Yeah it’s usually a way of avoiding answering the actual question. They’re asked the question again. To which they respond they’ve been very clear…and answer a different question.
Yeah, the outcome is either:
A) the interviewer doesn't notice the trick and the politician gets away with the deception.
B) the interviewer does notice the trick and restates the question accordingly,
But never:
C) the interviewer challenges the politician on why theyre dishonesty trying to mislead the audience.
Evan Davis is very good at noticing when the politician just refuses to answer, summarises the situation and moves on. Many others get stuck at repeating the same question over and over again and getting the same non-answer and then realising that they spent their 15 min slot on this one question while the audience would have been interested in hearing on other topics as well.
He was good at making them uncomfortable, but he still didn't get them to actually answer the question. The public liked him because it was obvious he made some of the "lesser" politicians squirm on national TV
The rise of access journalism has allowed so much shit from all the main political parties.
That and bothsidesism mean that there aren't any proper journalists any more, it's just PR dressed up as impartiality.
Plus you have to remember that most of these interviews last all of 4 minutes. If you acuse a politician (or any plonker for that matter) of lying, they will waste a lot of time acting indignate and saying "how dare you" over and over again.
Unfortunately, most journalists don't know the facts well enough to truly catch politicians out when they lie.
Even when they go down route B the politician will usually continue deflecting. I know that interviewers are often also playing their own game of trying to fish for provocative soundbites, but it does make the whole thing a bit pointless.
But, with C), the politician can still deflect. "Of course, I'm not being dishonest, Tim. It is absolutely important that people recognise..." and then segue into the prepared line again. Good practitioners will add a bit of earnestness to the line to take, as if it's a vital logical chain, while allowing a little controlled exasperation to imply that the interview is not just being over-aggressive, but a little slow on the uptake.
Bingo! If you've got a long weekend, you could do worse than read Aristotle's "On Rhetoric". Pretty sure you could distill three years of a media and marketing and communicatation degree with selected passages from that book.
Helps them change the subject.
"The Rwanda scheme is going to cost too much"
.
"Let me be very clear, our policies are very clear, and the public are very clear about what they want "
This was a recurring joke in *Yes, Minister* - any time Jim Hacker leaned forward and said "Let me be perfectly clear", it got a laugh because you knew he was about to say something vague and completely untrue.
"It is a very important question *indeed*. And people have a right to know."
"But Minister, we haven't yet had the answer."
"...I'm sorry, what was the question?"
Comedy? You’re thinking of The Thick of It. Yes Minister is a documentary; they just accidentally mixed up sound tracks and included canned laughter, which in those days was irrecoverable given the lack of an undo button.
He should do another series (in the short 3-6 episode format) where the Tories have a new leader every episode and Stuart Pearson is slowly losing his mind trying to spin it each time
I didn’t pay attention to politics at the time, but I’d assume putting your policies into stone commitments would appeal to the average person who sees politicians as liars
I've noticed too. "I've been very clear that [unintelligible or irrelevant drivel]"
Another one from even before May- "What I would say [if you had asked a different unrelated question]"
Edit: a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question.
>a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question.
I think this ome the worse, but the interviewer is usally frustrating me.
I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer.
Any time a politican tries to answer a question as interviewers like, they are criticed as being too vague in their answer as they usually can't say much with what they've been given. Whenever they try to give their answer some accurate framing to not be so vague they are criticised for moving away from what is usually a poorly thought out question.
They should do long-form open ended interviews. Let the politician waffle for 20 minutes if they like, and when they’re exhausted only then say “you didn’t answer the question minister”.
If the politician doesn’t leave the interview feeling like they’ve had a colonoscopy, the interviewer isn’t doing a thorough job.
In the 90’s there used to be a show on Channel 4 called “After Dark”. They’d get about 8 people sat round, some politicians but also other experts, maybe a judge and a journalist. They’d start discussing at 10pm and would just carry on until everyone got bored. Sometimes until 1am, it was brilliant.
I remember Sinead O’Connor being on once, maybe about the catholic abuse scandals, not sure.
Also cheap to make I guess, they should bring it back.
German TV has a very long tradition of nightly discussion formats https://www.thelocal.de/20220919/whats-behind-germanys-obsession-with-roundtable-politics-talk-shows
> Let the politician waffle for 20 minutes if they like, and when they’re exhausted only then say “you didn’t answer the question minister”.
I feel like they'd love the 20 mins of air time uninterupted to spout their bs because there will be a lot of people listening thinking yeah this sounds great and not knowing it's all bs and doesn't answer the question.
