3 December 2015

Can rhetorical excellence be inherited? PART II



When I first started studying political speeches (as published in Our Masters' Voices) one of the most impressive public speakers of the day was the late Tony Benn. Last night's House of Commons debate on Syria ended with a fine speech by his son, Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn.

Perhaps not quite as good as his Dad, but applause is extremely rare in the House of Commons. And most of the commentators in the media last night (and today) attributed the government's majority of 10x the Conservative's overall majority to his speech.

Looking at the number and names of Labour MPs who voted for the government's motion, one cannot help wondering how long it will be that Jeremy Corbyn can survive as leader - or how long the Labour party can survive without another breakaway party emerging like the SDP of the mid 1980s.

On yesterday's evidence, such a party would be considerably bigger than a gang of 4....!!!

_____________________________________________________________________________


Hilary Benn M.P:
Thank you very much Mr Speaker. Before I respond to the debate, I would like to say this directly to the Prime Minister: Although my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and I will walk into different division lobbies tonight, I am proud to speak from the same Despatch Box as him. My right honourable friend is not a terrorist sympathiser, he is an honest, a principled, a decent and a good man and I think the Prime Minister must now regret what he said yesterday and his failure to do what he should have done today, which is simply to say ‘I am sorry’.
Now Mr Speaker, we have had an intense and impassioned debate and rightly so, given the clear and present threat from Daesh, the gravity of the decision that rests upon the shoulders and the conscience of every single one of us and the lives we hold in our hands tonight. And whatever we decision we reach, I hope we will treat one another with respect.

 
Now we have heard a number of outstanding speeches and sadly time will prevent me from acknowledging them all. But I would just like to single out the contributions both for and against the motion from my honourable and right honourable friends the members for Derby South, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Barnsley Central, Wakefield, Wolverhampton South East, Brent North, Liverpool, West Derby, Wirral West, Stoke-on-Trent North, Birmingham Ladywood and the honourable members for Reigate, South West Wiltshire, Tonbridge and Malling, Winchester and Wells.
The question which confronts us in a very, very complex conflict is at its heart very simple. What should we do with others to confront this threat to our citizens, our nation, other nations and the people who suffer under the yoke, the cruel yoke, of Daesh? The carnage in Paris brought home to us the clear and present danger we face from them. It could have just as easily been London, or Glasgow, or Leeds or Birmingham and it could still be. And I believe that we have a moral and a practical duty to extend the action we are already taking in Iraq to Syria. And I am also clear, and I say this to my colleagues, that the conditions set out in the emergency resolution passed at the Labour party conference in September have been met.
We now have a clear and unambiguous UN Security Council Resolution 2249, paragraph 5 of which specifically calls on member states to take all necessary measures to redouble and co-ordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Isil, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.
So the United Nations is asking us to do something. It is asking us to do something now. It is asking us to act in Syria as well as in Iraq. And it was a Labour government that helped to found the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. And why did we do so? Because we wanted the nations of the world, working together, to deal with threats to international peace and security – and Daesh is unquestionably that.
So given that the United Nations has passed this resolution, given that such action would be lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter – because every state has the right to defend itself – why would we not uphold the settled will of the United Nations, particularly when there is such support from within the region including from Iraq. We are part of a coalition of over 60 countries, standing together shoulder-to-shoulder to oppose their ideology and their brutality.
Now Mr Speaker, all of us understand the importance of bringing an end to the Syrian civil war and there is now some progress on a peace plan because of the Vienna talks. They are the best hope we have of achieving a cease-fire. That would bring an end to Assad’s bombing, leading to a transitional government and elections. And why is that vital? Both because it will help in the defeat of Daesh, and because it would enable millions of Syrians, who have been forced to flee, to do what every refugee dreams of: they just want to be able to go home.
Now Mr Speaker, no-one in this debate doubts the deadly serious threat we face from Daesh and what they do, although sometimes we find it hard to live with the reality. We know that in June four gay men were thrown off the fifth storey of a building in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor. We know that in August the 82-year-old guardian of the antiquities of Palmyra, Professor Khaled al-Assad, was beheaded, and his headless body was hung from a traffic light. And we know that in recent weeks there has been the discovery of mass graves in Sinjar, one said to contain the bodies of older Yazidi women murdered by Daesh because they were judged too old to be sold for sex.
We know they have killed 30 British tourists in Tunisia, 224 Russian holidaymakers on a plane, 178 people in suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara and Suruc. 130 people in Paris including those young people in the Bataclan whom Daesh – in trying to justify their bloody slaughter – called ‘apostates engaged in prostitution and vice’. If it had happened here, they could have been our children. And we know that they are plotting more attacks.
So the question for each of us – and for our national security – is this: given that we know what they are doing, can we really stand aside and refuse to act fully in our self-defence against those who are planning these attacks? Can we really leave to others the responsibility for defending our national security when it is our responsibility? And if we do not act, what message would that send about our solidarity with those countries that have suffered so much – including Iraq and our ally, France.
Now, France wants us to stand with them and President Hollande – the leader of our sister socialist party – has asked for our assistance and help. And as we are undertaking airstrikes in Iraq where Daesh’s hold has been reduced and we are already doing everything but engage in airstrikes in Syria – should we not play our full part?
It has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so. Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq. The House will remember that, 14 months ago, people were saying: ‘they are almost at the gates of Baghdad’. And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them. Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure. Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobani. Now of course, air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh – but they make a difference. Because they are giving them a hard time – and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory.
Now, I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh – who target innocent people.
Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there’s been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that. But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad. But I’ll tell you what else we know, is whatever the number – 70,000, 40,000, 80,000 – the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number. And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that airstrikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others, and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to airstrikes that is being proposed. And of course we should take action. It is not a contradiction between the two to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid, and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees including in this country and yes we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.
Now I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now. And it is also clear that many members have wrestled, and who knows, in the time that is left, may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is. But I say the threat is now, and there are rarely, if ever, perfect circumstances in which to deploy military forces. Now we heard very powerful testimony from the honorable member for Eddisbury earlier when she quoted that passage, and I just want to read what Karwan Jamal Tahir, the Kurdistan regional government high representative in London, said last week and I quote: ‘Last June, Daesh captured one third of Iraq over night and a few months later attacked the Kurdistan region. Swift airstrikes by Britain, America and France, and the actions of our own Peshmerga, saved us. We now have a border of 650 miles with Daesh. We’ve pushed them back, and recently captured Sinjar. Again, Western airstrikes were vital. But the old border between Iraq and Syria does not exist. Daesh fighters come and go across this fictional boundary.’ And that is the argument Mr Speaker, for treating the two countries as one, if we are serious about defeating Daesh.
Now Mr Speaker, I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have – and we never should – walk by on the other side of the road.
And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for the motion tonight.

