Michael Gove’s speech at the annual Brighton College Education Conference proved well-worked and finely delivered. Yet something was missing.

You sensed that he had more to say in this speech than he actually did. The title to his speech was anaemic:

A coalition for good – how we can all work together to make opportunity more equal

Right. If the measure of a good title for a speech is that no-one could possibly disagree, then this was a superb title. But a title should also suggest meaning, significance and relevance. This title is waffle, and the Secretary of State for Education will know that.

His introduction proved mesmerizing, highlighting the sheer number of independent school educated men and women who’ve achieved fame or influence in Britain.

It was thought provoking stuff. But why did his list appear to miss out business and military leaders? Perhaps the level of social inequality is less in these two sectors.

The Minister’s choice of words and use of language prove an asset in this job. Words are well-chosen and language is finely mixed:

But because I believe such fatalism in the face of circumstance is a profoundly reactionary doctrine – it denies the possibility of progress through human action, it says to all those driven by idealism to enter the classroom that they are simply spectators in a pageant of futility.

Concluding his speech he wrapped up all the loose strands of his core argument that deprivation doesn’t have to be destiny–education can fix it. Noting the opposition to his plans, the Secretary of State used some repetition in a rare rhetorical flourish.

But – seriously – we know we are making progress when we hear the opposition from vested interests – from those in trade unions who put adults interests before children’s, from those in local Government who put protecting their power before fulfilling children’s potential, from those who have acquiesced in a culture of low expectations who resist any form of accountability for failure.

This speech is not likely to be pivotal. It certainly reflects well upon the speaker. But the more concerned audience members might still ponder the roles of selection and the place of grammar schools in State education. Neither was mentioned in this speech. Was that the missing something?

A speech by the Prince of Wales in Edinburgh marked the first meeting of the World Fisheries Congress in Europe, let alone the United Kingdom.

His speech also marked a continuation of his current public speaking theme: sustainable food.

Drawing on his own Royal Navy experience the Prince reflected on his days monitoring fishing vessel activities during the Icelandic Cod Wars of the 1970s. This introduction served him well, mixing some self deprecation with the seriousness of his task.

His speech made clear that he was no expert in fisheries management. But he noted that common sense should prevail.

He used statistics and figures well. But, he also observed:

Given the huge body of expertise gathered in this room today, I trust you’ll forgive me if I don’t repeat the many facts and figures I know you are all very familiar with.

That was a good touch because this speech could easily have been dominated by analysis of the available figures. Presumably the rest of the conference  would undertake that work.

His speech emphasized, with some classic repetition, the progress that can be made with direct action in the world’s fisheries:

It was fascinating to see that these positive changes are leading to more fish in the sea, more fish landed, more secure livelihoods, more food and more profitable fisheries.

He has a fine way of weaving some personal insights and stories into his speeches:

I witnessed exactly this at first hand a couple of weeks ago when I visited the Isle of Man. I found…

These work well and serve to bring to life the issues discussed in his speech.

The Prince has undoubtedly learned the lessons of other speakers who discuss environmental matters. Audiences don’t tend to react well to speeches that spell doom and gloom ad nauseam. This speech spelled out how people could make a difference to the management of fish stocks and produce greatly enhanced revenues in the process.

After all, the World Bank estimates that if managed well, global fish stocks could be worth some fifty billion dollars more per year than they are today.

If that’s conservation, then perhaps we can all support the theme for this speech?

Tradition is a fine and noble thing when it serves some purpose. When it doesn’t, it’s obstructive and futile.

The Queen’s Speech that’s scheduled for tomorrow, marking the start of the new session in Parliament, is a tradition that dates back several centuries. Its drama involves the mounted cavalry, old men in ceremonial tights and the bizarre ritual of members of Parliament being called to listen to the speech in the House of Lords.

At its heart the speech has a purpose; the purpose of laying out the Government’s legislative programme for the year ahead. The Government writes the speech and the Queen reads it.

The ceremony and pageantry reflect the historical record of Parliament winning rights and freedoms from the Monarchy. The symbolism, reflected in the speech’s content, indicates who’s really in charge.

But tradition was broken in May 2010 when the Government announced that it would delay the next Queen’s speech until 2012–giving the Government time to act after the May 2010 elections.

Such a delay to the Queen’s speech is not without precedent, but it’s not been delayed for 50 years.