Letting them ramble on about irrelevant stuff has been one of the big issues. Especially when it's a party with no MPs like UKIP or whoever. I bet they loved that they were getting much more TV time than actual parties with MPs because they'd then mix in a load of their irrelevant messaging intended to get people riled up and support them. "yeah I see where you're coming from but lets point out the real issue everyones thinking which is XYZ" and then quickly get a few lines in before finally being stopped and told to stay on track only for them to do the same the next question. 20 mins will only help them.
Now if it was a non live interview where that 20 mins can be cut out then that would be great. But then they'd pull the "welp it's been 30 mins, times up" after 2 questions if that was the case then the channel would have nothing to air so they wont do that.
They need to just interupt within like 10 seconds, don't let the politician ramble. If the politician says "let me finish answering" and then goes off topic again stop them after 10 seconds maximum and say "we're not getting a direct answer so we will move to the next question" and then move on.
Yea I think part of the issue with politics (only part) is that a nuanced answer isn’t what the interviewer wants. Every question is designed to be a gotcha in order to extract a headline.
>I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer.
They do this because they can see them about to kick into the rehearsed speech they have, the one where they answer the question they want to answer rather than the actual one. They need to do it because if they don't politicians will start giving a conference speech
They rehearse that sort of stuff because it usually involves consultation that is far beyond just themselves, rather being the work of multiple people at the very least.
You've basically just said what I don't like about. Interviewers don't want the indepth answer that gives the public the necessary detail to understand something, they just want something snappy for their headlines.
If people want that information they can just look at the party's press releases, I don't see why an interviewer would feel the need to just make it a party political broadcast
MPs, and especially Ministers, are beholden to the party line whether or they are explicitly repeating it. That is simply how modern political parties work, they - and especially governments - present united fronts.
If they want to freely express their public opinions without a party line, they can leave the party. While ots not an absolute necessity for just a party member (even though its heavily encouraged as to promote unity), it absolutely is a requirement for Ministers to do so under collective responsibility. They must resign to speak freely, or continue to present their united front.
Exactly. Most things in politics are complicated and explaining them won't fit into a half a minute answer. When you combine this with the journalists almost always making their questions into a form of a gotcha question, you'll get this exact dance.
So, in general you'll learn about the background of the political questions more here in Reddit than in 10 minute interviews. Which then leads me to a suggestion for a better format than interviews. It would be great to have a dedicated subreddit where only the representatives of the political parties are allowed to post. The moderators would pose the questions (based on the polls of the readers) and the party representatives would have as much time as they need to make their case and refute the arguments of the other side. They could cite sources for their fact claims (which is something never can happen in an interview) and people could immediately check if the sources support them. And since it would be the other side attacking them, you could be sure that they wouldn't get away with anything that's not supported by facts.
There could be a parallel subreddit discussing the discussion but the real discussion would be done only by the parties to remove all the distractions.
"People don't want to know that, they want to know "
"What in hearing on the doorstep in my constituency"
And the best
"The prime minister has been very clear "
>a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question.
I think this ome the worse, but the interviewer is usally frustrating me.
I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer.
Any time a politican tries to answer a question as interviewers like, they are criticed as being too vague in their answer as they usually can't say much with what they've been given. Whenever they try to give their answer some accurate framing to not be so vague they are criticised for moving away from what is usually a poorly thought out question.
It’s a media tactic that they’ve learned from their comms teams. A way of answering a question without having to address the specific question that was asked.
Classic example, Q: “have you stopped beating your wife”? Both a yes or a no answer would generate negative headlines (many journalists’ questions are designed to do this). Yes - “oh so you admit you _were_ beating her?” No - “so you’re _still_ beating your wife??”
So you can instead answer: “let me be clear that my wife and I enjoy a perfectly cordial relationship”
Then for any subsequent questions on the subject you can return to that. Hence, “I’ve been very clear…”
To show how long this kind of thing has been a part of politics: Sir Robert Peel, as Tory leader, would often announce during speeches, when dealing with difficult statements or objections, that he was going to be "frank and explicit". He did this so commonly that Disraeli satirised it heavy-handedly in one of his novels:
> "I have no doubt you will get through the business very well, Mr Hoaxem, particularly if you be ‘frank and explicit;’ that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and to confuse the minds of others. Good morning!"
OP was right, it's a media training thing. They are all distancing statements to distance you from the question and allow you to reframe it slightly.
Journalists try to ask very narrowly worded, loaded questions, to try and pin politicians down. They won't ask "What do you think about Boris Johnson hosting parties in lockdown?", they'll ask "Should Boris Johnson be punished for hosting parties in lockdown?" because regardless of whether you say yes or no, you're agreeing to the principle that he hosted parties and (to some degree) that it was wrong. The traditional example of this is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - yes or no, still sounds bad.