Can rhetorical excellence be inherited? PART I


Ed Jacobs (Left Foot Forward):

Hilary Benn showed us what Labour is missing





hilary

I have been a member of the Labour Party for fifteen years and never have I witnessed anything like yesterday.
MPs had a grave decision to make – to support military action against ISIL in Syria or not.
The debate started on a poor note. The prime minister failed to give a clear explanation of his figure that 70,000 moderate Syrians were ready to provide the boots on the ground needed to back up air strikes.
His decision not to apologise for his remarks that those opposed to military action were somehow ‘terrorist sympathisers’ was also an error of judgement that diminished the standing of the office that David Cameron holds.
Then came Jeremy Corbyn – head down in his notes, he simply faced a barrage of noise from the Conservative MPs, failing to answer head on his views about the air strikes currently taking place in Iraq against ISIL, strikes undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi government itself.
The new, honest politics obviously did not extend to answering a straight question with a straight answer. The sight of deputy leader Tom Watson with his head in his hands said it all.
But then came Hilary Benn. Since agreeing to serve under Jeremy Corbyn Benn has been placed in a difficult, if not impossible position. He was forced to clear up the mess created by Corbyn’s failure to provide leadership on the UK’s place in the EU, and over Syria he has been propelled to play the statesman role that the leader of the official opposition is incapable of doing.
Benn’s speech last night was well and truly electrifying. The passion, the energy and the clarity that he brought to the argument was the kind of speech that neither Cameron nor Corbyn could deliver. It was a speech of a prime minister in waiting.
Jeremy Corbyn sat stony faced throughout, not even able to muster a ‘well done’ on the delivery of a great speech to his shadow foreign secretary.
The Labour Party now faces a crunch moment that it has to confront head on. Yes, Labour members voted overwhelming for Jeremy Corbyn to lead the party but sometimes reality has to hit us.
Jeremy Corbyn is not a prime minister in waiting. His poll ratings are tanking further (if that were possible) among those voters who ultimately decide who governs the country.
His inability to present a united front on crucial security issues would pose severe difficulties of the UK’s position in the world if he were, by some fluke, ever to make it to Downing Street.
But worst of all has been his attitude to his parliamentary colleagues. Yes, he called for an atmosphere of tolerance as MP after MP has faced abuse for supporting military intervention in Syria, but it was he that sent Labour MPs to face the wolves last weekend, leaving them to stew. It was shameful.
Members of the parliamentary Labour Party and the country as a whole know the truth. For all his admirable qualities and principles, Jeremy Corbyn cannot and will not win a General Election. Hilary Benn showed yesterday what an effective, coherent opposition should look like.
Air strikes over Syria are now being undertaken in defence of democracy. In the UK our democracy is in peril thanks to the absence of a credible opposition to hold the government to account.
The Labour Party cannot go on like this. Something, and more specifically someone, needs to change and change now.
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor at Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
(Part II will include Hilary Benn's speech in full).

