I don't know if the Greeks gave a name to it already, but there is *something* about the fact that the phrase most associated with him will probably go down as being "the release of the sausages".
Excellent. The whole thing had the tone of a funeral oration, and not a good one. It captured rather wonderfully why people just don’t want to have this guy around any more.
I find a serendipity reading this now, just an hour after i completed reading and writing on ''corridors of power'' by c.p snow. I think you gave a dissection of rhetoric but i also think this speech ended up reaffirming the very points of contention starmer's critics and naysayers had held against him, from left, right or progressive cycles. On the one hand the far right gains momentum by talking about grooming gangs and immigration and progressives talk about AI and layoffs and the left takes issue with israel and the clampdown on protests. This speech ends up tailoring to a very narrow demographic who do find starmer's blandness appealing. My own view is psychological analyses of politicians and a citizenry is bound to fail because political realities are both too complicated and too diffused and layered to let the lack of personality in starmer be determinative. Did his opponents deploy all sorts of influences, through alternative media , populist grievances or failing purity tests of ideological fealty then definitely yes . But these didn't take place in a vacuum . When the overall picture of where a country stands and its knotted geopolitical place and internal dissensions are more urgent than necessary incremental changes, which should matter , , then failure is not only foretold but also gleefully corroborated. And yes this speech did expose a vacuous core in centrism- peppered with modest accomplishments elevated into categorical tactical triumphs which was bound to misfire. It comes across as self justifyingly ponderous , which is understandable though , to many, unappealing.
I seem to remember Patrick Melrose saying in Bad News(?) that there basically is no point in having a bath if you don’t meanwhile have a bourbon. I have tried this out and he’s onto something. So: a Manhattan?
I heard an interesting snippet recently from an actor – Cillian Murphy, probably – arguing that having 80% of an accent but retaining a sense for the words is preferable to mastering the accent but losing the artistry. Technique is good, but feel is better.
I don't know if the Greeks gave a name to it already, but there is *something* about the fact that the phrase most associated with him will probably go down as being "the release of the sausages".
Bathos probably covers it, as far as figures of rhetoric goes…
Excellent. The whole thing had the tone of a funeral oration, and not a good one. It captured rather wonderfully why people just don’t want to have this guy around any more.
🙏
I find a serendipity reading this now, just an hour after i completed reading and writing on ''corridors of power'' by c.p snow. I think you gave a dissection of rhetoric but i also think this speech ended up reaffirming the very points of contention starmer's critics and naysayers had held against him, from left, right or progressive cycles. On the one hand the far right gains momentum by talking about grooming gangs and immigration and progressives talk about AI and layoffs and the left takes issue with israel and the clampdown on protests. This speech ends up tailoring to a very narrow demographic who do find starmer's blandness appealing. My own view is psychological analyses of politicians and a citizenry is bound to fail because political realities are both too complicated and too diffused and layered to let the lack of personality in starmer be determinative. Did his opponents deploy all sorts of influences, through alternative media , populist grievances or failing purity tests of ideological fealty then definitely yes . But these didn't take place in a vacuum . When the overall picture of where a country stands and its knotted geopolitical place and internal dissensions are more urgent than necessary incremental changes, which should matter , , then failure is not only foretold but also gleefully corroborated. And yes this speech did expose a vacuous core in centrism- peppered with modest accomplishments elevated into categorical tactical triumphs which was bound to misfire. It comes across as self justifyingly ponderous , which is understandable though , to many, unappealing.
But which is the best cocktail to order while relaxing in the “tepid bath of managed decline”?
Haha. @Richard Godwin will know
I seem to remember Patrick Melrose saying in Bad News(?) that there basically is no point in having a bath if you don’t meanwhile have a bourbon. I have tried this out and he’s onto something. So: a Manhattan?
I knew you were our man
Really enjoyed this, Sam. That celebrant-deceased line really does sum it up well.
Thanks, Matt. Honoured you liked it.
I heard an interesting snippet recently from an actor – Cillian Murphy, probably – arguing that having 80% of an accent but retaining a sense for the words is preferable to mastering the accent but losing the artistry. Technique is good, but feel is better.
What are the chances it was written by AI? Or would it have been better had it been?
Crossed my mind, but Lord it’s a depressing thought