Written by Robert Colls
This article was first published in Briefings for Brexit and we republish with their kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
Politics always involves language and the control of language. In his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946), Orwell pointed out how slovenly language made for slovenly politics. In Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), he warned also against the manipulation of language in order to misrepresent reality. As our politics is being recast, we need to speak plainly.
Things are moving so fast it may seem perverse to freeze the frame and go back to 29 September. But we academics are supposed to be perverse and anyway, this piece is really about language, not politics, so I’m allowed to be picky. I want to pick out a moment when the BBC’s lead political interviewer accused the Prime Minister of something to do with making death threats.
Well, not making death threats as such. Andrew Marr put it to the Prime Minister that he was saying things that had been, or could be, death threatening in their consequences. It’s hard to tell just what was being put. This was not a court of law. It was a television studio, and all sorts of funny things can happen in a television studio.
Mr Marr started by asking Mr Johnson if he knew the murdered MP Jo Cox. This immediately personalized the subject and raised the stakes. He then reminded Mr Johnson that he had responded to Paula Sherriff’s impassioned appeal about death threats against her and other MPs by saying ‘humbug’. As indeed he had. Then, in a series of interruptions, Mr Johnson was accused of “whipping up” bad feeling in the country, of “playing with fire”, of inciting violence, and of (sounding like he was) threatening an uprising unless he got his way. I say ‘accused’ but Mr Marr didn’t so much accuse as invite responses. ‘The Interview’ has many forms but this one was looking for a straight admission of guilt and contrition. And when Mr Johnson didn’t admit his guilt or offer contrition, more followed centring on his (alleged) peculiar taste for military metaphors aligned with his (apparent) intention “to crush” 48% of the population. The raw power of politics comes not in the written word but face to face, and it was face to face that the BBC was asking the Prime Minister to apologize for insulting the memory of a murdered MP, for stoking violence, and for not keeping his head when all around who were losing theirs. Was he not sorry? Would he say sorry? Did he get it?
It was a disturbing 20 minutes, both in the vagueness of the charges and the hostile manner in which they were put. Mr Johnson can speak for himself, and he did. He’s doesn’t need any help from me and isn’t going to get it, but note: our politics have got to such a pass that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be accused of being responsible in vicarious ways for death threats made by madmen, and murders that have yet to happen, also by madmen, and no one should be in doubt that if one should happen, God forbid, he would be the prime political suspect. It’s a long way for a small word, ‘humbug’, to travel.
There are three issues here. First it is clear, or should be clear, that in response to Ms Sherriff’s frantic request that the Prime Minister should calm down, Mr Johnson was saying ‘humbug’ not to the fact, or the idea, of Jo Cox’s murder or Ms Sherriff’s fragile state but to the notion that his use of language was responsible for future deaths, or death threats, or both (or neither).
Perceptive and intelligent as he is, this was a bad day at the office for Andrew Marr. Johnson was correct. The main reason for the breakdown of normal politics in this country is the failure of the political elite to carry out a democratic decision. Why Mr Marr and his production team could not see this I do not know. As a student, I believed in Antonio Gramsci’s concept of ‘hegemony’ [the conventional set of ideas about how society should operate]. As a man, I didn’t. These days I’m not so sure. The hegemon might be back. It’s not Andrew Marr of course. It’s not the BBC either, a corporate body that often finds itself caught between sides. Nor is it the Mail or the Sun, who are minority tastes, quite unable to produce the nascent philosophy that hegemony requires. If there is hegemony the universities could be part of it, but that’s another story. It’s hard to name the nameless but it is something to do with the thinking of a self-appointed intellectual family that believes itself to be not only morally and culturally superior, and progressive, but self-evidently so.
Second, and far more pressing, something bad has happened in the body politic. MPs used to live freely amongst their constituents. I once saw David Miliband and his agent sitting alone at a question table in Asda and reflected on the good sense of the British people. Now that MPs are being abused and threatened it must stop forthwith. Andrew Marr and his producers would have been better employed thinking about how it can be stopped in a society that remains free.