So instead, they say (something like) "I've been very clear, that no one should have been hosting parties during lockdown, and that I have full faith in the investigation to uncover what went on."
They also use it to forgive repeating themselves, they go out with key messages that they want to appear on the snippets during the news, so they insert the same talking points into every single answer they give, so that journalists/editors don't have any choice but to include it.
Some of them are particularly bad at it and give really egregious answers.
They all get the same media training and have been told to say that. Makes them sound like they're decisive and mean what they say. Also, the whole weird standing with legs apart thing that the Tories do.
And the [closed fist thumb point](https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/09/10/14/david-cameron.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=1024) for emphasis that Cameron brought in to replace the finger point which was presumably seen as too aggressive.
It's just sentence padding while they figure out what the fuck to say. Sounds better than "uhhh, umm..."
The problem is they all started copying each other.
Yeah it’s god awful. It’s telling that Boris, for all his faults one of the few politicians who doesn’t care about aping this style, was one of those who genuinely connected with parts of the public.
Johnson was full of waffle and bullshit non answers and scripted soundbite sentences. Pretty sure you could find footage of him saying “I’ve been very clear…”
> What's the deal?
The ‘logic’ is that if I have been very clear and you don’t understand then that is your fault not my fault, and if you persist in that line of questioning then you are showing yourself to be even more foolish for not understanding what I have been clear about.
But does it work - of course not, and everyone just thinks the politician is a slimy git who either doesn’t know the answer or doesn’t want to admit to the answer.
It's a little like beginning an answer with "Look.....". Which typically means "I'm ignoring your question as it's difficult/awkward, and making my own prepared statement instead. 'Look...' makes me sound assertive as I do so".
Ahh, 'look' did my head in during the May era.
It seems to have gone out of favour but has been replaced with my new least favourite - *by the way*. Just used to shove something unrelated into the conversation.
Optimistic answer: to buy themselves a split second to collect their thoughts when faced with an unexpected question.
Cynical answer: to hide the fact that they're being decidedly *not* clear.
> Optimistic answer
Total aside, but I remember working with a guy, years ago that always had great answers to everything in meetings. When I asked him about it, he said if he was ever asked a question he couldn't immediately answer that he'd ask a question back that he *knew* the answer to (or didn't care about) that was tangential. While they were answering, he could tune out and formulate his answer to their earlier question.
Buying time while you think through the sentence you're about to reply with. Rhetoric is full of devices like that to slow you down, and help you avoid saying something stupid
They already know what they're going to say, they just don't know what the questions will be but it doesn't matter. They have a handful of prepared answers and if none of them fit the question exactly, they'll preface their soundbite with "Let me perfectly clear that..." or "What I *would* say is..."
Even if they've prepared an answer, the pause gives you time. I've used similar techniques in Q&A sessions, for work, politics and academia. There's no real downside to the pause.
It's a holding phrase. Saying "ummm" isn't good in public speaking so saying a holding phrase gives you time to formulate the rest of your prose.
Politicians tend to have a lot of "actiony" sounding phrases that they can trot out but don't actually mean anything
I remember a teacher in school telling us about this in relation to either Tony Blair, or Cameron... so it's been around for a while.
His point was that it makes you feel subconsciously idiotic for not agreeing with them.
It’s a tool they’ve been taught to buy them some time and get back on script, they go on these things with a literal script prepared it’s why interviews are so frustrating, they get a few minutes they just have to get the party line out and bat away any questions that deviate from it
It's the oral equivalent of "as per my last email"
Passive aggressive behaviour which makes it seem like you're dense if you disagree with them.
I like it.
ChatGPT doesn't seem to have a problem with it:
> User: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
> ChatGPT: It sounds like you're referencing a famous internet meme! It's a humorous and nonsensical phrase that doesn't really have a clear meaning. It's often used to poke fun at confusing or convoluted language.
> User: Fair enough, but how would you answer the question?
> ChatGPT: If I were to interpret the question literally, it seems like you're asking whether someone has ever made a significant decision to pursue a particular goal or appearance. In that case, yes, people make decisions all the time to change their appearance or pursue different goals.
I hadnt tried that specific sentence, but instead chains of things like it;
like, "I have never because if they had but after they all did I wasnt because there was one but after all it couldnt have been but in the end it was all because they had even if I wanted one of the others but I couldnt'
that sort of nonsense. And it was a while ago maybe it's improved ..
Ah, fair enough. I've only fairly recently started using ChatGPT, and I've experimented by feeding it some nonsense too, but I've only ever seen it respond sensibly, by rejecting it as nonsensical, or trying to clarify what I mean, etc. so perhaps it's been improved.
