Words can hurt

By Saint Emillion

Lest I be (wrongly in my humble opinion) accused of not contributing anything positive to the debate I thought it only fair that I make the effort to submit an article for comment.

New Labour has made many mistakes during their 12 years, that would be expected of any administration, but at the root of most, if not all of their problems has quite simply been their use and corruption of language.

Take a straw poll of any of your work colleagues or those around you in the pub (although I have no idea why you would be reading this in the pub); do you agree – politicians do not answer a straight question? Unless you drink with a minister, I would suspect you will receive close to 100% positive responses.

Language was the birth of New Labour. Add the word ‘new’ and we can reinvent the party. Say the ‘Third Way’ and we can fund public projects with private money (only to find out that the public purse is indebted to these deals and the private companies own the people’s assets). Change the wording of a dossier or the legal advice and we can invade another country. In the latest debacle the written word caused the resignation of a special advisor.

Readers will have their own favourite examples of where New Labour politicians have used language in a mendacious way and it is because of this that the public now regard estate agents (not a group known for their straight-talking) in higher esteem.

I opened by saying that I would add something positive and New Labour supporters have waited patiently, so I should make good on that promise. Labour can win the next election and possibly should do so if this country is to be a place we would want to live. They will not do so without a fundamental and complete change in the way their representatives talk to the electorate.

You will notice that I did not say ‘engage’ – I don’t my politicians to engage with me, I want them to talk to me – and I will lay even odds that most readers have dismissed this argument as simplistic, almost to the point of childish. But if you get the most basic of skills wrong – in this case the communication skills that you need to persuade the electorate of the validity of your opinions – the foundations of the organisation are weak.

Many will argue that if I am right, how did New Labour win three elections on the bounce? The answer is, to a great extent; the Conservatives. The combination of a systemically corrupt pre-1997 election government with the subsequent woeful and disorganised challenges left the public with little or no choice. I do not think that this will be the case next time around. Additionally, I would argue that Labour’s reliance on obfuscation has increased since 1997 and clouding an issue now seems to be the opening gambit for every recent announcement.

To stay in power Labour must quickly change their use of language. Contrary to the mass media’s opinion, the public is not interested as to how ministers spend their money. They want to hear a statesman have the courage to state his or her beliefs using clear and unequivocal language. If the Labour frontbench can do that, including admitting when they are wrong, taking the plaudits when they are right, 2010 could be a much rosier year than it looks right now. Look at it another way, what does New Labour have to lose?