new newspeak 2014

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the politics of it is one thing but this self exculpation is a classic of the genre of Teflon coated mendacity large organisations &c now use to deflect human concern with decency

hospital trusts, corporate executives, government departments - it is a new linguistics of denial

“Every day, Jobcentre Plus advisers are successfully helping people off benefits and into work as part of the Government’s long-term plan to build a stronger, more secure economy. The number of young people who are in work increased by 49,000 in the last three months, with the number claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance falling for the past 20 months.

“It’s only right that people claiming benefits should do everything they can to find work if they are able. Sanctions are used as a last resort and anyone who disagrees with a decision can appeal.”

in response to

as a form of special pleading it excels in the 'only look at my intention not my behaviour' school of evasion of responsibility

this genre owes something to the Humphreys/Paxman school of confrontation ... keep repeating a challenging and confrontational accusation [when did you stop beating etc] in an alpha primate bully style with out shedding the least light or elucidation on the matters at hand .... that lass Kuenssberg follows Wark in the tradition

between the phony mud and the teflon response our democracy is neutered ...

[Sydney Grew]

“It’s only right that people . . . should do everything they can to find work if they are able."

. . .our democracy is neutered ...

Yes, it's not right at all! "Work" is just a fancy word for a form of slavery. Imagine! Ten or more hours ripped from almost every day of almost every one's life!

But personally I also detest being "governed" by the "demos" or common people. "Democracy" itself is one of the "phoneyest" of concepts. The abolition of both "work" and "democracy" is well overdue.

[DracoM]

the politics of it is one thing but this self exculpation is a classic of the genre of Teflon coated mendacity large organisations &c now use to deflect human concern with decency

hospital trusts, corporate executives, government departments - it is a new linguistics of denial



in response to

as a form of special pleading it excels in the 'only look at my intention not my behaviour' school of evasion of responsibility

this genre owes something to the Humphreys/Paxman school of confrontation ... keep repeating a challenging and confrontational accusation [when did you stop beating etc] in an alpha primate bully style with out shedding the least light or elucidation on the matters at hand .... that lass Kuenssberg follows Wark in the tradition

between the phony mud and the teflon response our democracy is neutered ...

Yes, all that explanatory fluff means 'we are cutting benefits to stop scroungers, and it'll be harder to get them under new rules. We're in this to save money'. End of.

[Beef Oven!]

Can't really see what there is to get het-up about. People are out of of work and Jobcentre Plus is assisting people to get employment. Seems that 49,000 young people are in work, who weren't 3 months ago and the number of JSA claimants is falling.

Good news, I'd say.

[teamsaint]

Can't really see what there is to get het-up about. People are out of of work and Jobcentre Plus is assisting people to get employment. Seems that 49,000 young people are in work, who weren't 3 months ago and the number of JSA claimants is falling.

Good news, I'd say.

do you not worry about the scandalous misuse and abuse of our language in the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of those with few weapons at their disposal. (some of these people who can do little more than trade their 10 hours a day for minimum wage?)

The privatisation of the NHS , and the language surrounding that, for instance, is surely something we should all be worried about ?

[amateur51]

Can't really see what there is to get het-up about. People are out of of work and Jobcentre Plus is assisting people to get employment. Seems that 49,000 young people are in work, who weren't 3 months ago and the number of JSA claimants is falling.

Good news, I'd say.

Oh dear. They're off the unemployment list so the Government is chuffed but what sort of jobs are they and do they pay a living wage? And you can be ceertain that now they're off JSA it'll be a lot harder to get back on once the jobs disappear.

Young people being used as wage slave fodder? That's what's worth getting het up about.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

my concern in opening this thread was not the politics of job seeking benefits &c; nor any other issue as such

the form of the discourse is deeply disturbing since its relationship with truth is one of negation on both sides ... in fact the notion that there are 'two sides' is a flawed metaphor in our bicameral house and non circular chambers ... the notion of truth as being 'in the round' 'somewhat imperfect' 'complex' is not easily apprehended in these ways of talking past the point ... it is an excellent and nigh on precise demonstration of Orwellian Newspeak ... further it masks a painful reality that whatever the policy or party our government organs and machinery routinely fail in the delivery [by intent or not] ...

seems to me that we are all members of the United Kingdom Ignorance Party

[amateur51]

seems to me that we are all members of the United Kingdom Ignorance Party

I'm not convinced that 'we' are as duped as you suppose

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the organised voices of workers & citizens (TUC, Citizens' Acting etc) choose to do in the year up to the 2015 General Election. We know what the Government has planned - it has basically criminalised protest, but perhaps at last we won't take it sitting down (mind my stick! )

[Bryn]

... the Humphreys/Paxman school of confrontation ...