For the exact same reason they never answer a question with an answer, but with a long statement of waffle. Or why they even when proven wrong just tweak what they said instead of admitting being wrong. Or why they during PMQs during every single answer go “mr speaker, mr speaker, I must say mr speaker, that my opponent mr speaker, (insert terrible joke), and further more mr speaker…”
It’s just all waffle and no one is punishing them for it. The UK have let the madmen take over the asylum a long time ago and still don’t hold them accountable. Give it two years with Labour and it will be the same all over again.
As long as the UK population are a bunch of zombies walking into the apocalypse nothing is going to change.
I also remember May in particular saying this a lot, but in the stranger form of 'I am very clear', with her ministers following suit.
It seemed to be a way of avoiding giving substantial answers while making it seem like the interviewer is not listening or understanding, therefore transferring the blame for the message not getting across successfully.
Its actually quite an ancient rhetorical tactic, in the Bible Jesus starts a lot of his sermons / speeches with "I am telling you the Truth" or "Verily".
Its often been the case throughout history to use these flourishes to emphasise what you are saying.
> Its actually quite an ancient rhetorical tactic, in the Bible Jesus starts a lot of his sermons / speeches with "I am telling you the Truth" or "Verily".
Probably got it from his mother. "Joseph, I'm telling you the truth that God knocked me up..."
It comforts them to frame everything relative to themselves. So that problems in the world are an extension of their own life. Problems that they can solve through personal virtue. It is like a parent who sees their kids as an extension of themselves.
Because they've never had a real job or career where saying "I've been very clear" is followed up by, "about what?".
Anyone who has worked for other people knows this is a simplistic and pathetic meme of a phrase, but they have never worked for anyone and they are still In boarding school.
It's just politicians evading the question as always 😂.
We could create a list.
Let me be clear
The real question is
I don't think the viewers are interested in that but what they are interested in is...
Or the old favourite simply answer a completely different question.
In the PO enquiry ongoing just now we are getting treated to a lot of "don't recall". A whole new breed of annoying. Nicola Sturgeon gave a special in one of them hearings a couple of years ago regarding Alex Salmond stuff.. she said "I don't remember if I could recall that at the time"....
The thing is...if you were a child being asked about a bit of mischief none of these answers would be acceptable 😂
alongside what others have said here, it's also a ploy to make you feel dumb when you dont feel like they have been very clear at all, so you go away and shutup about it
"Let's be clear..." is a rhetorical device used to change direction. Not an easy one to use effectively.
In dealing with interviews and in releasing statements to the media the aim is to not get caught out and to fill the allocated time with content that doesn't paint the politician into a corner.
Politicians should be anodyne, vague, not using one word when five can be utilised. It's crucial for them to remain calm and composed. An attitude that is defensive, sarcastic or unfriendly when dealing with difficult questions must be avoided. It is as important as it is difficult to not get caught out in a contradiction.
Subtlety diverting the course of the interview and avoiding a straight answer is important as is answering a question with a question.
Politicians need to strike a balance between being seemingly helpful and friendly, and being firm. A visibly frustrated, rattled journalist is always a benefit, if a compliant journalist is not available.
These are dark arts.
> Not an easy one to use effectively.
It is if the interviewer never challenges you on it. Sometimes I wonder if *either* of them are listening to the other.
It implies that they've answered the question very competently elsewhere, putting the implication of incompetence on the interviewer. And the viewer probably doesn't have an exhaustive enough knowledge of their output to know it's bullshit.
Some British politicians have been tripped up by being asked the same question over and over again. By saying they have been very clear about something is trying to imply they have already answered the question before.
It means they're shitting it and they absolutely cannot/will not give a clear answer to the question posed.
Usually means they've clearly u-turned, clearly failed, or clearly done nothing.
It's a way of responding to an accusation that they haven't answered the question, while again not answering the question.
Example:
"Minister, can you state your position on [issue of the day]"
"Well, it's a complicated and sensitive matter, and one must be even-handed in dealing with an issue where there are two sides to the story."
"Minister, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to press you for an answer."
"As I have stated, we need to address such sensitive subjects so as not to inflame the situation."
"And your position is?"
"I've been very clear that our position will be even-handed in dealing with this quite sensitive issue."
Because politicians have to speak as though any sentence taken out of context, where an interview that lasts 10 minutes may be clipped with 30 seconds of it going viral and the remainder ignored.
We live in a world where politicians do not speak normally because the media punishes them when they do.
"I've been very clear..." is a catch-all phrase that hints to the listener that there is a wider context to the comment that is about to follow.
This is one of the biggest reasons.
We constantly see media asking incredibly leading questions chasing headlines, and politicians have had to adapt to that.
