Okay this will be the final time I am going to explain it.
The speech that was specified, is essentially the most lack lustre speech out of the selected ones to be studied. It was a poor decision for the board to even include it in the first place given that it is very narrow in thermatic concerns in contrast to the other speeches. The question was in regards to national unity, which in itself would be its own body paragraph in an essay. It would be extremely difficult to sustain this idea given that the speech lacks depth and insight. Hence they had already planned to get rid of this speech by next year. May I also add, that the speech to a degree goes against the entire module concern of ongoing resonance. The speech can easily be argued to be written for a single instance, carrying no future value.