29 November 2015

Lifetime Achievement Award


Dr Max Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award Presentation

European Speechwriter Network & UK Speechwriters' Guild

Wednesday, 25 November 2015 from 18:30 to 20:30 (GMT)


This event is open to anyone who has been inspired by the work of Dr Max Atkinson.
Join us for the presentation of Dr Max Atkinson's Lifetime Achievement Award for his contribution to the understanding of speechwriting and public speaking.

SPEAKERS
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

Graham Davies

Phil Collins
Over wine and nibbles, you can circulate with others who share the unusual expertise of putting words into someone else's mouth.
The ticket includes wine and nibbles and speeches from top people who have been influenced by Max's ideas.

The UK Speechwriters’ Guild supports the professional development of speechwriters by organising conferences and training.

Our purpose is to:
  • show the value of good speechwriting to individuals and organisations
  • invite the best speechwriters to explain their craft
  • share trade information, with hints, tips and examples of fine speechwriting

We want to shape a thriving international industry.

We welcome new members and those wishing to develop the skills of speechwriting and public speaking for professional purposes.

For more details go to: http://www.ukspeechwritersguild.co.uk
Do you have questions about Dr Max Atkinson Lifetime Achievement Award Presentation?Contact European Speechwriter Network & UK Speechwriters' Guild

21 November 2015

NGOs in Putin's Russia


I have just been invited to a conference in Oxford. The reply to my request for more details went as follows:

Dear Professor Atkinson,

Thank you so much for your interest in our seminar. It'd be a great honor for us if you decide to join our debates in Oxford in January. My only concern is that I can hardly be more specific about the audience at this stage. There will be around 80-90 journalists from different regions of Russia (relatively young, average age 35). The group is now being composed, and as soon as my colleagues give me more information, I'll be happy to share it with you. 

As for the School, we are an NGO based in Moscow, but forced to organize most of our seminars abroad due to the latest law on foreign agents. 

We've been holding seminars on Media and society for the last 20 years, and we believe we represent a unique source of top level Russian expertise, and the strongest of our experts are our journalists. We gather (especially for this seminar) young journalists from all over Russia and post soviet space (Eastern Europe including) and give floor to the best experts and journalists so that they could discuss all the vital issues. Our seminars are built the way that experts give a short talk (20-30 min) followed up by an hour of discussion. We also include panel debates, round tables, screenings and meeting film directors.

Yours sincerely
I--- B-------------

Vaguely puzzled by this, I sent a copy to my brother, who has a degree in Russian and follows events there more closely than most media commentators in the UK.

His reply:

What fantastic proof of your standing in the field. Very impressed.

NGO (non government organisations) are such an interesting story in Russia. They are now all but banned as the Putin govt regards them as foreign agents. The first major casualty was the British Council which I believe was headed by Kinnock junior. 

Russian journalists are very brave. They suffer from intimidation and even murder. Anna Politkovskaya was an example.

Good luck with your lifetime award presentation next week.
D and B!!!