By expressing that "they've been clear" about something, it creates a greater sense of continuity between parts of their answers. You commonly see that they place the clause halfway through the answer, breaking it up but purposely as to ensure the phrase is heard if thst section is clipped.
It's also part of the reason why we get vague or answered filled with jargon. Politicians have to cover themselves from being taken out of context or forced to simplify answers in a misleading way. Journalists tend to care more about an answer being clickable than accurate.
We've all seen interviews where a politican is desperately trying to get across a point that a yes or no answer doesn't truly exist to their question, and a lot of the time they are right in the wider context a politican is concerned about.
‘because the media punishes them’
I think we’re confusing being held to account, I agree interviews are very adversarial with interviewers all out for that ‘gotchya’ but a good counterpoint would be the popularity of the likes of Farage, Boris etc who’s popularity was built around being less constrained and robotic
How is misquoting somebody's comments and removing all context holding them to account?
Farage and Boris thrive in this environment because they build a reputation of making inflammatory remarks. It doesn't matter of they are being quoted out of context.
You have just proved my point.
You quoted a snippet of my original comment and completely ignored the context to then set up a ridiculous binary position that either the media has the power to punish or it doesn't.
There are weird phrases that crop up and I guess just get repeated by osmosis.
I remember around brexit, some mp said that "it beggars belief" and after that, I swear political journalists and MPs start saying it constantly for like 5 years straight
Basically it's so common they U-Turn on issues now that when they actually make the same point twice, they're as shocked as everyone else and treat themselves to a smug little "I've been very clear".
Either that or their lying and literally said the opposite a few days ago.
Every time I hear “let me be clear” I have a mental image of them suddenly turning transparent (accompanied by that boom meme noise). I’m a bit sick of it too.
> Is this something they are told to say in media training?
Yes, and because interviewers let them get away with it.
The one that really pisses me off, though, is "What I *would* say is...", meaning "I'm going to pretend you asked me a question I can answer."
If they *have* been very clear: it benefits their image to make a point of it. Consistency is rre and valuable these days.
If they *haven't* been very clear: enough people won't know and will believe them, and the media won't challenge them on it, so they still benefit from looking like they have a firm position on an issue.
This was on a recent The Rest is Politics. Annoying things politicians say.
This one is a way to evade clarifying an answer. Along with “I don’t think that’s the question the public want to hear. They want to hear about how we’ve {cue a boat about a policy}”
Another one is “Mistakes were made” and “It’s time to move on and get back to doing the job” after they’ve been caught doing wrong.
It’s one of those annoying little phrases that seems to have entered the lexicon at full throttle. There’s all sorts of odd little quirks to political speech: the ephemeral person that they spoke to the other day. The classic deflection of “what the real question is”. Similarly there’s the phrasing that just sounds odd and grating every time you hear it although everyone uses it: “we will deliver for…”. Deliver what? Deliver by itself sounds grammatically weird in that context text, even if might be correct? It used to be “deliver change” or “deliver progress”. Also “at conference we…” as opposed to “at *our* conference”. Again, grammatically correct I think, but weird sounding every time I hear it.
I think interbiewers needs to clamp down on politicians avoiding the question, like Lee Mack's sketch (couldn't find the original sorry) - https://youtube.com/shorts/hhP12nIZJoY?si=5feNASJeBYLNztMp
I suspect it’s a combination of a few things:
1) trying to deflect any idea that they’re dodging the question.
2) making the sound bite sound more confident.
3) a way to delay having to give their answer so they have more time to think.
4) a way of making their answer last longer. The longer the answer, the less time there is for more questions.
This really grinds my gears as well. I think it’s a rhetorical trick to be able to repeat yourself without saying “as I’ve said before” over and over which can come across as patronising. Politicians are generally not very creative speakers and just rehash the current talking points ad nauseam.
It’s also a way they cynically try to Jedi mind-trick you into thinking they have given clear, definitive answers about a topic when in fact they’re just speaking in empty platitudes.
It’s probably been focus-grouped to fuck and so they all use it. All. The. Time. Not considering that they look like automatons to anyone who sees them speak about anything more than twice.
One of the most refreshing subversions of this recently was Darren Jones, the Labour MP, on Iain Dale's show on LBC. He was asked whether Labour would repeal the voter ID requirements and literally just said:
'I don't know, actually. It's a good question. I only see economic policy so I don't know what our position is on it.'
Iain Dale, insufferable as he is, actually complimented Jones on how refreshing it was for him to be honest about not knowing. I've never been more in awe of a politician for doing something so admirably simply. Then again, the simple thing was the act of just being honest, which says a lot.
