COMMENT: Reform word games

Peter Lewis

Words are the most amazing things. We have just 26 letters in the English language, and yet with skill and talent these few letters can be combined into words and speeches that can uplift, enthuse and emotionally move individuals to great accomplishments and unify whole nations. In the hands of a Winston Churchill or a Barack Obama words can resonate around the world and have global impact.

Words can also exhibit subtle emotions, indicating expressions of approval or disapproval. We have many time-worn expressions that are used to influence our feelings and encourage us to regard certain people or certain groups in either a positive or negative light. Thus, in our media, all mums are ‘young’, all female teenagers are ‘bubbly’ and all landlords are ‘greedy’. Like the canned laughter in trashy television shows, these words function to clue us in as to when and how we should react to those people. Sympathy or pity, envy or dislike. Strangely, when school teachers or nursing staff go on strike and agitate for more money, somehow they are never labelled in quite the same negative way as landlords.

One of the most common uses of words is to limit a particular choice, option or decision. A well-trained shop assistant will say “do you want this in blue or green?” thus skilfully and hopefully avoiding the real question of “do you actually want to buy this?” They are implying that the first discussion and the associated yes decision has already taken place. This is a standard and fairly handy ploy to get the outcome that they - and possibly only they - want. In the political sphere this subterfuge implies that if you are unaware of the existence of the initial ‘yes’ decision you are uniformed, ignorant, and out of the loop.

Right now we are being asked to join in the consultation on what is being called ‘The Residential Tenancies Reform Act’. Now hang on a minute mate, who has decided that this Act is in need of reform, where and when did that particular discussion take place, who was involved, and when were the conclusions announced? The answer, of course is quite clear - no discussion took place, no evidence for and against was presented or heard, there was no open discussion, and the decision that the Act needed reform was obviously a totally political one held in some quiet bureaucratic back-room at some unknown time. Yet we are being told to proceed solely on the basis of this dogma.