What has not changed, however, is the super-charged debate and idle speculation about the contents of the 2012 Queen’s Speech. Such interest is heightened by the relative drubbing of the coalition government in the local elections last week.

This year’s Queen’s Speech is unlikely to carry surprises. Most of the speech has already been pondered before its release. It’s the speculation and interest aroused by the Queen’s speech that points to this particular tradition not being futile or obstructive.

A speech at the Merchant Taylors’ Hall in the City of London marks the end of an era for Hector Sants.

After five years at the helm of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), its Chief Executive, Hector Sants, is retiring. His tenure has been tumultuous. And while his five year siege of the City bears no comparison with that experienced by his ancient namesake, fortunately, his exit from the City in June will be the more peaceful.

The trouble with speeches given by financial regulators is that just about everything that has to be said has already been said. Most of the views, opinions and insights have already been aired.

And so it was with this speech. We suspected that this was policy wonk material as soon as we read the title, “Delivering effective corporate governance: the financial regulators role.” Oh Dear, oh dear. Could the title of a city regulator’s speech be more anodyne?

Probably not. The first word in his title gives the game away. It’s been a firm favourite in the lexicon of government for over ten years now. As if government had all the answers when it comes to governance!

His speech proved remarkably unproblematic…save for one of his conclusions:

When I first joined the FSA I expressed this relationship in terms of working together in ‘partnership’ but I have now concluded that word does not best describe the nature of the relationship between the regulator and regulated.  Regulators and firms should neither be in a relationship of partnership or conflict but in constructive tension.

His departure from the FSA doesn’t have heroic overtones. And the title of his speech is undeniably dull but, this speech leaves tension in the air for his successor.

There’s something reassuring about a CEO’s PowerPoint presentation. Dispiriting, but reassuring. With a few notable exceptions their presentations follow a certain formula and include certain material.

And a presentation by Alan Armstrong who’s the CEO at Williams goes some way to prove the point. He was presenting at the Howard Weil 40th Annual Energy Conference in New Orleans–an industry group for just about anyone who’s anyone in the oil business.

His presentation began somewhat inauspiciously with two pages of forward looking statements. It’s a depressing way to begin a presentation. I’m sure that investor relations managers and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can sort that out. It can’t be that hard.

His presentation proceeded with 13 formulaic PowerPoint slides. Formulaic? Yes, they included just about every slide design view that PowerPoint has. His audience was treated to maps, bullet points, combined images and bullet points, pie charts, bar charts and line graphs. Even the colour scheme seemed to come straight out of the PowerPoint top drawer.

Now there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with PowerPoint. Its problems arise from either a lack of imagination or a presenter trying to put too much on one slide or too much into a slide deck.

There were no surprises. Much of the content is already known–Mr. Armstrong used a similar slide deck at the Credit Suisse Energy Summit in February.

In terms of length, Mr. Armstrong’s presentation was mercifully short. There were 16 slides before he reached the appendix section. And then there were 40 Appendix slides–ready for questions and other eventualities. A short presentation, but each slide certainly had its fill of content.

The net result? An energy presentation that drains energy from its audience. You can break the formula when you align your presenting imagination with the story you want to tell. That’s something that CEOs are more than capable of.

People tend to get excited about a State of the Union speech. And in some parts they get worked up with a State of the State speech. So how about a State of the City speech?

Well, it’s true that they are cast as poor relations against their senior cousins. And that’s not a great starting point for a City Mayor getting to grips with her first State of the City speech.

For Mayor Carolyn Goodman her State of the City speech in Las Vegas proved an ordeal…for her audience.

Her speech took 80 minutes to deliver. Its content was akin to a laundry list of achievements by the previous mayor…her husband, Oscar Goodman.

Her audience had two problems with that. First, her mayoral predecessor had made all the same points in his 12 State of the City speeches. Points that he took half an hour to make. And second, if the Mayor is to use the same speech structure next year, it had better be her own achievements that make the list.

Her audience treated her to a standing ovation at the beginning and end of her speech. But beyond that there was no applause within the speech itself. That’s not the treatment of a typical political speech.

Poor content and ill-judged timing compounded the speech’s 80 minute length. Yes, it was an ordeal for her audience.

We can but hope that when she comes to give her next State of the City speech the bright lights of Las Vegas aren’t more appealing to her audience than her speech. On current form, they might be.

