The slovenly language of British politics

As Orwell warned, the nation is degraded when language is degraded.

Robert Colls

Topics Brexit Politics UK

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 and artfully to each other.

Things are moving so fast it may seem perverse to freeze the frame and go back to 29 September. But 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 Andrew Marr, the BBC’s lead political interviewer, accused the prime minister, Boris Johnson, of something to do with death threats.

Well, not making death threats as such. Marr put it to Johnson 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.

Marr started by asking Johnson if he knew the murdered MP Jo Cox. This immediately personalised the subject and raised the stakes. He then reminded Johnson that he had responded to Labour MP Paula Sherriff’s impassioned appeal about death threats against her and other MPs by saying ‘humbug’. Then, across a series of interruptions, 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.

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 apologise for insulting the memory of a murdered MP, for stoking violence and threat, and for not keeping his head when all others were losing theirs. Was he not sorry? Would he say sorry? Surely he could find it in himself to 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. Johnson can speak for himself, and he did. But note: our politics have got to such a pass that the prime minister 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 Sherriff’s frantic request that the prime minister should calm down, Johnson was saying ‘humbug’ not to the fact, or to the idea, of Jo Cox’s murder or Sherriff’s fragile state, but to the notion that his use of language was responsible for future murders, or death threats, or both. This was a bad day at the office for 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.

As a student, I believed in Antonio Gramsci’s concept of ‘hegemony’. As a man I didn’t. These days I’m not so sure. The hegemon might be back. It’s not the BBC, of course, a corporate body that often finds itself caught between. Nor is it the Daily Mail or the Sun, which are minority tastes, quite unable to produce the nascent philosophy that hegemony requires. No, if there is hegemony, the universities could be part of it, and it is certainly true that our politicians’ key relationship is not with the people, but with the media, but these are other stories. It is 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, to the point that it has forgotten how democratic politics works (by division) and what it is for (to make decisions).

Second, and far more pressing, something bad has happened not only in the body politic but in the use and abuse of social media. MPs used to live freely among their constituents. I once saw David Miliband and his agent sitting alone at a table in Asda, and reflected on the good sense of the British people. But now MPs are being abused and threatened. We need to think about how this 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? We need not less inflammation, but better inflammation; not cheap name-calling, but analysis; not groupthink, but art. Ken Loach’s politics leave me cold, but his art is different. Watch his latest film, Sorry I Missed You, for clear speaking on current discontents.

In Orwell’s essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ (1946), he pointed out how slovenly language made for slovenly politics. In Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), he warned against the manipulation of language in order to misrepresent reality. Airstrip One, you will recall, is presiding over the misrepresentation of the English people to the point of their own extinction. Three years of Brexit have given us plenty examples of slovenliness and misrepresentation. In the mouths of Remainers, ‘crashing out’ and ‘off the cliff edge’ have long since replaced plausible economic speculation. In the mouths of Leavers, ‘taking back control’ has long since replaced consideration of what we will be able to control after Brexit that we couldn’t control before (immigration for instance). We have ‘hard right’ for governments that believe in borders, unless they are EU borders. And we have ‘populists’ for democrats, unless they are People’s Vote democrats. ‘Peace in Northern Ireland’ invokes not peace but the veiled threat of violence. ‘Deal or No Deal’ is the question now, but never was the question then. A ‘People’s Vote’ means a second referendum. ‘Trust the People’ a second time means not trusting them the first time. ‘Integrity of the Single Market’ means integrity of the European state, if it is a state, and it is they who want an Irish border, not the British.

As for inflammatory language – and some of the above is inflammatory, and Orwell was inflammatory, and Ken Loach is inflammatory – both sides match each other, although that does not make them wrong. Boris has a voice, he is the prime minister, and you can see why his opponents would want to control that voice – although he is making a pretty good job of that himself with moronic repetitions of the same slogans. As for Jeremy Corbyn — Labour decided not to have a voice on Brexit when it decided to abandon working-class patriotism and declare itself the party of middle-class dissent.

Speaking clearly has consequences. Not speaking clearly has consequences. Speaking double has consequences as long as you can work out what they are. Johnson has been speaking double since he came to power: one tongue for parliament where he expected to fail; the other tongue for the electorate where he expects to win. Labour, meanwhile, has taken Orwell’s idea of ‘Doublethink’ (‘the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously’) to doctoral level.

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four described the degradation of a nation by the systematic degradation of its language. Language was being nullified and ways of being human with it. Big Brother wanted to control everyone, including nature, by the manipulation of language, truth and logic. Orwell called propagandists ‘gramophones’, because in his day, political debate was led by a few score men at the top while the rest listened on. This is not what is happening now. We live in a world of news, fake news, marketing messages, tweets, Facebook and curated opinion – all salami-sliced into each other, not easy to discern, and tedious to trace. There is no Big Brother, only Cambridge Analytica.