20 November 2015

Lifetime Achievement Award: letter from an 80+ year old friend

Recently, I received a personal letter from someone I first met over 30 years ago. At the risk of sounding as though I'm blowing my own trumpet, a slightly edited version is reproduced here:

'Dear Max

'Congratulations on being awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by the UK Speechwriters' Guild. It seems to me I knew you as a boy when you came to the Political communication conference at the University of Essex and I met you for the first time. I would have thought then that it shouldn't have taken so long to receive such an award, given your training of your protege, Ann Brennan, to test the water at the SDP Party Conference in Buxton. Her standing ovation was in itself a Lifetime Achievement Award.

'And I know someone had to teach Paddy Ashdown how to speak in short sentences, beginning with a subject, adding a verb and closing in the object of the sentence. I wish more politicians, indeed more graduates, would read your books.

'I am sorry that I will not be there to cheer you on, particularly when you use your own techniques to ensure a rousing round of applause.

'Cordially

' Sir R----- W-------- KBE DL.'

The full story of how an appearance at the conference referred to by RW changed my life was told in 10 episodes in this blog a few years ago - HERE: http://maxatkinson.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/claptrap-10-academic-acclaim.html

What was not mentioned there was that, before I had finished presenting my paper at the conference, RW passed me a note saying: 'I must have a copy of your book to review in my column in The Times.' 

Whether or not he did review it in that newspaper, I don't know. But our paths have crossed in interesting ways over the years since then - and I am grateful to him for quite a lot of things that he and I both remember....


5 November 2015

Bonfire night, halloween and goodbye to "penny for the Guy"???

For former pupils of St Peter's School, York like me, 5th November is an annual reminder of our deprived childhood.

Because Guy Fawkes also went to the school, as too did some of the other gunpowder plotters, bonfires and fireworks were banned - on the grounds that burning an old boy was deemed to be 'bad form'.

Some years ago, whilst listening to some primary school children reading on 5th November, my wife told one of the children that her husband had gone to the same school as Guy Fawkes.

"Oh" said the child, "Did he know him?"

2015:
It seems that Bonfire night has been progressively eclipsed by Halloween night - a rather new import from the USA. The first time I heard "trick or treat" was about 35 years ago, and that was only because we lived near a US air base in Oxfordshire - and were visited by American children. 

The whole thing now seems to have got completely out of hand with fancy dress, pointed hats and pumpkin lanterns. There have even been some nasty accidents with cheap outfits catching fire. But not as many as there once were when anyone of any age could buy as many bangers and rockets as they liked.

So maybe we Old Peterites now have a valid reason for not bothering to feel deprived about not going out on a cold wet night to watch a fireworks display. 

I do still miss children asking for "a penny for the Guy?" - which i haven't heard for quite a few years.....

4 November 2015

POPPIES and the British Legion


 

It is now more than 5 years since I first notified the British Legion about how they could collect even more cash than usual - and yet more in this centenary year of the outbreak of WW1 - but they have still failed to take any notice of my sound advice. See here

If you agree, how about mentioning it to them, if only because they appear to be a bit hard of hearing?

This year it's got worse than ever. They've ignored their long standing collectors and sent out 'free' adverts in the post (presumably to a mass audience at great expense) asking for a £10 donation.

My point was - and still is - that the slits on collection boxes shout out for coins rather than notes. It's really difficult to fold up a £10 note to get it through. It would also help if the boxes were made of Perspex, so that potential donors could see a few notes rather than listen to a few coins rattling around in the tin.

Having written to the British Legion HQ several times, I have yet to receive a reply...

24 October 2015

Question for Mr Cameron and Ms Sturgeon: why don't the Scots have their own time zone?



Repeat of a post from 24th October 2009:

If you find the darker afternoons that start tomorrow a depressing and pointless exercise, an article in The Times several years ago reported some interesting facts.

Apart from relieving the gloom, not putting the clocks back tonight would reduce electricity consumption by 1-2% and save NHS expenditure on dealing with accidents and emergencies:

“During an experiment 40 years ago, when British Summer Time was used all year for three years, there was an average of 2,500 fewer deaths and serious injuries each year. Opposition from Scotland contributed to the decision to return to putting the clocks back in winter.”

