Avoiding cliches like the plague

Actually finally, somebody in the media gets it. Farage is most lethal on-air. He wouldn’t get to ask a single question in Parliament, if he were elected

fancythat

I agree with the posts on here, but not yours MaizieD . Which I think we have discussed before.

😂 ouch!

Let me be clear
We will roll out
You can trust us on the economy
World beating tho maybe not as that’s a Boris-ism

fancythat

I agree with the posts on here, but not yours MaizieD . Which I think we have discussed before.

And I thought this was supposed to be a p*ss-taking fun thread!

Valuing our farmers

Grrrr! 🤬

What does ‘pushing the envelope’ mean? Isn’t this what the postie does😁

Yes!

Even if it’s a Boris-ism, Oreo, the use of “world-beating” as well as the equally annoying “world-leading” has not gone away!

'World beating' can be questioned though. Something is either at the top of a league table or it isn't, so it's not a phrase that can be used to deceive. Whether something is 'on its knees' (other than someone kneeling) is not measurable, so it can't be questioned, and is much more slippery.

Some of the verbal tics, such as 'let me be clear', or 'look' seem to me to be buying thinking time, or using up some of the allocated minutes allowed for questions so the speaker doesn't get asked too many difficult ones.

Callistemon21

fancythat

I agree with the posts on here, but not yours MaizieD . Which I think we have discussed before.

And I thought this was supposed to be a p*ss-taking fun thread!

I think it was intended to be serious.

I was challenging this statement by the OP :

I worry that soundbites and cliches stop us from thinking critically and really engaging with debates and political arguments.

I strongly (obviously) believe that the biggest barrier to critical thinking is belief in the household budget myth. Sound bites and cliches are irritants, not impediments.

What about”getting on and delivering to the people”.
“Lessons have been learned”.
As for the thought provoking idea above that we don’t actually borrow money I will be having lunch with my grandson on Monday who is in the financial industry. This will make for an interesting discussion. So thank you.
Discussion and scrutiny is what we need in the coming weeks and an avoidance of being led by the nose by the politically motivated Daily Mail, the Sun etc who hope to sell their papers by engaging with those who want to be spoon fed opinions before casting their votes.

Wish to be spoon fed.

Sound bites and cliches are irritants, not impediments
I strongly disagree with this . Words matter. People absorb soundbites and cliches, and you see and hear them use the same ones themselves, on here and elsewhere online, in conversation and in vox-pop interviews. Many of them are meaningless in the context they are used, however.

That is my point, which is not concerned with irritating phrases, such as 'look', or 'let me be clear', (which could, IMO, have an interesting thread of their own). We all use cliches at times, but I believe that as well as being shorthand for politicians they are deliberately used to limit the scope of arguments by being reductive. 'The economy will fall off a cliff if Truss's budget goes ahead, and the country will be on its knees' can close down a conversation, in a way that 'if taxes are reduced without being funded the Office for Budget Responsibility and the IMF will object, there will be a run on the pound and the UK will lose status across financial markets. This will result in the need for the BOE to bail out pension funds and there will be a rise in interest payments that will cause the cost of living to rise exponentially, meaning that the public will suffer a massive loss in buying power' (phew!) will not.

My explanation takes longer to say, is more complicated and less 'catchy', but it is explicit and can be questioned and argued for or against. IMO politicians should be talking to us in ways that are explicit and can be argued against, particularly in the run-up to elections. As long as we let them get away with soundbites, and as long as people parrot the soundbites without picking them apart, they will be seen as truisms and there will be no debate.

I do take your point that what you see as a misunderstanding of economics often underpins political viewpoints, but you are insisting on one perspective on the subject which is disputed by many (economists as well as posters) being the only one we can use.

With respect, we can't all bow to one perspective whenever we discuss any aspect of politics, language use or on any 'state of the country' threads. That is akin to asking everyone to view the world in terms of owners and non-owners of the means of production and accusing those who don't see it like that of having false class-consciousness to close down debate. That view is not a million miles from my own, but other ways of seeing the world exist, and have to be allowed (and respected) if there is to be any meaningful discussion. Insisting that 'you disagree, ergo you don't understand' - like any other insistence on toeing a philosophical line - just squashes debate.

Doodledog 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I'm listening to Any Answers, and there is a chap on there asking for a definition of 'stabilising the economy', which both main parties are saying they will do. He describes the phrase as 'abstract jargon', and wants to know what it means. I wish more people would ask questions like that.

My bete noir is “we will deliver on our promises” usually after they haven’t done so for a considerable time.

I just hate ‘the working man’ What about the working woman ?

Doodledog

I'm watching Question Time. Here's another one:

Mickey Mouse degrees

To which I might add 'Mickey Mouse Prime Ministers'!

I'd like to add 'rabbit in the headlights'. Can people please come up with their own metaphors - this one, like 'on its knees' and 'off a cliff' is so tired.