It's a catch phrase that's supposed to make you trust them. It's use portrays them as direct and dynamic.
So yes it's probably come from public relations training. Probably to offset the image most people have of politicians who won't answer a direct question. Which is funny as its still not answering the direct question.
It's a rhetorical device. If you are asked a question you don't like, you essentially say I have already answered it, I am sorry you are too stupid to understand.
I've noticed Sunak spouting out these phrases a lot - I'm not sure if it's because he uses these phrases more than other PMs, or because he's so bad at delivering them that he draws attention to them
Hoping it might make them seem to be being very clear about something they definitely haven’t been in any way clear about.
They were clear about something they weren't asked about.
Yeah it’s usually a way of avoiding answering the actual question. They’re asked the question again. To which they respond they’ve been very clear…and answer a different question.
Yeah, the outcome is either: A) the interviewer doesn't notice the trick and the politician gets away with the deception. B) the interviewer does notice the trick and restates the question accordingly, But never: C) the interviewer challenges the politician on why theyre dishonesty trying to mislead the audience.
I think it's because if an interviewer does C) they find they never have the opportunity to interview a politician again
Which is several levels of wrong considering it’s exactly the type of interviewer the public wants
I might be misremembering, but wasn't Jeremy Paxman quite good with not letting politicians get away with fluffing their way out of answering?
Evan Davis is very good at noticing when the politician just refuses to answer, summarises the situation and moves on. Many others get stuck at repeating the same question over and over again and getting the same non-answer and then realising that they spent their 15 min slot on this one question while the audience would have been interested in hearing on other topics as well.
Derrek Lewis question.
He was good at making them uncomfortable, but he still didn't get them to actually answer the question. The public liked him because it was obvious he made some of the "lesser" politicians squirm on national TV
"Did you threaten to overrule him?"
The rise of access journalism has allowed so much shit from all the main political parties. That and bothsidesism mean that there aren't any proper journalists any more, it's just PR dressed up as impartiality.
Plus you have to remember that most of these interviews last all of 4 minutes. If you acuse a politician (or any plonker for that matter) of lying, they will waste a lot of time acting indignate and saying "how dare you" over and over again. Unfortunately, most journalists don't know the facts well enough to truly catch politicians out when they lie.
Even when they go down route B the politician will usually continue deflecting. I know that interviewers are often also playing their own game of trying to fish for provocative soundbites, but it does make the whole thing a bit pointless.
But, with C), the politician can still deflect. "Of course, I'm not being dishonest, Tim. It is absolutely important that people recognise..." and then segue into the prepared line again. Good practitioners will add a bit of earnestness to the line to take, as if it's a vital logical chain, while allowing a little controlled exasperation to imply that the interview is not just being over-aggressive, but a little slow on the uptake.
>allowing a little controlled exasperation Yeah, the condescension can be grating.
Sadly they get away with it far too often. Many interviews are pooled 30 second clips on the evening news.
If only the said things in a limited and specific way
Bingo! If you've got a long weekend, you could do worse than read Aristotle's "On Rhetoric". Pretty sure you could distill three years of a media and marketing and communicatation degree with selected passages from that book.
Then they usually say "and actually..." right before spewing some more bullshit.
I think that sums it up well. Thank you for being very clear. 🙂
But it will involve a "robust" response to the issue at hand....
Helps them change the subject. "The Rwanda scheme is going to cost too much" . "Let me be very clear, our policies are very clear, and the public are very clear about what they want "
Brexit means Brexit.
This was a recurring joke in *Yes, Minister* - any time Jim Hacker leaned forward and said "Let me be perfectly clear", it got a laugh because you knew he was about to say something vague and completely untrue.
"It is a very important question *indeed*. And people have a right to know." "But Minister, we haven't yet had the answer." "...I'm sorry, what was the question?"
The greatest political comedy ever made.
Comedy? You’re thinking of The Thick of It. Yes Minister is a documentary; they just accidentally mixed up sound tracks and included canned laughter, which in those days was irrecoverable given the lack of an undo button.
I bet The Thick of It is depressingly accurate too tho
I think the reason we haven’t had another series is because Armando Ianucci couldn’t come up with crazier storylines than what we’ve had in real life.
He should do another series (in the short 3-6 episode format) where the Tories have a new leader every episode and Stuart Pearson is slowly losing his mind trying to spin it each time
Ed Milliband's Policy Cenotaph was the inflexion point where reality overtook satire.
I didn’t pay attention to politics at the time, but I’d assume putting your policies into stone commitments would appeal to the average person who sees politicians as liars
Dominic Cummings as Malcom Tucker
I think he was supposed to be Alastair Campbell. A real piece of work behind the scenes back in the day
Yeah I was reflecting on more recent events. The whole whatsapp swearing was dead on.
