How Language Hides a Multitude of Sins

Adrian Mole wrote in his diaries "It rained solidly all afternoon. How can it rain "solidly"? What a strange mistress is the English language." What "he" was referring to at that time was the construction of a sentence where the meaning, as a whole, is totally different to the individual components, the juxtaposition between the adjective 'solid' and the noun 'rain'. Obviously you can't have solid rain, but we do refer to it raining solidly.

I'm finding more and more that I'm listening to the language that politicians (of all parties) use. Sometimes, what is more telling is the language that they don't use, and choose to substitute in its place. You really do have to read between the lines. Sometimes it's quite subtle, other times - as recently - less so.

The classic example is when a politician talks of making "difficult decisions". What this translates to is something that the Government wants to do, which it recognises is universally unpopular - despised even - but remains determined to do anyway. This is usually something driven by ideology, vested interests of lobbyists, or the ego of the person who thought of the idea.

When a political leader is exhibiting "strong leadership" - that really means that the party leader is determined to press ahead with something that even his own party hates.

"We are where we are" is a tacit admission that the speaker (or their party/Goverment) has dropped an almighty bollock in the past, but isn't willing to allow the discussion to focus on whose fault it is, i.e. theirs. It reminds me of the old joke about a person asking directions in Ireland. "You want to go to Dublin? Ah, I wouldn't start from here if I were you."

In the 90s, a Tory minister who resigned from his job saying "I want to spend more time with my family." really meant "I've been caught shagging my secretary but the News of the World hasn't published the story yet."

However, the current Government are masters of scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to euphemisms to mask their naked ideology, devoid of any sustainable logic whatsoever.

What the listener or viewer really needs to keep an ear out for at the moment, are the key phrases of the moment: "reform" and "partnering". The Home Sectretary (yes, the one with a criminal conviction for Contempt of Court) and the Policing Minister are particulary fond of them. The Health Secretary is a particular fan of "reform".

The Tories might well use other terms - but basically it all boils down to one thing. It's the Tory version of the "love that dare not speak its name":-

Privatisation.

It's what they're doing to the police service. It's what they've already done to the NHS. Goodness only knows what they'll think of next for "reform". What I do know, is that it won't be "transparency of MPs expenses and tax affairs". There's also about as much chance of "reform" of MPs pensions, as there is of Nick Clegg growing a spine.

We're still being swindled, and lied to as well.

In an earlier blog post in January, "Guess What, We're Being Swindled" I wrote about the differential between the prices of diesel and petrol.

Brian Madderson, Chairman of RMI Petrol which represents independent petrol retailers and forecourt operators, said at the time "Demand for diesel has been growing steadily in the UK but our refineries haven't. We used to have 19 refineries but now have only 8. What's more, they are old and not terribly efficient. So we have to compete for diesel on the international market - and ultimately pay through the nose for it."

And yet, in today's news, it was announced that the refinery at Coryton in Essex is being denied state aid by the Department for Energy and Climate Change on the basis that since there was an overcapacity in the refining industry and a declining demand for petrol, it would be unsustainable for the Government to provide assistance even if the EU allowed it to do so. link

I was confused by this statement. In January we were paying more for diesel because as a nation we were under capacity for refining, yet by June we are now over capacity. Something doesn't add up here. Perhaps, I thought, Coryton only produces petrol, and that we might actually be over capacity for petrol and under capacity for diesel.

So I checked. Actually, it produces both. According to the Coryton page on the UKpia website, this refinery has an output of 10 million tonnes per year. Of that, 36% is petrol, and 27% is diesel. So the diesel capacity is approximately 2.7 million tonnes per year.

Two things bother me about this. Firstly, we were told that we were under capacity for diesel to justify high prices, yet when it comes to saving the plant (and the jobs) suddenly we're over capacity. Secondly, even with the diesel being produced there, if we were under capacity before, we will be 2.7 million tonnes more under capacity from now on. If the price differential is because of the capacity shortage, diesel prices are set to go up even further as the international markets realise we have less of our own diesel.

Something about this whole issue does not add up. At least one of the parties involved has to be wrong. Whoever this is, it can only mean this: higher diesel prices, higher inflation, higher food prices and 850 jobs lost in Essex, with the knock on effects to that local economy.

Can the Government really not justify investment in modernisation of Coryton, for the short term and long term benefits which are surely obvious?

Tory Doublespeak on Debt

You might have noticed, as I have, that whenever David Cameron or George Osbourne are challenged on economic policy by Labour, they consistently ignore the question at hand and revert to the same lines about "the mess we inherited from the party opposite" or "Labour are the only people who think the answer to a debt crisis is more debt".

Usually the use of comments such as these is a reliable indicator that the person speaking doesn't have an answer to the point being raised, so they seek to undermine the credibility of the person asking the question. This is standard practice for politicians of all stripes and always has been.

However, there's a little more to this diversionary tactic at present, as it actually contradicts the Government's own economic policy.

In the news this morning, it was announced that the Government, in conjunction with the Bank Of England, will provide billions of pounds to cheap credit give to banks on the understanding that it is lent to companies and to consumers in the form of mortgages. link

This sounds like it might be a workable plan, but as the BBC's Robert Peston says, companies and households that are financially viable are unlikely to want to burden themselves with further debt in the current climate, leaving only the insolvent (or almost so) who are desperate to borrow, and the banks don't really want to lend to them anyway.

So we now have a policy which is not only impractical and likely to fail, but one that goes directly against the Governments own rhetoric.

Never again let the Tories say "Labour are the only people who think the answer to a debt crisis is more debt". The Tories think that's the answer too now.