The third issue concerns our ability to speak clearly. How many politicians or journalists can honestly claim they have never spoken in order to rouse angry feelings? It might be that we need not less inflammation but better, not cheap name-calling but analysis, not Groupthink but Art. Ken Loach’s politics leave me cold, but his art is different. You watch his latest film, ‘Sorry I Missed You’, and ask yourself where are all those worker protections that leaving the EU will so endanger.
(To be continued tomorrow in Part 2)
Errrr…. the circulation of the Daily Mail is twice that of the Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation#2010_to_present
So the Times is the minority newspaper.
Informative and refelective reading – thank you. There is money, jobs and power to be had in 24/7 news and current affairs and it is not in the straightforward reporting of news but importantly in its manufacture.
There is one quote from Eric that I use to ‘straighten up’ sloppy writing of my engineers:-
“If people cannot write well,
they cannot think well,
and if they cannot think well,
others will do their thinking for them.”
. – George Orwell 1903-1950 –
The mention of Jo Cox reminds me of the suspicions aroused when it became clear that it was a copycat event, the original if I recall correctly being the murder of Anna Lindt? The trial and conviction of Thomas Mair seemed to conclude with some haste and the impression left was that he was not mentally capable of planning and executing such an act…
It would not be the first time that heinous events were planned by a corrupt government to achieve its evil ends.
I am quite astounded by this article.
Apart from the sometimes intelligent comments, the writer also pleads with us – “We need to speak plainly”.
I have NEVER heard Boris Johnson “speak plainly”. His speech and content are cloaked in confusion and incoherent mumblings designed to mask the waffle he is so adept at – at no time have I heard any articulated speech from him – and it all serves his perverse purpose, and the orders he has been given. Remain!
2. Cameron : “Speak Plainly”? Read again the ‘Brexit Leaflet’ which he decided that the taxpayer should finance.
In particular the promise by him and his Party – The Government – to HONOUR the decision the country made in that most notorious Referendum.
It was a very simple question which we were asked – Yes or No –
And we answered.
QUOTE, verbatim: “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”
Is THAT plain speaking?
Should the writer wish, himself or to prompt us to see or hear some ‘plaIn speaking’ then let him read or tune in to a couple of Nigel’s offerings – Now HE speaks plainly.
He could give lessons to most of the ‘mouthpieces’ who claim to speak ‘for the people’!
Oh dear mrpaul we are going to fall out. I watched Boris in HoC, speaking from the despatch box. He spoke plainly. There was no mumbling. There was no waffle. He was not inarticulate. Now what the broadcasters have done with him since then I do not know. Don’t forget they see him as the Arch Leaver and since they are Remain biased there are umpteen tricks they can and will play.
Pauline – no problem! Thank goodness we (you and I at least!) are allowed to disagree on areas of politics – witness the disputes currently within both political Parties……….and they are supposed to be committed to their particular policies – and are getting paid while doing so – whilst holding totally opposite stances!
Boris has a history of being an excellent debater – and remember in the HoC on the occasion to which you refer, his job and his future were on the line. He had a prepared ‘speech’ cobbled together to appear as ‘Churchillian’ as he could – bearing in mind he delusionally considers himself to be a virtual reincarnation of Winston.
Just how delusional is THAT?
Pauline – if I VOW to you that ‘I will leave…’ – depending on the significance, urgency and the importance of my declaration – (and there is no greater vow than a PM gives than that to the British Public!) I have NO doubt that you, having caught me out in other instances, would start examining the ‘semantics’ and ask me to give you ‘chapter and verse’ on the statement.
When are you promising to leave;
by which means will you be leaving;
are you taking the kids, and who will have access;
how about MY money and finances;
who will you be living with;
since you have broken your vows to me before, will you honour the terms (which have NOT been FULLY agreed in detail!) which you are NOW suggesting?
I COULD go on! (Yes, and usually I do, I hear you say!)
And ‘promises’ in politics……a minefield. What are ‘promises’ in a Manifesto? In the main, a heap,of lies and bull*hit I’m afraid.
