Lament for lost art of oratory

Troy Bramston’s article on Graham Freudenberg (“Our democracy lost for words”, 30/7) reminds us of the importance of the thoughtful spoken word in this time of Twitter and Instagram. It seems to me highly unlikely that there will ever be a collection of the speeches of Donald Trump or even Boris Johnson (although he does try), as there were of the speeches of Cicero and Robert Menzies.

Our society seems to have lost touch with the spoken word because it is afraid or unable to think, and organise thought. Our politicians are symptomatic of this; they rarely exhibit thoughtful ideas or ideals — or if they try to, listeners switch off because they are entwined in a social media debate that cannot tolerate considered thinking.

Hopefully things will change and we will again hear leaders and would-be leaders who can enunciate their policies in persuasive argument rather than smart Tweets. And hopefully we will still have writers who can understand them and transcribe them as clearly as Bramston can.

Glenda Ellis, Bardon, Qld

In an eloquent tribute to the late Graham Freudenberg Troy Bramston hopes for a return to the days when “the art of oratory was central to our politics”. As one who, growing up in England, vividly remembers inspired orators such as Winston Churchill, of whom it was said by another, John F. Kennedy, that he “mobilised the English language and sent it into battle”, I heartily agree. Sadly, in a Twitter era that assumes in its recipients the attention span of an impatient gnat, it may be a forlorn hope.

Listening to the proceedings in what passes for question time in our cavernous parliament hardly raises one’s morale. Yet one should never despair. The following might help an oratorical restoration. First, a revival of debating in our schools and universities. And, second, provide potential orators and listeners with copies of The Complete Plain Words by Ernest Gowers and Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert Thouless, excellent guides to the simplicity of language and avoidance and detection of flawed logic.

John Kidd, Auchenflower, Qld

Troy Bramston writes that Graham Freudenberg was frustrated that Bill Shorten could not make a persuasive case for Labor’s policies. But just as in Mrs Beeton’s recipe for jugged hare (“first, catch your hare”), Shorten missed the crucial first step — make sure you begin with palatable policies.

John Dorman, Toowoomba, Qld

It takes one to know one. That was a well-penned eulogy to the Labor speechwriter, Troy Bramston. Graham Freudenberg was concerned that with so many politicians now using speechwriters their words are discounted as not their own. There has been one valid contemporary exception: the gifted wordsmith Tony Abbott, author of many high-calibre speeches. But he was criticised for spending time on this craft. Go figure.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

I was in the public gallery in 1973 when a Labor member (Gil Duthie, I think) asked Gough Whitlam a hostile question. More than once I heard such questions asked of Robert Menzies. Both Whitlam and Menzies were parliamentary performers unequalled by other prime ministers in my memory.

During past decades question time has increasingly become a farce (“Speakers call time on MPs’ questions”, 30/7). In the current parliament Labor is at least trying to improve the quality and bite of its questions, but general reform is sorely needed. If prime ministers can’t take genuine questions without notice from their own side it is a sign of weakness. If ministers can’t give a straightforward answer to a question it is a sign of incompetence.

It would be wonderful to see a sincere attempt to make question time something to enjoy fully without being embarrassed for the perpetrators of a travesty of the genuine article.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

I would like to think that reform of question time, or even an independent Speaker as in the House of Commons, would improve the standard of political debate. However, I will not hold my breath because as somebody much smarter than I once remarked, “The progress of political evolution from Gladstone and Disraeli to today’s political leaders contains evidence enough to upset Darwin.”

John Waight, Point Cook, Vic