When a speech by Anthony Albanese, leader of the House of Representatives in Australia, lifted material from the movie The American President, we saw the funny side.

Now it’s getting even funnier. Mr Albanese’s controversial speech attacked Australia’s opposition leader. And now it’s the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, who’s accused of taking material from real American presidents.

Tony Abbott’s speech didn’t take material from Hollywood presidents but it borrowed from real American presidents.

This week Tony Abbott noted:

At the heart of Labor’s failure is the assumption that bigger government and higher taxes are the answer to every problem.

And in February 1973 President Nixon noted:

At home, we must reject the mistaken notion … that even bigger government is the answer to every problem.

More currently his speech also borrowed a line or two from President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address:

The current leaders of the Labor Party have failed to understand what Abraham Lincoln knew in the marrow of his bones, that government should do for people what they can’t do for themselves and no more.

President Obama’s speech noted:

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.

There’s a big fuss in some quarters of the Australian press about all this. But should we really be concerned?

Good speeches, good lines and good speakers can all stand imitation. The warp and weft of solid speech writing depends on the re-cycling of material that’s worthy.

President Obama does it. He borrowed from President Lincoln for his 2012 State of the Union speech. And Tony Abbott borrowed from Presidents Lincoln, Nixon and Obama. Worthy material the first time around and still worthy now.

If I’m allowed a request, it’s that the Australian public be treated to some Australian-sourced material next time their politicians give a speech? The richness of Australian language over the years can’t be overlooked.

Three leaders, three speeches and one theme.

That was the status of British public speaking last week; not dissimilar to watching clone reality TV across all the new digital terrestrial channels.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all took the crisis of capitalism as their theme for major speeches during the week.

The speeches didn’t exactly detail the problem beyond vague slogans. In fact that was a feature of all three speeches–not much clarity.

We heard rhetoric. And we heard oratory. But we didn’t hear substance or policy in the speeches. It was Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, who said:

Speeches are not magic and there is no great speech without great policy.

That’s something the party leaders might choose to consider for their next speech. But each speech did ring with rhetoric. For example, there was repetition in Ed Miliband’s responsible capitalism speech:

If he is serious about tackling irresponsible capitalism he needs to clamp down on the fact that train companies are ripping people off.

If he is serious about tackling irresponsible capitalism he needs to take action to break up the rigged energy market.

If he is serious about tackling irresponsible capitalism he needs to take action to stop those exorbitant bank charges.

and in Nick Clegg’s responsible capitalism speech:

That is the route to a safer, more stable, more prosperous economic future. This is how we will spread wealth and share rewards.

A more responsible capitalism. A more liberal capitalism.

and in David Cameron’s speech,

An economy where people who work hard get rewards which are fair in the true Conservative meaning of the word.

An economy where people feel in control of their destiny…

…because they’ve started their own business, or are shareholders in the company they work for, or are part of a co-operative.

An economy where everyone has the chance to build up assets and pass something on to the next generation

David Cameron used a whole series of word pairs throughout his speech. These are less pronounced than lists of three, but equally effective…

I want these difficult economic times to achieve more than just paying down the deficit and encouraging growth.

I want them to lead to a socially responsible and genuinely popular capitalism.

One in which the power of the market and the obligations of responsibility come together.

One in which we improve the market by making it fair as well as free, and in which many more people get a stake in the economy and share in the rewards of success.

But there were some issues with these speeches.

Ed Miliband’s speech style still has the resonant style of an earlier Labour party leader with, “I say” or “I would say”:

But what I say to David Cameron is…

It’s an antiquated way of speaking that was in character with party leaders 20 or 30 years ago.

Nick Clegg was in some danger of sounding like a young liberal debating society member when he noted:

As this debate moves forward, we need to be clear about what we mean. Because, whether you call it a new economy, an ethical economy, moral markets, responsible capitalism, there is a big difference between having strong views on bonus culture or excessive top pay and wanting real change in the practices and principles that guide corporate life.

It wasn’t lost on his audience that Nick was far from clear.

And David Cameron’s enthusiasm for the short list of mini-sentences remains undimmed:

One that recognised what’s gone wrong with capitalism, and which freed people to make something of themselves…

…to get a good job. To own a home. To start a business.

Three speeches. Three leaders. One theme.

Yes, I can do it as well.

The Kingdom of Bahrain is most definitely in the international spotlight right now. Like many other countries in the region it has experienced significant unrest since this time last year. Yet unlike other countries its governance remains pretty much the same.

So the King’s speech last week was a chance to hear from His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa how it’s done.

Allowing for matters of translation can be a problem. But there’s no disguising the King’s speech was a very dry, plodding affair.

Characterised by long words and long sentences the speech was nearly impenetrable. By the time the King reached the end of some of his sentences in the speech you wondered how the sentence had begun.

Our loyal people have demonstrated that their will, despite all events, is devoted to continuing the reform project, to preserving the achievements of the Charter and the Constitution, and to accelerating progress and momentum through constitutional institutions.