However, like Winston Smith, we also live in an age of binaries that signal whether we live or die. Truth or untruth, plusgood or ungood, party or prole, leave or remain, woke or unwoke — they call us up and call us out. No in-betweenies or bit-of-eachies. No maybes, live-and-let-lives, or think-agains. Absolutely no history or tradition. A major British university, my own, has recently announced its intention to decolonise itself.

Not mindful of history but very keen on virtue, our New Puritans want to make the world over again by policing how we speak and keeping a ledger of what we have said. No one is safe from this, including them, but in Boris’s case we know the triggers. ‘Privileged white guy’ is not a good start. ‘Racism’ is being trailed. ‘Humbug’ will stay with him forever. Every woke knows what ‘Bullingdon’ means. ‘Crimethink’ is Boris’s original condition. In order to be redeemed, he must stop himself short and keep on controlling his thoughts. He must say sorry to the nation. He must admit his guilt to the BBC. He must atone for who he is. Orwell, another old Etonian middle-class white guy, knew all about this.

Boris’s deal splits Northern Ireland from the Union, and, in terms of working our way back to political stability, it is definitely more ungood than doubleplusgood. But we are living through a Hobbesian moment where we need to act quickly and decisively. Behind all the tactics and bad faith, the basic facts have not changed. In 2016, parliament asked those it represented what it should do, and for a variety of reasons – all factional – it refused to do it. Orwell said we were a family with the wrong members in charge. Now we look like a family with no one in charge. In the words of the great Hank Williams, we have to move it on over.

Robert Colls is professor of cultural history at De Montfort University, and author of George Orwell: English Rebel, published by Oxford University Press. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) Hiis This Sporting Life: Sport and Liberty in England, 1760-1960 will be published in May.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


alex edward

13th December 2019 at 7:17 pm

I am Alex by name. as the going says, money is powerful in human beings life and money rules the world.I’m from a poor family in which I found it hard to feed my family
During the end of 2006 and the early part of 2007, I was suffering from a terrible depression that led me to start thinking about suicide.All Around that time I was talking to some people on a few forums about my problems. One of those people helped me learn a little bit about iluminati I suffered before I became a millionaire via the help of iluminati.I knew here in US promised to help me give email which I emailed told them I want become a member and be protected.They accept my application and I was initiated after my initiation. I was given first money of $2,000.000.00 US Dollars and on monthly basis am now paid $20,000.00 USDollars for working for the hood. Please if you are tired of poverty and you want to change your status or you are already weathy and you need protection of life,wealth,properties and family member please come and join the help iluminati now and get what you need. Please note that joining is free of charge you don’t pay any dine to become member and to contact us here is
our directly email mobile number +13092795479 join one join all

Mark Houghton

12th December 2019 at 4:14 pm

The media are not being slovenly (slapdash, careless) with their language – they know precisely what they’re doing – they are choosing their words carefully and with clear intent. It’s not accidental – words can be used as weapons.

david rawson

12th December 2019 at 2:40 pm

It’s not just the use of slovenly language that’s the issue, it’s also the case of slovenly thinking & analysis. I think every politician & journo should have to read Robert H. Thouless’ 1930 book “Straight and Crooked Thinking”

Our Physics Professor made us all read it when I was an Engineering undergraduate.

Ven Oods

12th December 2019 at 1:11 pm

Given that the ‘progressives’ are in charge of most of education and the ‘meeja’, I’m not that hopeful that this creeping twaddle will ever be reversed. There are generations of kids who’ve had their brains addled by this wokery (and its predecessors) who are unlikely ever to see it for what it is and kick it into touch. Batten down the hatches time, I fear.

Jerry Owen

12th December 2019 at 9:13 am

‘Politicians key relationship is with the media not the people’.. so true. Not only that but politicians look to the media to see how popular they are .. with the media, and not the people.
As for the cheapening of civil discourse in politics which is degenerating into death threats and violence against politicians, it is the likes of the odious Marr with various Labour and LD ( I am no Tory ) politicians that are responsible for dare I say ..’dog whistle politics’ that whip up hysteria amongst the left ?

Stephen J

12th December 2019 at 7:48 am

The referendum of 2016 in my view is the catalyst for much change. It has demonstrated to everyone, just how powerful the electorate is in a proper democracy.

So powerful that it has moved the former elites to fight to the death to avoid the main conclusion of that ballot, which is that the electorate told the elites that they were wrong and that we were going to undo, some of its power grabs of recent years.

To me the best way to undermine those people that wish to control every aspect of life, is to ensure that they do not control the tools of democracy.

Unfortunately it is a big ask.

a watson

12th December 2019 at 8:28 am

Democracy is lacking in the structure of the major parties – especially at local level. Exclusive elites have captured local parties and only select representatives that promote their minority views to contest parliamentary seats. The fixing of short lists at a local level is apparent. Hence the majority of us are very under represented.