If putting the clocks back is such a big deal for the Scots, why don’t we let them do it on their own, especially now they have their own parliament in Edinburgh?

A different time zone in Scotland might be marginally inconvenient for the rest of us, but no more so than it already is when trying to plan meetings in other EC countries.

12 October 2015

Farewell to Howe and Healey: Tory & Labour Chancellors die in the same week

When I was doing the research that led to my first book on public speaking (Our Masters' Voices,1984) Margaret Thatcher was the leading British politician of the day and provided me with much of the data analysed in the book - for which I was and still am extremely grateful.

Later on, when I was writing speeches for former LibDem leader Paddy Ashdown, she provided much raw material for lines that were more or less guaranteed to get rapturous applause.

But those were only two of my debts to her. Another was that I've often summed up my professional life by saying that it came about as a result of being both a victim and a beneficiaryof Thatcherism.

Victim of Thatcherism
This was because of the appalling damage her governments inflicted on higher education and research in the UK, not to mention what they did to my standard of living or the two years of insecurity that came to a head in 1981 - when her Education Secretary Sir Keith Joseph commissioned Lord Rothschild to investigate my then employer (the Social Science Research Council) with a view to making a case for closing it down.

Luckily, he didn't oblige, concluding that it would be a 'gross act of intellectual vandalism' to do so. The compromise accepted by Thatcher and Joseph was to delete the word 'science' and elevate the importance of their favoured discipline with a new name: the Economic and Social Research Council.

Beneficiary of Thatcherism
A few years later, the benefit from Thatcherism came when Nigel Lawson's budget of 1988 reduced the top rate of income tax to 40%. That was the moment when and the reason why I decided to risk leaving the groves of academia to become a self-employed consultant and author (links to a fuller story of which can be found in the final post of the Claptrap series HERE).

To that extent, I can claim to be living proof that the official economic case for Thatcher-Reagan tax reductions, namely that they would unleash entrepreneurial zeal, worked in at least one case.

The cricketing simile that put an end to her innings
To mark the twentieth anniversary of Margaret Thatcher resignation as prime minister, links to some of my writings about her, both from Our Masters' Voices and this blog, are reproduced below.

I also thought it appropriate to mark the occasion with a clip from the speech that fired the starting gun for what turned out to be a rather quick sprint to the end - coming as it did only 21 days later.

In his speech on resigning as Deputy Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who wasn't renowned as a brilliant speaker, deployed a vivid cricketing simile to describe what it had been like working with Mrs Thatcher.

"It's rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."

The speech ended with a fairly explicit invitation to other discontented colleagues to stand against her for the leadership:

"The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long."

Three weeks later, she resigned.

There was a rumour at the time that this particular sequence was actually written by Sir Geoffrey Howe's wife - a claim that, so far, I've never managed to verify.

DENIS HEALEY - "Being attacked by Geoffrey Howe is like being savaged by a dead sheep"

Now watch the brilliant documentary by Michael Cockerell which was shown again last week on news of Healey's death at 98 on YouTube  here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gudj2-vSueo

He was one of the last politicians to have done other things before entering politics, had an amazing sense of humour and loads of hobbies unrelated to politics - an ominous reminder to Jeremy Corbyn and his fans, perhaps???

7 October 2015

Lifetime Achievement Award!!!

PRESS RELEASE

Dr Max Atkinson is to be awarded a ‘Lifetime Achievement’ award by the UK Speechwriters’ Guild.

The award is being made for his outstanding contribution to the theory and practice of speechwriting and public speaking over the past 35 years.

Dr Atkinson came to national prominence when he used his academic research into the speaking techniques of top politicians, and applied them to a speech delivered by a novice at a party political conference.

The speaker Ann Brennan went on to win a standing ovation at the SDP conference in Buxton in 1984.

The results were made into a ‘World in Action’ TV documentary, produced by Gus Macdonald, (now Baron Macdonald of Tradeston).

Dr Atkinson published the results of his research in a book called Our Masters’ Voices.

He also had a chance to put his theories to the test by offering speechwriting support to Paddy Ashdown, who became leader of the Liberal Democrats in 1989.

In 2004, Dr Atkinson published his book Lend Me Your Ears, which explains the techniques in simple terms to any layman who might wish to adopt them.

