At the start of the year I invited PR people in Canberra to guest blog and discuss their communications concerns. My friend and senior Canberra PR consultant ,Nigel Catchlove, has taken up the the offer and here Nigel calls on politicians of all persuasions to speak plain English.
The views below are entirely Nigel's.
-------------------
"Parliamentary question time is full of linguistic gymnastics performed by our elected officials so they may avoid answering a question. Very little has changed with the change in Government although Kevin Rudd is a master when it comes to flapping his gums, gesticulating boldly and saying nothing. In fact it’s not just during question time that our Prime Minister looks and sounds like he’s talking but isn’t making any sense.
His press conference after the Major Economies Forum included a now famous gem; ‘It is highly unlikely that anything will emerge from the MEF in terms of detailed programmatic specificity.’ The use of an acronym such as MEF is also not unusual for this highly intelligent yet incomprehensible man.
Sir Isaac Newton surmised; ‘for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’, and so it is in Australian politics. The reaction to Kevin Rudd’s overuse of passive language is the emergence of the ‘say-it-how-it-is’ politician being jointly developed by Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce.
Using plain direct English allows for descriptions of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as a ‘great big new tax’. There’s not much depth to that statement but it was made in an environment where the government is unable to explain the intricacies of its policy and even the name is a truly awful piece of work. Many would argue that carbon is not a pollutant and even more would point out that the scheme won’t reduce anything.
But is plain English the way to go? I think it is but like Aristotle suggested, ‘everything in moderation’.
The challenge comes when politicians don’t want to be cornered, don’t want to show their hand or simply want to obfuscate an issue.
This is all very easy for Kevin Rudd. Frankly, few can interpret what he says, so whether he is answering a question or is dancing around trying to avoid the issue, his speech is mostly white noise anyway. His demeanour changes little as he speaks – always in control, always arrogant, always dismissive of anyone who dares question his wisdom.
For the self-labelled plain speaking politician the challenge is a little different and carries a lot more risk. If people are used to hearing Tony Abbot describe anthropogenic climate change as ‘absolute crap’ and Barnaby Joyce describing Labor as ‘having gone on a spending bender’, then they would have been confused to hear Barnaby try to avoid taking a position about the foreign investment review board and its approach to Chinese government owned enterprises buying Australian assets.
On Q&A on the ABC on 15 Feb, Lindsay Tanner played the all-knowing smarter-than-you politician very well coming across as articulate, perhaps arrogant but across his portfolio. Barnaby Joyce however looked decidedly uncomfortable and I was left at a loss when he changed demeanour, changed speaking style and tried to fudge his way out of a simple question that demanded a simple answer.
It is a refreshing change to hear a politician answer questions and speak succinctly rather than waffle endlessly without saying anything, however, consistency is the key. Kevin Rudd may come across as a bland, intelligent uber-nerd but he does so most of the time. Barnaby Joyce changes depending on what he thinks will play best to the audience and reverts to the passive Orwellian speak we have all come to associate with politicians when the going gets a little tough.
My advice is much like Aristotles – everything in moderation. Politicians should use active voice but they just need to tone their rhetoric down a little."