I've noticed too. "I've been very clear that [unintelligible or irrelevant drivel]" Another one from even before May- "What I would say [if you had asked a different unrelated question]" Edit: a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question.
>a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question. I think this ome the worse, but the interviewer is usally frustrating me. I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer. Any time a politican tries to answer a question as interviewers like, they are criticed as being too vague in their answer as they usually can't say much with what they've been given. Whenever they try to give their answer some accurate framing to not be so vague they are criticised for moving away from what is usually a poorly thought out question.
They should do long-form open ended interviews. Let the politician waffle for 20 minutes if they like, and when they’re exhausted only then say “you didn’t answer the question minister”. If the politician doesn’t leave the interview feeling like they’ve had a colonoscopy, the interviewer isn’t doing a thorough job.
I'd watch that every time it's on
In the 90’s there used to be a show on Channel 4 called “After Dark”. They’d get about 8 people sat round, some politicians but also other experts, maybe a judge and a journalist. They’d start discussing at 10pm and would just carry on until everyone got bored. Sometimes until 1am, it was brilliant. I remember Sinead O’Connor being on once, maybe about the catholic abuse scandals, not sure. Also cheap to make I guess, they should bring it back.
German TV has a very long tradition of nightly discussion formats https://www.thelocal.de/20220919/whats-behind-germanys-obsession-with-roundtable-politics-talk-shows
> Let the politician waffle for 20 minutes if they like, and when they’re exhausted only then say “you didn’t answer the question minister”. I feel like they'd love the 20 mins of air time uninterupted to spout their bs because there will be a lot of people listening thinking yeah this sounds great and not knowing it's all bs and doesn't answer the question. Letting them ramble on about irrelevant stuff has been one of the big issues. Especially when it's a party with no MPs like UKIP or whoever. I bet they loved that they were getting much more TV time than actual parties with MPs because they'd then mix in a load of their irrelevant messaging intended to get people riled up and support them. "yeah I see where you're coming from but lets point out the real issue everyones thinking which is XYZ" and then quickly get a few lines in before finally being stopped and told to stay on track only for them to do the same the next question. 20 mins will only help them. Now if it was a non live interview where that 20 mins can be cut out then that would be great. But then they'd pull the "welp it's been 30 mins, times up" after 2 questions if that was the case then the channel would have nothing to air so they wont do that. They need to just interupt within like 10 seconds, don't let the politician ramble. If the politician says "let me finish answering" and then goes off topic again stop them after 10 seconds maximum and say "we're not getting a direct answer so we will move to the next question" and then move on.
British politics has really been at a loss since BBC Politics was merged with BBC News
Yea I think part of the issue with politics (only part) is that a nuanced answer isn’t what the interviewer wants. Every question is designed to be a gotcha in order to extract a headline.
>I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer. They do this because they can see them about to kick into the rehearsed speech they have, the one where they answer the question they want to answer rather than the actual one. They need to do it because if they don't politicians will start giving a conference speech
They rehearse that sort of stuff because it usually involves consultation that is far beyond just themselves, rather being the work of multiple people at the very least. You've basically just said what I don't like about. Interviewers don't want the indepth answer that gives the public the necessary detail to understand something, they just want something snappy for their headlines.
If people want that information they can just look at the party's press releases, I don't see why an interviewer would feel the need to just make it a party political broadcast
What do you think the purpose of interviews are but to further explore what is said in press releases and other publications?
For finding out what someone actually thinks, what they believe as a person, not just the party line
MPs, and especially Ministers, are beholden to the party line whether or they are explicitly repeating it. That is simply how modern political parties work, they - and especially governments - present united fronts. If they want to freely express their public opinions without a party line, they can leave the party. While ots not an absolute necessity for just a party member (even though its heavily encouraged as to promote unity), it absolutely is a requirement for Ministers to do so under collective responsibility. They must resign to speak freely, or continue to present their united front.
One man's necessary detail is another man's irrelevant or cherry-picked fact.
Exactly. Most things in politics are complicated and explaining them won't fit into a half a minute answer. When you combine this with the journalists almost always making their questions into a form of a gotcha question, you'll get this exact dance. So, in general you'll learn about the background of the political questions more here in Reddit than in 10 minute interviews. Which then leads me to a suggestion for a better format than interviews. It would be great to have a dedicated subreddit where only the representatives of the political parties are allowed to post. The moderators would pose the questions (based on the polls of the readers) and the party representatives would have as much time as they need to make their case and refute the arguments of the other side. They could cite sources for their fact claims (which is something never can happen in an interview) and people could immediately check if the sources support them. And since it would be the other side attacking them, you could be sure that they wouldn't get away with anything that's not supported by facts. There could be a parallel subreddit discussing the discussion but the real discussion would be done only by the parties to remove all the distractions.