You might recognise the moment. It happens when you are busily presenting and someone, typically at the back of the room, indicates to you that it’s time to wrap it up. Reach your conclusion.

If that’s familiar, then Susan Harkins might have a solution for you. Writing in the TechRepublic Microsoft Office blog she notes a simple design solution for PowerPoint.

Her solution involves placing a hyperlink to your presentation’s conclusion on each of your presentation slides. That way, should you need to, you can quickly get to your last slide, finishing your presentation without a frantic trawl through the slide deck.

Easy?

Not so fast. Admirable solution that it is, strategically placed hyperlinks in your PowerPoint won’t sort out your presenting problem. Running out of time in your presentation isn’t going to be solved by the software.

It’s your job to practise your presentation, edit it to time and then deliver to the time available.

That’s a simple presentation technique. By all means place hyperlinks in your PowerPoint presentation. Just don’t expect them to solve your presenting problem.

It’s only been three weeks since former Vice President Dick Cheney underwent a heart transplant but he still managed to speak at the Wyoming state Republican convention at the weekend.

He looked neither hale nor hearty. And he didn’t have the rounded look that we recall from his last stint in office.

Yet, he managed to walk onstage unaided. And he managed to speak for over an hour.

It’s true that his speech to his audience at the Little America Hotel and Resort in Cheyenne, Wyoming was delivered from the comparative comfort of an armchair. And he was accompanied by his daughter, Liz Cheney, who asked questions and moved the conversation along.

In the circumstances that’s probably to be expected…new heart and all.

His words were certainly appreciated by the party faithful in a state with some of the highest Republican voter registrations in the union. Though you’d have to wonder whether there’s some desperation in depending on a keynote speaker straight from heart surgery.

But as Vice President Cheney said:

Hard work never killed anybody

We can all take heart from that.

His father had the rather dubious reputation of being speechless. He never gave a speech in public. But Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s new dictator and son of Kim Jong-il, has given his first public speech after only a few months in charge.

His speech, on the 100th anniversary of the birth of his grandfather and North Korea’s founder, Kim Il-sung, was noteworthy for all the wrong reasons.

If anyone had expected a change of course for the regime they were mistaken. His speech laid out the regime’s priorities in no uncertain terms.

Their “first, second and third” priorities were militarization!

Indeed, for it was only last week that one of the country’s missile launches proved an abject failure.

He gave his first public speech reading from a prepared script, occasionally looking up at his vast Pyongyang audience.

Short of stature he was also short of mannerisms, only giving a victory salute to his audience when he reached the conclusion to his speech:

Let’s go on for our final victory!

Many in his audience remarked on the similarities between the new leader and his grandfather who had a reputation as a communicator. If the comparison is genuine then Kim Jong-un is a departure from his speechless father, but his public speaking remains work in progress.

His speech at Al Azhar University on 12th April certainly seized the media’s attention, but David Cameron’s earlier speech of the day was a diplomatic masterpiece.

Sharing a speaking platform with Indonesia’s President Yudhoyono, Mr Cameron’s speech combined all the elegance of a traditional diplomatic speech with the modern business-talk trappings of the jet-setting diplomat. And he fits that mould of course with a programme that’s taking in Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Myanmar.

The opening remarks to his speech set the tone of mutual support, as news filtered through of the Aceh earthquake:

Britain, of course, stands ready to help if help is required, and we will stand with you, with your government, and with your people at this time of worry.

His speech contained frequent references to President Yudhoyono and his leadership; a critical technique in any speech with diplomacy at its core.

Mister President, under your leadership, Indonesia has continued a remarkable transformation into one of the world’s fastest growing economies.

and,

President Yudhoyono and I share both objectives.

But the diplomatic speech isn’t just about platitudes. It’s about shared interests, geo-political interests such as Syria and trade interests. Mr. Cameron’s speech noted the Syrian situation and foresaw “a day of reckoning” for Assad’s crimes.

But it was matters of trade that appeared to top the Prime Minister’s agenda in this speech. And he made that very clear with an invitation to President Yudhoyono to come to Britain on a State visit.

This will be during the very special Diamond Jubilee year, and I believe it’s a mark of the importance we attach to this relationship.

With only a passing reference to “Islamic countries,” this was an unremarkable speech, but a very diplomatic one. His speech at Al Azhar University, later in the day, was less so.