Who is this "Humphreys"? Never heard of him or her. You don't perhaps mean the man from Splott with a similar but critically different name, do you?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

alas a surplus e!

[Beef Oven!]

do you not worry about the scandalous misuse and abuse of our language in the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of those with few weapons at their disposal. (some of these people who can do little more than trade their 10 hours a day for minimum wage?)

The privatisation of the NHS , and the language surrounding that, for instance, is surely something we should all be worried about ?

The first question is a variation of the 'wife-beating question', so I'm unlikely to respond.

On the question of NHS funding, I believe to talk about 'privatisation' is emotional and alarmist. The facts of the matter are that the NHS is publicly funded, and access is free to all European Union residents (plus others in certain circumstances). There is no requirement for insurance policies etc.

NHS trusts are overseen by public sector organisations such as the Care Quality Commission and The National Institute For Health And Care Excellence. Trusts are ultimately accountable to public sector bodies such as Monitor, in the case of Foundation Trusts.

The CQC and NICE seek to ensure quality of care on health-outcomes, not ideology.

There are approximately 200 public sector Clinical Commissioning groups around the country that are responsible for the planning and commissioning of services.

Public sector managers in the NHS have always been able to commission services from non-NHS providers, such as the local council, and indeed have done so. What is growing, is the tendency for public sector managers to commission services from the private sector. This is to increase the quality and range of commissioning options. A very small proportion of services are provided this way and it accounts for a tiny proportion of the NHS bill. Hence the 'emotional & alarmist' description.

[teamsaint]

Access to the NHS is free at the point of use.What it is that we are able to access is another point completely.

GP commissioning was brought in with the clear intention of breaking larger NHS funding centres, and with the opportunity for private healthcare groups to get involved and make profits. This objective was cleverly hidden in the usual political spin and management speak.
Once GP commissioning becomes widespread or universal, and that is surely the aim, we won't be looking at " a very small proportion of services", we will be looking at a substantial part of the service.
The OP was talking about newspeak, and this is exactly what happened with GP commissioning. It is a step on the road to privatisation, but that word is never used.

Don't know why you can't respond to my first question. Just say it doesn't worry you, or the language is free for all to abuse equally or some other platitude !

[Beef Oven!]

GP commissioning was brought in with the clear intention of breaking larger NHS funding centres, and with the opportunity for private healthcare groups to get involved and make profits.

GPs are best placed to know the needs of their patients.

The PCTs with their overpaid managers and administrators in their smart suits were both the wrong people to be doing it and an unnecessary, expensive stage in the process of getting people the healthcare that they need.

I don't agree with you that it was just a ploy to get firms to make profit - I think you are indulging in lazy Citizen-Smith type sloganeering.

[teamsaint]

GPs are best placed to know the needs of their patients.

The PCTs with their overpaid managers and administrators in their smart suits were both the wrong people to be doing it and an unnecessary, expensive stage in the process of getting people the healthcare that they need.

I don't agree with you that it was just a ploy to get firms to make profit - I think you are indulging in lazy Citizen-Smith type sloganeering.

Nonsense.No more than you are indulging in the kind of spin,newspeak, and management speak that we are discussing.
Big bureaucracies can be very inefficient, but over time, as privatisation has crept into the NHS, management and admin costs have risen inexorably.
That isn't sloganeering, its concern based on evidence. If I thought the private sector could deliver a better more efficient NHS, I would support it.
Everybody remembers Wolfie. He had a point. And a prime time slot.

(GPs CAN be best placed to know the needs of their patients. What if they aren't? plenty of examples.....)

[Beef Oven!]

Nonsense.No more than you are indulging in the kind of spin,newspeak, and management speak that we are discussing.
Big bureaucracies can be very inefficient, but over time, as privatisation has crept into the NHS, management and admin costs have risen inexorably.
That isn't sloganeering, its concern based on evidence. If I thought the private sector could deliver a better more efficient NHS, I would support it.
Everybody remembers Wolfie. He had a point. And a prime time slot.

(GPs CAN be best placed to know the needs of their patients. What if they aren't? plenty of examples.....)

Ok, I'm not fooled - I know it's you GongGong - give teamsaint his laptop back!!!