Which is precisely why Farage has offered the British People, on behalf of the Brexit Party, a CONTRACT.
Having heard and seen Boris ‘performing’ at the Despatch Box, the real signifcance IS……….how many of the ‘promises’ he made will come to pass? If he is seen to fail, you will THEN hear him claim that ‘it was HM Opposition’ which prevented him from honouring his ‘promises’.
Even when he DID appear articulate – what did he VOW?
That he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ ………perhaps he will NOW claim……..
Oh, Err, Mmmmm, Agh, Yers, Missus………somebody moved the ditch!
He, just like the 649 others, is an inveterate liar……..don’t believe ME. Ask his variety of wives, girlfriends and lovers.
Never forget…….he is one of the ‘greater privileged’ who, just like Lawyers, Barristers and Judges, make their living out of the ‘Lying Industry’………………sometimes called The Legal Profession’…….
Good Luck!
It is Article 50 that is the problem behind all this. Gerrard Batten told us yonks ago to avoid Article 50. He said Revoke the 1973 Act which confirmed our signing up to the Treaty of Rome. May did not do that. Don’t know exactly whether it would have been possible prior to 2017 election. Of course she was a Remainer so Article 50 seemed like a safe way to get what she actually wanted while ‘appearing’ to do what we the voters wanted.
Incidentally – Has Nigel actually said HOW he would get us a REAL BREXIT? NOW.
Talk about ‘Divorce’, like ‘our European friends’ is a load of Bunkum.
How many years later?
Let us pray! (together friend). We get a parliament that will hold the Government to BREXIT. All the Way.
Just checked it out mrpaul. NF’s Contract/manifesto DOES NOT TELL US how he will NOW get this clean break Brexit. I.e. the one we all know is what we should have had x years ago.
UKIP website is now giving us virtually the same manifesto as NF. Again, without saying HOW we should get this clean break Brexit NOW.
On LBC there is/was a snippet from a Ukip candidate where he supports Boris’ WA as the best we can get at the moment.
Oh and Ukip now have as leader (interim) Pat Mountain. What happened to Richard Braine? He promised to be good. Wasn’t it the NEC that Nigel originally fell out with?
Oh it really is an horrible slimy mess we live with.
Good to keep reminding us of those false promises. If democracy is to be achieved (note I don’t use the term “restored” since what we had plainly failed) then a means of holding lying politicians and their parties to account is needed. Lengthy jail terms would be appropriate with no possibility of early release.
Jack….an admirable aim…….sadly though politicians and The Legal Profession work ‘hand in glove’ and both are in the same ‘club’ – I would be hard put to decide which of them are the greater liars……since they ALL feed from the same trough!
Pauline – to some extent of course you are right.
Then again,it would be totally impossible to guess or gauge what the EU would have done to safeguard THEIR very special interests in the event of a clean break being presented to them – more especially France and Germany, who to a great extent are only interested in trade/money.
Remember, the EU can move instantly WHEN it suits their purpose – no problem.
But this is or was, the greatest poker game of all time.
Never put a mug in a Poker Game. He will be destroyed.
So now due to the miserable way May performed, cap in hand, we are now all in unchartered waters – and THAT of course includes the EU.
We ought really to have looked upon this ,from the start, like The Gunfight at the OK Corral.
But as we all know in retrospect, May was a Remainer – so were they all, all Remainers – taking their orders from the Rothmeres of this world – the Globalists – the notorious men in grey suits, Heseltine et al.
And then out of the blue Joe Blogs went and spilt the apple cart. Voted Leave!
But their arrogance knows no bounds – and their power is virtually infinite.
That folks is what we have lined up against us.
If the ploy Nigel has been using, UKIP and TBP, to redress the balance fails?
The only way we will ever leave then would be by some ‘revolutionary force’ – Do I wish it? No! But these are strange times – if the gloves were really to come off……………. we really have proven in the past to be a ‘bloody-minded lot’……………..stranger things have happened.