Body language and speech experts reveal Sunak and Starmer’s giveaways

Published

6 months ago

June 5, 2024

admin

“Neither of them are blessed with natural charisma.”

This rather damning assessment of both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer – the UK’s choice of future prime minister – focuses on their speech and body language, not how they might lead the country.

The leaders of the two main parties face weeks of interviews, speeches, and walkabouts as part of their general election campaigns.

Ahead of their first live TV debate, Sky News spoke to Paul Boross, a business psychologist and body language expert who has coached several politicians and celebrities, and Elizabeth McClelland, forensic voice, speech, and language analyst, about the gestures and verbal characterisics that offer an insight into who the two frontrunners really are.

‘They’re no Obama – or Clinton’

First, we return to the accusation that neither the Conservative nor Labour leader are “blessed with natural charisma”.

According to Mr Boross, neither Rishi Sunak nor Sir Keir Starmer “have that compelling, preacher-like rhythm to their voices”, as former US Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton do.

“In this general election we’re not blessed with politicians who have that natural charisma – of an Obama or a Clinton,” he tells Sky News. “They both struggle to build an authentic bond with the public.”

By contrast, he credits both American leaders with using few filler words and being “very clear”.

“If you watch them, they enjoy pausing and bringing people into the conversation. That’s an art,” he says.

Ms McClelland, who has decades of experience analysing speech for legal cases, says politicians’ media training often makes it “difficult” to get an authentic idea of them.

But Mr Boross adds: “Although they’ll be working very hard to reduce those weaknesses – their body language and speech patterns often reveal them.”

Sunak: So fluent he barely blinks – speeding up under pressure

Having analysed Mr Sunak – both when making speeches and in interviews – Ms McClelland notes that he rarely pauses or uses filler words.

“He’s a remarkably fluent speaker,” she says. “He uses very few what we call pause phenomenon; he very seldom ‘uhms’ or ‘uhs’.”

This can be helpful, she adds, as it gives interviewers less opportunity to interrupt with a question.

She also draws on his former jobs in finance – and says: “He has a tendency to sound as though he’s selling you a high-end financial product.”

In terms of the sound of his voice, she describes it as “pure Westminster School, Oxbridge ‘posh’ with a contemporary twist” and “absolutely no reflection of his North Yorkshire constituency”.

This is highlighted in his pronunciation of the vowels I and O, she says.

Commenting on his body language, she adds that he “seldom blinks” and has “learned to smile a lot and speak completely to the camera or person he’s talking to.”

Although his delivery is fluent, Mr Boross notes various characteristics that reveal Mr Sunak’s nervousness or discomfort.

Giving the example of being asked if he “caught pneumonia” after delivering his Downing Street election announcement in the rain, Mr Boross says Mr Sunak often responds with “nervous laughter”.

“It’s a very Rishi Sunak thing that when he feels confronted, he automatically bursts into nervous laughter,” he says.

He warns that while it may appear friendly, the tendency to “over laugh” at things can come across as “awkward” or “inauthentic”.

The prime minister also speeds up when under pressure, he adds. “When he’s flustered his speaking pace increases.”

With regards to body language, Mr Boross claims his facial muscles tighten and hands clench when he feels uncomfortable.

Although he uses few filler words, the ones he does opt for are “right and “look”, which Mr Boross warns are too “short and sharp”.

“He uses shorter, sharper ones to try and get on the front foot in interviews, but it comes across a little too tetchy”.

“It makes him seem like psychologically he’s already in opposition,” he adds.

“He practically interrupts people when he says ‘right’, which can allow a slight air of superiority to manifest”.

Starmer: ‘Lawyer-ly’ over-caution with too many ‘uhms’

Sir Keir Starmer’s previous job as a barrister still dictates the way he speaks, according to the experts.

While Ms McClelland describes him as “serious”, Mr Boross says he is “over-cautious” with “controlled gestures”.

“His lawyer-ly tone can be a bit over-cautious, and while precise, it can seem overly formal and lacking in spontaneity and emotional engagement,” Mr Boross says.

This also comes through in his body language, he adds, via a furrowed brow and “frequently looking worried or stressed”.

Both experts note he says ‘uhm’ and ‘uh’ far more often than his rival.

