When Words Fail

In the tradition of all unspeakably evil men determined to horde even more money as a result of extremely poor governmental decisions, Donald Rumsfeld has recently published a book "Known and Unknown - A Memoir" of his time in Bush Administration. If it resembles anything like the quote from which he draws the title, it promises to be completely incomprehensible.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Donald was given a Foot in Mouth award for the comment. The stumped judges at the Plain English Campaign stated that "We think we know what he means, but we don't know if we really know." Other beauties include:

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"[Osama Bin Laden is] either alive and well or alive and not too well or not alive." 

"You either know what I'm saying, or you don't know what I'm saying. Or perhaps you don't know that you don't know what I'm saying. Maybe."

Rumsfeld isn't the only person that seems to have gotten a little confused about what is going on. Now, I'm a fan of the English lexicon. I always have been. I relish the opportunity to utilize a great host of charming words in pursuit of eloquence and clarity whilst speaking. Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone shares my belief that words exist not merely to be used, but also to be understood. I was recently thumbing through Calderdale Council's "Cabinet Budget Proposals for 2011". There are nine altogether.

• Getting the basics right
• More open and transparent government
• Tackling the recession
• Safeguarding and care of vulnerable children and adults
• Stronger Communities
• Supporting children and young people, and adult health and social care
• Climate change and environmental action
• Fair enforcement
• Change and value for money

The first thing that becomes immediately apparent is that at least six of those things make absolutely no  sense. What exactly do they mean when they say, "getting the basics right"? I mean, have we been getting the basics wrong since 1974, and only now realize the importance of getting them right?

What is a "more open and transparent government"? That one gets said every year, and thus far we managed to get the Freedom of Information Act which only works if you aren't asking anything particularly important and most of the crazy stuff uncovered never goes mainstream anyway. We got the MP's expenses scandal and just look at how happy that made everyone. It's a shrug. We're at the second priority and it is already the political equivalent of "I'll do it tomorrow."

Tackling the recession moves in to number three spot on the list of priorities, which to me creates a temporal paradox between "getting the basics right" and putting "tackling the recession" down to third place. Personally, I'd say that was the basic that needed getting right. I'd rather be able to eat than to work myself into a lather of rage at "more transparent government".

Then we jump to number five, stronger communities. Like "more open and transparent government", stronger communities is a meaningless phrase that has been banded about for some time. What is a community? Is there one, or many? What do you mean by stronger? I just don't understand.

By the time we get to "fair enforcement", you're starting to wonder if there isn't someone sat in an office somewhere picking random phrases out of a motivational calendar and formulating policy around them. Fair enforcement of what? What enforcement has been unfair in the past? What is fair? What's going on?

We round off with "change", a word that is so abused it might as well have spent fifteen years in Josef Fritzl's basement and come out less damaged than a single year in politics. Change is one of those 1984 double-think words. Where change is used to describe any desirable outcome and to separate oneself from the past. Crucially, political change must involve things staying exactly the same. If we throw in "value for money" as a meaningless turn of phrase then we've got ourselves some priorities for 2011.

Being a conscientious citizen and former politics student myself, I can't help but feel I should be out there doing something. These poor councillors are making the best of a bad situation, but I have a whole wealth of expertise from which to draw. I'm currently drafting a list of priorities for my vision of Calderdale in 2011.

Citizen Stevie's Proposals for Consultation, 2011/2012

• Destiny - life is a journey, not a destination
• Shutting the gate before the horse has bolted 
• Endeavour to be "flat out like a lizard drinking"
• Value for fairness
• Use opportunity to ride the wall of change
• Ensure no good deed goes unpunished
• Encourage the correct basics
• Prioritise good things
• Move away from idiosyncratic words and phrases to promote a clearer understanding of dialogue to enable greater success in local matters

Well, that took about five minutes. They're all things we should strive for, and embrace a broad array of political opinions from 'common sense' thinking - shutting the gate before the horse can bolt - through to soft hippie nonsense - use opportunity to ride the wall of change - and ending on the neo-fascist note of ensuring good deeds are suitably punished. We have also managed to identify a need to prioritise good things, encourage the correct basics and use plain English to do... stuff...