criticism of Keir Starmer reading from a piece of paper on a lectern. I’m so glad he did. This speech was a tribute to the talent of speechwriters. For me, it was very close to the definition of a perfect speech in content (it was beautifully written), in tone and in delivery. It was also authentic: Starmer is a sober, cautious and precise man who leaves very little to chance. This speech has the quality of a pledge written in stone. This was not a moment for speaking direct to camera with empty promises, bluster and “amusing” asides. This is only the fourth Labour leader elected to be Prime Minister (three others have served but did not win an election) in four centuries of prime ministers. It’s not a time to talk off the top of your head.

May none of us be shamed by charlatans with dubious charisma who can’t see the value in team effort (Starmer’s speech is collaborative), in meticulous preparation (every word is carefully in its place) and in dignified, respectful caution (Starmer’s signature style). These are things to believe in. Bluster is not.