A Matter of Stress...

This morning I heard the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, in an interview, vigorously denying that his words in an interview some months ago had carried the implication that the press had read into them. The words were "Labour can win the next election".

I didn't hear them at the time so I have no idea of what stress and intonation he used but by coincidence I heard exactly the same words from Business Secretary, John Hutton barely an hour earlier.

The heart of the matter is this. When someone says something "can" happen does that merely imply the possibility of it without saying anything at all about the likelihood or does it, as it was interpreted when David Miliband originally said it, carry an implication that while it is possible, it is also unlikely?

David Miliband said today, and he has good point, that he had chosen the word "can" rather than the word "will" because you should never take the electorate for granted as complacency is dangerous in politics. He didn't add, though it would also have been a valid argument, that the use of the word "will" might have seemed too arrogant.

So what do the words mean? When John Hutton said them, and I am certain this wasn't his intention they were inflected as "labour CAN win" with a rising tone on the stressed syllable. Said in this way they sound distinctly as if the speaker is unsure, in fact as if he is trying to reassure himself. In short they lack confidence. This is how they were interpreted when Miliband said them and how I immediately reacted when Hutton said them. That it isn't what he meant is clear from the fact that everything else in the interview was supporting Gordon Brown and toeing the party line. I suspect that what happened was that he has doubts which he intended to keep to himself but his voice betrayed him as he unconsciously used a questioning inflection.

Let's have a quick look at the possible ways he might have said it.

"labour can win": flat and neutral with the advantage that no one is likely to put any adverse interpretation on it but the disadvantage that no one is likely to take any notice of it at all.

"LABOUR…CAN…WIN": loud with strong emphasis throughout, upbeat and positive but rather more strident than we are used to in British politics. More of a rallying cry than anything else.

"LABOUR can win": probably the best way to say it as the implication of this emphasis is that while Labour can win the other parties can't, which is surely what he meant.

"labour can WIN": almost as good, positive and upbeat, the implication being that they can't lose.

"labour CAN win": the form actually used and just about the worst possible choice as it definitely carries the implication that while they can they might not and with a rising question intonation on top, the implication that they probably won't or at least that people think they won't.

So, of all the possible ways to say it, it's a pity Mr Hutton (and perhaps Mr Miliband before him) chose the worst one.

None of this proves anything at all about politics or politicians but it does all go to prove that it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it, that really matters.