While in a legal context, McClelland claims this can be an indicator someone is lying, she says it can be a “purely innocent” feature of processing.

“Being a lawyer, he likes to think before he speaks, therefore I think he wants to be sure he’s expressing himself lucidly and sincerely,” she says.

Mr Boross argues it makes him sound less confident, however.

“When I’ve worked with politicians, it’s one of the first things I eradicate from their speech, because it kills the message and makes them sound unsure.”

He adds that Sir Keir’s use of other fillers such as “right?” and “you know?” have the same effect, and suggest he needs reassurance around what he is saying.

While Mr Sunak appears to be making a concerted effort to sound more southern with his accent, Ms McClelland claims his Labour rival is doing the opposite.

“One thing I note with great interest is Starmer’s efforts to emphasise his northern credentials,” she says.

Drawing a comparison with former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, she claims Sir Keir’s pronunciation of his L and A sounds are not in line with his Surrey upbringing, Oxford education, and north London parliamentary seat.

While Mr Sunak appears “more relaxed” in front of a camera, Ms McClelland sees more sincerity in Sir Keir’s style.

“I think you get more of a sense of the man behind the media image than you do with Sunak,” she says.

Mr Boross adds, that although still less fluent, Sir Keir is “loosening up” and has demonstrated a “better and faster” arc of improvement than his rival.

UK

UK on ‘slippery slope’ to ‘death on demand’, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

Published

2 hours ago

November 24, 2024

admin

UK on 'slippery slope' to 'death on demand', Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns ahead of assisted dying vote

The UK is on a “slippery slope towards death on demand”, according to the justice secretary ahead of a historic Commons vote on assisted dying.

In a letter to her constituents, Shabana Mahmood said she was “profoundly concerned” about the legislation.

“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign,” she wrote.

“I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away.

“The state should never offer death as a service.”

Analysis: Justice secretary’s intervention is potentially embarrassing for the PM

On 29 November, MPs will be asked to consider whether to legalise assisted dying, through Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Details of the legislation were published last week, including confirmation the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Ms Mahmood, however, said “predictions about life expectancy are often inaccurate”.

“Doctors can only predict a date of death, with any real certainty, in the final days of life,” she said. “The judgment as to who can and cannot be considered for assisted suicide will therefore be subjective and imprecise.”

Under the Labour MP’s proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.

The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.

However, Ms Mahmood said she was concerned the legislation could “pressure” some into ending their lives.

“It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald,” she wrote.

“In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.”

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who put forward the bill, said some of the points Ms Mahmood raised have been answered “in the the thorough drafting and presentation of the bill”.

“The strict eligibility criteria make it very clear that we are only talking about people who are already dying,” she said.

“That is why the bill is called the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’; its scope cannot be changed and clearly does not include any other group of people.

“The bill would give dying people the autonomy, dignity and choice to shorten their death if they wish.”

In response to concerns Ms Mahmood raised about patients being coerced into choosing assisted death, Ms Leadbeater said she has consulted widely with doctors and judges.

“Those I have spoken to tell me that they are well equipped to ask the right questions to detect coercion and to ascertain a person’s genuine wishes. It is an integral part of their work,” she said.

In an increasingly fractious debate around the topic, multiple Labour MPs have voiced their concerns.

In a letter to ministers on 3 October, the Cabinet Secretary Simon Case confirmed “the prime minister has decided to set aside collective responsibility on the merits of this bill” and that the government would “therefore remain neutral on the passage of the bill and on the matter of assisted dying”.

UK

Justice secretary’s assisted dying intervention is explosive – and potentially embarrassing for PM

Published

2 hours ago

November 24, 2024

admin

Justice secretary's assisted dying intervention is explosive - and potentially embarrassing for PM

With six days to go before Friday’s historic Commons showdown on assisted dying, it’s the opponents who are turning up the heat.

The explosive attack on the bill by Shabana Mahmood follows the poignant and personal plea from Gordon Brown to MPs to reject the bill.

We knew the justice secretary is opposed to the bill. She has already made that clear. But her attack on it, in a letter to constituents, is brutal.

She talks about a “slippery slope towards death on demand”. Savage. The state should “never offer death as a service”, she says. Chilling.

