Hilary Benn breaks the rules

No speechwriting blog would be complete this week without mention of Hilary Benn. Rightly or wrongly, the politician has made his career, and possibly shaped the future of his party, in fifteen well judged minutes during a ten hour debate in the UK House of Commons on Syrian Airstrikes.

Several things are remarkable about Mr Benn’s speech, and most have been unpicked in such detail that it is difficult to add meaningfully to the debate. But one element of his rhetoric is worth noting, and has been overlooked by most commentators.

We live in times of unprecedented discussion – in Twitter and Facebook, every individual has a platform that in previous centuries would have taken august birth or sustained excellence to access. We all stand with Caesar on the steps to the Senate. In the resulting babble, many traditional rhetorical skills have gone by the wayside. But it is surprising how we all respond – even subliminally – when a speaker does follow Aristotle’s rules.

Quintilian first clearly set out the importance of the “rule of three” in speechmaking. Three examples give a meaningful crescendo to an argument, provide scope for alternate points of view and the ability to synthesise them into a layered conclusion. Three is pleasing to the ear and manageable to the listener following the argument.

Hilary Benn’s speech follows many of the classic Aristotelian structures – it begins elegantly and, with his slick apology at the end of the first paragraph, deftly draws both sides of his audience together behind him. He flatters Conservatives by accepting their point of view, and legitimises those within his own party who want to side with the motion of the debate.

It is in the concluding peroration, however, that Benn breaks rhetorical convention to substantial effect. His words are a calculated call to arms. Repetition is his tool.

Having set up the idea of ISIL as fascists – used here as shorthand for evil - Benn refers to “them” holding “us... in contempt” s no fewer than four times in four sentences. For his listeners, this is an uncomfortable aural precedent.

Next, Benn switches tack, offering relief, but using the same device of repetition in demanding a response. He uses an implicit rhetorical question as the pivot: “It is why we...” he explains, using the phrase five times in succession, exhorting his listeners to action.

Little wonder that both sides of the house were on their feet by the end of his speech. Here is a usually moderate Member of the House using rhetoric in a way that finally frees him from his father’s shadow and draws parallels with Winston Churchill. The element of surprise – tub thumping from an unexpected quarter – adds force to his words. Listening to his delivery is almost physically uncomfortable – by the ninth repetition the urge to move is palpable, if only for relief!

Benn’s speech is polemic, but business speakers take note: at times, judiciously breaking the rules can transform not just your message, but the way you are perceived as a leader.