News & Opinion - October 2010

It is interesting to observe that the term "unemployment" is increasingly being replaced with "worklessness".  I can only assume it is the politicians' attempt to sanitise an area of concern to the population at large and to reduce the impact of any announcements refering to those seeking work.  Whilst the term "unemployment" accurately describes the position someone finds themselves in when they are out of work, the MPs have realised that the problem is softened if they use a term that is prefixed with the word "work".

As the cut-backs start to bite and the numbers of public sector workers made redundant starts to increase you can bet your bottom dollar that we won't hear anyone referred to as being unemployed.

The other word that is particularly in vogue at the moment is "progressive"; the new Lib-Con alliance is continually talking about a progressive society or progressive taxation.  It sounds like an equitable concept that we should all be embracing, yet the vagueness of the term renders the ambition vacuous and meaningless.

It is, apparently, progressive to allow withdraw child benefit from households with a £60,000 salary, if earned by one individual, but if a household has both parents on £40,000-a-year then they're allowed to keep every penny.  There are many other examples where the term "progressive" has been used when another concept should be used.  Whatever the reasoning behind the use of such phrases they are designed to divide opinion, so that you are either for a progressive society or you're against it, irrespective of how valid that argument is.  It is no more than Punch-and-Judy politics from a party led by someone, a former PR meister, who wanted to bring an end to opposing for the sake of opposing.

For those of us in business it is essential that we continue to communicate with clarity, rather than trying to confuse our audience by twisting the meaning of innocent words or phrases.  Let's ensure that we continue to call a spade a spade and never call it an earth-moving implement.

comments [52] permalink

David Cameron's party conference was thrown into disarray following the announcement that family allowances would be cut for high-income earners.

However, only days after the announcement there was much confusion and anger about those who would lose out after 2013, the proposed date for ending the universal benefit.  Many families with household incomes of £50,000, if earned by one person, will lose all benefits; for households where both parents are on £40,000 they would continue to receive the payments.

Most newspapers have condemned the apparently ill-conceived policy, although there is no doubt that reform is needed.

comments [48] permalink