Being the Head of State in the Middle East is no small order right now. And it’s noticeable just how much of his speech is peppered with mentions of the constitution, institutions, legislative and executive branches of government. Not unexpected after all the unrest.

But buried in the arcane language we heard:

We cannot fail at this point to emphasize that democracy is not just literature, or constitutional and legislative provisions. Democracy is a culture and practice, commitment to the rule of law, respect for the international principles of human rights, coupled with serious national political action that represents all spectrums of society without exclusion or quotas.

The King’s speech appears to point to a reformed future. But such is the quality of the speech writing that you might be mistaken. The suspicion has to be that clarity might be more important in Bahrain than obfuscation. We’ll see.

1980s audiences sensed that Nine 1/2 weeks, starring Kim Basinger and Mickey Rourke,  simply shot by. So how  about nine 1/2 hours?

That’s the length of time that Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, has just given to one of his speeches.

This epic speech is one of many that the President is delivering as he re-asserts his authority and popularity after his 2011 illness. It’s a case of no half measures for this speaker.

The hypothesis goes that a 9 1/2 hour long speech points to his stamina and strength! That’s the hypothesis that takes no account of his poor, unfortunate audience. He’s keen that his speeches should re-position him as the choice of the majority in the imminent elections for President.

The President apparently noted that he had simply lost track of time during his speech…he missed the audience’s yawns, their growling stomachs or the setting sun.

As a speaker President Chavez has earned a reputation for lengthy speeches. I sense that autocracy does this to speakers. Just consider the examples of Robert Mugabe speeches or Fidel Castro’s public speaking. An ordeal.

Autocracy, or a 13-year tenure in office, must be complicit. Just consider what happened when President Chavez had an interactive section in his speech–a section when questions could be asked by his audience.

When an opposition Presidential candidate asked a pointed question about Venezuelan living standards, the President responded:

unless she wins next month’s primary she’s out of my league to debate …eagles don’t hunt flies.

Now that’s a put-down and a half from any speaker.

New Year’s speeches signal a new start. A new resolution. And that’s just what Ed Miliband wanted with his New Year speech.

Yes, he only gave it yesterday, but it’s a new beginning. At least that was how it was billed beforehand.

He used his speech at the Oxo Tower in London to outline ten policies that a government of his choosing would adopt. Reading from a prepared script his speech was characterised by exaggerated pauses and some very short sentences:

And what are the Government doing about it?

Nothing.

and,

And it’s not just transport we need change.

Take energy.

Everyone here today who has enjoyed Christmas and New Year with their family has had the central heating on.

But it’s expensive.

His introduction thanked Citizens UK for all their good work, confirmed their values and then noted how he shared these very same values. This worked as a good introduction to a difficult speech.

Speaking in slow, measured tones he used a series of position taking statements to confirm his starting point:

A lot of people say:

“These are tough times. It’s easy to talk about fairness, but how are you going to achieve it when there’s less money around?”

This led to:

The Labour Party stands for fairness and fighting injustice.

With his position, and that of the Labour party settled, the Leader of the Opposition set about his rebuttal of the Coalition government and an outline of his ten policy measures.
His short sentences favoured repetition and he delivered:

More unfair.

More unequal.

More unjust.

And in case we missed the list, his speech also helped out his audience with a list structure:

That means three new ways of delivering fairness in difficult times.

First, reforming our economy so we have long-term wealth creation with rewards fairly shared.

Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze the living standards of families.

And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority.

This proved to be a well-constructed speech with solidity and purpose:

Does anyone doubt that people are feeling squeezed?

The price of food is going up.

The price of gas and electricity is going up.

And the price of getting around, getting to work is going up

His peroration was robust and well-written–as was the whole speech.

What is your vision for this country?

This Government doesn’t have one.

But we do.

Because we understand that a responsible economy is also a stronger, growing economy.

Our vision is for an economy based on sustainable wealth creation.

Where rewards are more fairly shared.

Where we take on the vested interests that squeeze people’s living standards.

Where we stand up for the hard-working majority with the choices we make.

That is the basis on which Labour will govern.

That is what Labour stands for.

That is where Labour stands.

We heard some horrors (“Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times” and “I say: Bring it on.”) in this well-constructed speech.

But it’s his speech delivery that’s going to need more work. Somehow there’s a flatness to the delivery, a sense that the passion isn’t there. Those in the know confirm his passion, but most of us aren’t in the know.

We can expect that his team will be working on his speech tone, the tonal variation and the uplift at the end of his sentences.

You’d expect the characteristic traits of a dictator would include the capacity to give a speech.

You only have to consider the examples of Colonel Gaddafi, President Mubarak or President Saddam Hussein. Gaddafi speeches were rambling and frequent. Mubarak speeches were frequently obscure. And Saddam speeches were plain obscure.

Each made their presence felt with their speeches. Other incumbents, such as Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe, have a track record of inconsistent, rambling public speeches. Castro speeches used to be a byword for longevity–not dissimilar to the President himself.

Dictators, by their very nature, don’t tend to hang back from the public speaking podium. Public speaking anxiety isn’t a facet of their character.