Founder of the UK Speechwriters’ Guild, Brian Jenner, said, ‘Using recording technology which was new at the time, Dr Max Atkinson discovered the ‘claptrap’ – the means by which speakers can provoke positive responses from audiences. He has championed ‘the language of public speaking’ which most people can master. We want to acknowledge the huge value of the research Max did.’

Dr Atkinson will be presented with his award at a reception at St Matthew’s Conference Centre, 20 Great Peter Street, London on Wednesday 25 November from 6.30pm. Press passes are available on application to info@ukspeechwritersguild.co.uk

 

--
Brian Jenner
Winner of the Vital Speeches of the Day Cicero Speechwriting Award 2010http://www.thespeechwriter.co.uk
+44 (0)7545 232980

@beachwordsmith

6 October 2015

Corporate Speaking Challenge 2015


Corporate Speaking Challenge 2015

‘Everything needs to change, so that everything can stay the same.’
(Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa)
This year’s Corporate Speaking Challenge gained its influence from Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, an Italian writer, who was known for his only novel Il Gattopardo, translated as The Leopard.
Now in its 6th year, the College of Public Speaking Corporate Speaking Challenge is an innovative public speaking competition designed to promote and encourage communication excellence in the business world. Bringing together some of the best speakers across the country, the Corporate Speaking Challenge is designed to showcase a high standard of public speaking, an exciting event that enables speakers to demonstrate their public speaking talents.
The public speaking competition is a marvellous opportunity for individuals to develop themselves in a friendly, supportive and pressurized environment; it’s a development opportunity for both contestants and companies alike.

Heats

LocationDateTime
Mintel Group Ltd
11 Pilgrim Street
London
EC4V 6RN
20th & 27th October 20156.30pm

Final

LocationDateTime
Ascham Suite
Bloomsbury House
Holborn
WC1A 2RL
17th November 20157-9.30pm

What is the Judging Panel Looking for?

The judges are looking for confidence and credibility as a speaker, clarity in the message, clearstructure and engaging content.
  • Judges will look at the expression and delivery of the speech so ensure the speech has a clear purpose – persuade, inform, inspire and entertain.
  • First impressions are important, the audience and judging panel will be at their most attentive at the beginning of the speech, so ensure you grab their attention from the start, similar emphasis should also be put on the conclusion of the speech, linking back to the opening of the speech.
  • Your verbal skills are paramount, speak clearly, slowly and loudly, ensure the audience and judging panel can hear every single word, vary your pitch and tone of voice to keep the audience and judging panel alert.
  • Nonverbal skills are also important.  Be conscious of your body language and (purposely) only use gestures that support and enhance your speech.
  • Confidence and style are at the core of effective expression and delivery, and vital in any professional context so try to project this during your speech.
The judges are looking for a strong message combined with excellent delivery skills. Please - no acting, performing, magic tricks or monologues. Please ensure that your content and delivery would be appropriate for a boardroom style meeting. Please ensure that the majority of the speech is original.
For more guidance on public speaking read our public speaking tips here.

Winners

First place winner will be awarded with a £100 Amazon voucher, a framed certificate and a Corporate Speaking Challenge trophy to retain for a year. 2nd place will be awarded with a £50 Amazon voucher and third place will be awarded with a £25 Amazon voucher.

Registration

Registrations are now closed for the Corporate Speaking Challenge.

Recommended workshops

If you would like to improve your public speaking skills we have a variety of workshops to help you prepare for the Corporate Speaking Challenge.
Our fear of public course includes interactive exercises and confidence building activities. The course will identify the issues around fear and public speaking and face each of these with questions, identifying their cause and where possible eradicating them. The aim is to reframe your issues of loss of confidence, anxiety and fear.
Our advanced public speaking course is ideal for those that already have an acceptable level of public speaking ability but are looking to build upon this and improve their communication skills. The course is primarily focused on the structure of giving a speech, enthusiasm, influence and persuasion, creating a rapport with an audience and developing a deeper grasp of rhetorical impact.
Our storytelling workshop is designed for those looking to discover where to find the perfect story to reinforce your key messages. The course will examine how stories, pictures and metaphors work and why they work, examining when to use them and who they appeal to. The course will provide you with expert story telling techniques alongside overcoming public speaking issues and concerns.