Female Penis

12th December 2019 at 5:52 am

On the topic of language, I’ve been redpilled *I think* not so long ago I had the opinion that calling someone by their preferred pronouns was not unreasonable and just a polite courtesy that didn’t harm anyone, I’ve since come to the conclusion that what it is is manipulation via appealing to our emotions at best and emotional blackmail at worst. I’m no longer comfortable with any of this, once I gave it some thought I realised it’s gas lighting, manipulation into capitulation and so now I’m zero tolerance on lies and or language, ‘They/them’ isn’t a pronoun that has always existed in the way certain people are trying to force me to believe it has, a person with a Male anatomy is and will always be….male. I know this article covered language in politics but I think this example applies just as well.
I think we have defined the ‘gender/sex’ debate completely wrong, trans doesn’t exist not in the way we have framed it or the definition we have given to it. Gender divergence would be a more accurate explanation and definition.
A society that encourages us to look each other in the eye and lie is not a healthy one, so my reason for adopting this attitude isn’t due to a lack of empathy, the opposite, I think to placate people is patronising, unhelpful and damaging to society as a whole in the long run.
Seeing labour’s education reforms I sincerely hope they never get anywhere near our kids. If they do and you have a young child, I’d move to an area that has a religious school and start going to church, ironic that religion is less mental than progressive politics.


12th December 2019 at 8:07 am

As regards your last paragraph, Female P, I don’t think that moving to an area with a religious school and attending church will be much use. The state’s all-knowing, all-seeing, state education commissars won’t take long to root out the reactionary cancers that infect British society. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the C of E’s leadership welcome the opportunity to apologise for the church’s historic errors through acts of public atonement. Ironically your best chance is probably to attend a mosque and – well, you know the rest. Islamic education will not be held to be reactionary.

Which brings me to my real point: ‘. . . ironic that religion is less mental than progressive politics.’ It’s that word: ‘progressive’. ‘Progressive’ and ‘reactionary’ should always be distrusted. They are portmanteau words that seek to close down debate.

Female Penis

12th December 2019 at 10:19 am

Neil: what would be a better word to describe Labour’s manifesto pledges re education? It sounds like a de-programming tool, this need to rectify past injustices is a progressive ideal, or is it just a wrecking ball in barely disguised sheeps clothing?


12th December 2019 at 12:50 pm

Female P, my take is that when somebody uses the word ‘progressive’ they mean ‘new’, forward-thinking’, ‘better’ all rolled up into one. As if something being called ‘progressive’ is good enough of itself not to be challenged or debated.

According to the website Guido Fawkes yesterday’s Guardian called on its readers to vote Labour despite what it – that is to say the Guardian – calls out as anti-semitism in the Labour Party. Their formula was apparently something like ‘progressive politics is too important to bother with that’. Whether or not you agree with the Guardian’s reasoning (for my part I find it chilling) ‘progressive’ is being used to carry too much weight for a single word.

Jim Lawrie

12th December 2019 at 10:22 am

Gender is subjective. To the point of being whimsical. Sex is not. Transactivists use dishonest language to try to dismiss that reality, and decry science for not bending to their will.

The point of mandated use of synthetic pronouns is to establish that our language can and must be policed and words made illegal. That this will magic into existence a brave New World is an impositional belief, that requires ever more prescription, proscription and censorship, following the notion that language controls us. It does not. Language serves us. That is why new words like “podcast” take hold almost instantaneously. They serve society and do so succinctly and pleasingly. Preferred pronouns and the idea behind them do not. The stymie us.

Totalitarian regimes seek out the most talented wordsmiths and harness or destroy. This only succeeds in creating a poverty of thought that ultimately leads to poverty in all spheres of human activity, to the point where the society collapses.

Female Penis

12th December 2019 at 1:08 pm

Neil: Depending on your politics progressive is either a compliment or a slur. What other word would best describe those that present themselves as progressive yet display regressive tendencies, I feel regressive will be poo pooed. I feel a neologism is required.

Jim: I’m going a little off topic again, but feel it is important. When Stonewall sent a ‘Female presenting biological male transwoman’ into schools to teach kids that he was a lesbian that was my ‘ I am ded’, moment, and my brain just gave me two choices, give in to this insanity or push back.

Neil John

12th December 2019 at 2:05 pm

“Seeing labour’s education reforms I sincerely hope they never get anywhere near our kids”, too late, the indoctrination (teacher training) centres have been seeding this for years, nu-labia/momentum simply intend to add fertiliser (bull) and enforce it through legislation.

kerox kerox

12th December 2019 at 2:27 am

Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot
Start here>→→→→→ ­­­­­­­­­W­­w­­w­­.­­M­­Y­­w­­o­­r­­k­­5­­.­­C­­o­­mℱ
Don’t include→(ℱ)

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.