So we were speechless to read in his obituary that the late President Kim Jong-il, who died in December, had no record of public speaking. The Supreme leader of North Korea (DPRK) never gave a public speech.

He took over the reins of power from his father in 1994. But there’s no record of him giving a speech before his accession to power or after. To all intents and purposes he was speechless.

There are many people around the world who will recognise his public speaking anxiety. They might even share the fear of public speaking. But it’s got to be the only character trait he ever shared.

A well-timed and well-executed speech can portend a return to public life…for some.

So Dominique Strauss-Kahn must be hoping that his recent speech in China might herald a return to public life.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former Head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had an eventful summer in New York facing charges of sexual assault in the New York Sofitel hotel. When the prosecution dropped all their charges Mr Strauss-Kahn was free to return to Paris…no longer the head of the IMF.

So a well-timed speech in Beijing, at the request of the Chinese internet business NetEase could mark a possible return to public life. The conference was sufficiently high-brow to accommodate a man of his stature without being too overt. Another advantage was the sheer distance between Paris and Beijing. Very useful.

His statesmanlike speech reviewed the economic and political threats facing Europe generally. Had he managed to avoid the Sofitel scandal then this is the sort of speech he would be making more regularly as a Presidential candidate in France. Plus ça change.

As it was he would not comment on the Sofitel affair nor answer any questions on the subject. This was a workmanlike speech that might prove the basis for more such public speaking.

Speeches given by Pakistan President Zardari have a tendency to baffle, bemuse and befuddle. And that’s often their intention.

So his speech that commemorated the fourth anniversary of the assassination of his wife and former Presidential candidate, Benazir Bhutto, was not an exception.

His speech posed more questions than answers. The assassins of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto are neither known,  apprehended nor indicted. It’s not too dissimilar to the death of President Zia in 1988. A mystery.

And much of his speech remained a mystery. It might have been critical of the role of the USA in the Middle East. And then again it might not. It might have been supportive of an investment project with Iran, and then again, perhaps not.

That’s the nature of a President Zardari speech. It’s a negotiation, a conversation. He uses his speeches to project views and opinions and gauge reactions. His speeches can be more combative, but this was not.

If his speech aimed to project the image of a President functionally fit and capable after his recent foreign medical treatment, then he did that. Anyone minded to seek his removal from office on grounds of physical impairment must wait a while.

His speech will keep the wheels of the ox cart rolling. But in which direction and for how long?

A short New Year’s speech from Angola’s President might be welcomed at this time of year. But President Dos Santos’ speech proved nearly as impenetrable as the civil war that ended nearly ten years ago.

A 44-word first sentence set the mark. The President’s speech then continued with a sentence of 22 words. Mercifully he followed that with a 5-word sentence.

But if we thought that his speech was on the right path we were mistaken.

The speech fog continued. President Dos Santos’ speech went further with an 81-word sentence designed to lose any audience. Hard on the ears.

Passive speech forms added to the fog:

This trend will be accentuated as from 2012, thanks to a better coordination of the implementation of the Micro- Small and Medium Enterprise Law, of the National Programme of Rehabilitation of the Secondary and Tertiary Roads, of the Water for All Programme, of the Programme of Municipalisation of Health Care, of the Development Rural Trade Programme and the Social Housing Programme.

and,

The said Law must be applied in a creative way in order to also benefit such entrepreneurs as women that deal in street vending, creators of culture like musicians, producers, dance and theatre associations, handicraft producers, plastic artists, etc.

But beyond these difficulties the President’s speech meant well. There was purpose to his message. The democratic path is long and tiring. And yes, his speech did mention moving forward:

We still have eight months ahead and what matters is that everyone, within their family, find in this Festive Season, the love and energy required for us to move forward, in a spirit of unity and social solidarity, defending the highest interests of the Angolan motherland.

But you really can’t fault a speaker or his speech when it concludes with:

HAPPY FEAST AND A PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR

Um acabamento maravilhoso.

Ian Chappell’s keynote speech at the Raj Singh Dungarpur World Cricket Summit in Mumbai last week nearly stole the show from the other speakers.

His speech praised the lifetime achievements of the late Nawab of Pataudi with some vivid recollections of the Nawab’s first tour of Australia witnessed by the young Ian Chappell.

Tiger missed the first Test because he pulled a hamstring as if one eye is not a big enough handicap. And if you want to know how big a handicap that is, try closing one eye and catch a cricket ball. It’s not very easy.

This was a fine speech full of recollections and anecdotes told about one cricketing legend by another:

“I didn’t have my own bat, gloves so each time I went out, I just picked up the bat nearest to the door.” He got 75 in the first innings and just to prove that was not a fluke, he got 85 in the second innings.

Ian Chappell’s keynote speech was followed in the second session of the day by Mike Brearley’s Voice of Cricket lecture in which he talked about the damaging effects of corruption on the game of cricket.

Brearley’s speech was serious, dutiful stuff in contrast to the flamboyant eulogy for the late Nawab.