So much for Sir Keir Starmer attempting to cool the temperature in the row by urging cabinet ministers, whatever their view, to stop inflaming or attempting to influence the debate.

Ms Mahmood talks, as other opponents have, about pressure on the elderly, sick or disabled who feel they have “become too much of a burden to their family”.

She hits out at a “lack of legal safeguards” in the bill and pressure on someone into ending their life “by those acting with malign intent”.

Malign intent? Hey! That’s quite an assertion from a secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor who’s been urged by the PM to tone down her language.

It’s claimed that Sir Keir ticked off Wes Streeting, the health secretary, after he publicly opposed the bill and launched an analysis of the costs of implementing it.

Will the justice secretary now receive a reprimand from the boss? It’s a bit late for that. Critics will also claim Sir Keir’s dithering over the bill is to blame for cabinet ministers freelancing.

Shabana Mahmood is the first elected Muslim woman to hold a cabinet post. Elected to the Commons in 2010, she was also one of the first Muslim women MPs.

She told her constituents in her letter that it’s not only for religious reasons that she’s “profoundly concerned” about the legislation, but also because of what it would mean for the role of the state.

But of course, she’s not the only senior politician with religious convictions to speak out strongly against Kim Leadbeater’s bill this weekend.

Gordon Brown, son of the manse, who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, wrote about his opposition in a highly emotional article in The Guardian.

He spoke about the pain of losing his 10-day-old baby daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely and weighing just 2lb 4oz, in January 2002, after she suffered a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.

Mr Brown said that tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying. His powerful voice will strongly influence many Labour MPs.

And what of Kim Leadbeater? It’s looking increasingly as though she’s now being hung out to dry by the government, after initially being urged by the government to choose assisted dying after topping the private members bill ballot.

All of which will encourage Sir Keir’s critics to claim he looks weak. It is, or course, a private members bill and a free vote, which makes the outcome on Friday unpredictable.

But the dramatic interventions of the current lord chancellor and the former Labour prime minister are hugely significant, potentially decisive – and potentially embarrassing for a prime minister who appears to be losing control of the assisted dying debate.

UK

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Published

3 hours ago

November 24, 2024

admin

Max Verstappen wins Formula One world title for a fourth straight year

Red Bull driver Max Verstappen has won the Formula One world title for a fourth straight year.

His victory was confirmed after finishing fifth at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Mercedes’ George Russell won the race.

The 27-year-old Dutchman becomes just the sixth driver in Formula One history to win four titles or more, after outscoring Lando Norris who took the chequered flag in only sixth.

Verstappen is now guaranteed the world crown with two races still remaining, with his domination cementing his name among Formula One’s greats.

“Oh my God man,” said an emotional Verstappen after securing the world title. “What a season. Four times. It was a little bit more difficult than last year.”

Lewis Hamilton raced back from 10th to second place to complete an impressive one-two finish for Mercedes. Carlos Sainz finished third for Ferrari, one place ahead of his team-mate Charles Leclerc.

Russell’s third victory was the most dominant of his career so far, crossing the line 7.3 seconds clear of Hamilton.

Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton have each won a record seven, with 1950s Argentine legend Juan-Manuel Fangio on five ahead of Alain Prost, Sebastian Vettel and now Verstappen on four.

Having won every Drivers’ Championship since claiming his first in the controversial end to the 2021 season when he beat Hamilton in deeply contentious circumstances, Verstappen now joins Hamilton, Fangio and Vettel in winning four titles consecutively.

Only Schumacher has achieved a run of five.

The team were hit by controversy earlier this season, with Red Bull’s principal sponsor, Christian Horner, facing allegations of controlling behaviour by a female staff member. Horner, who denied the accusations, was cleared, and a subsequent appeal was thrown out.

Horner congratulated Verstappen on the radio, telling him: “Max Verstappen you are a four-time world champion. That is a phenomenal, phenomenal achievement. You can be incredibly proud of yourself.”

Red Bull is on course to finish third in the constructors’ championship this year. This century only Hamilton in 2008 with McLaren, and Verstappen in 2021, have won the drivers’ title when their team did not win the constructors’ championship.