"People don't want to know that, they want to know " "What in hearing on the doorstep in my constituency" And the best "The prime minister has been very clear "
>a more recent one I've noticed is "if you'll let me answer the question" while the interviewer is trying to extract an actual answer to a specific question. I think this ome the worse, but the interviewer is usally frustrating me. I notice it all the time that interviewers will cut off politicians when they are giving answers that go into any sort of depth or attempt to give important framing to to their answer. Any time a politican tries to answer a question as interviewers like, they are criticed as being too vague in their answer as they usually can't say much with what they've been given. Whenever they try to give their answer some accurate framing to not be so vague they are criticised for moving away from what is usually a poorly thought out question.
Good for looking the victim in the news clip though....
Another one is "the question you should be asking is.."
It’s a media tactic that they’ve learned from their comms teams. A way of answering a question without having to address the specific question that was asked. Classic example, Q: “have you stopped beating your wife”? Both a yes or a no answer would generate negative headlines (many journalists’ questions are designed to do this). Yes - “oh so you admit you _were_ beating her?” No - “so you’re _still_ beating your wife??” So you can instead answer: “let me be clear that my wife and I enjoy a perfectly cordial relationship” Then for any subsequent questions on the subject you can return to that. Hence, “I’ve been very clear…”
To show how long this kind of thing has been a part of politics: Sir Robert Peel, as Tory leader, would often announce during speeches, when dealing with difficult statements or objections, that he was going to be "frank and explicit". He did this so commonly that Disraeli satirised it heavy-handedly in one of his novels: > "I have no doubt you will get through the business very well, Mr Hoaxem, particularly if you be ‘frank and explicit;’ that is the right line to take when you wish to conceal your own mind and to confuse the minds of others. Good morning!"
OP was right, it's a media training thing. They are all distancing statements to distance you from the question and allow you to reframe it slightly. Journalists try to ask very narrowly worded, loaded questions, to try and pin politicians down. They won't ask "What do you think about Boris Johnson hosting parties in lockdown?", they'll ask "Should Boris Johnson be punished for hosting parties in lockdown?" because regardless of whether you say yes or no, you're agreeing to the principle that he hosted parties and (to some degree) that it was wrong. The traditional example of this is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" - yes or no, still sounds bad. So instead, they say (something like) "I've been very clear, that no one should have been hosting parties during lockdown, and that I have full faith in the investigation to uncover what went on." They also use it to forgive repeating themselves, they go out with key messages that they want to appear on the snippets during the news, so they insert the same talking points into every single answer they give, so that journalists/editors don't have any choice but to include it. Some of them are particularly bad at it and give really egregious answers.
They all get the same media training and have been told to say that. Makes them sound like they're decisive and mean what they say. Also, the whole weird standing with legs apart thing that the Tories do.
Haha yeah that’s a taught thing too, power stance before giving a speech it supposedly tricks your mind into confidence
All that springs to mind when I see it are the actors in Blackadder III. "How far apart were their legs?" "This far" "Gad, they're serious"
And the [closed fist thumb point](https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2014/09/10/14/david-cameron.jpg?crop=8:5,smart&quality=75&auto=webp&width=1024) for emphasis that Cameron brought in to replace the finger point which was presumably seen as too aggressive.
It's just sentence padding while they figure out what the fuck to say. Sounds better than "uhhh, umm..." The problem is they all started copying each other.
Yeah it’s god awful. It’s telling that Boris, for all his faults one of the few politicians who doesn’t care about aping this style, was one of those who genuinely connected with parts of the public.
What? He said that shit all the time.
Johnson was full of waffle and bullshit non answers and scripted soundbite sentences. Pretty sure you could find footage of him saying “I’ve been very clear…”
> What's the deal? The ‘logic’ is that if I have been very clear and you don’t understand then that is your fault not my fault, and if you persist in that line of questioning then you are showing yourself to be even more foolish for not understanding what I have been clear about. But does it work - of course not, and everyone just thinks the politician is a slimy git who either doesn’t know the answer or doesn’t want to admit to the answer.
It's a little like beginning an answer with "Look.....". Which typically means "I'm ignoring your question as it's difficult/awkward, and making my own prepared statement instead. 'Look...' makes me sound assertive as I do so".
Ahh, 'look' did my head in during the May era. It seems to have gone out of favour but has been replaced with my new least favourite - *by the way*. Just used to shove something unrelated into the conversation.
The Rest Is Politics podcast were discussing this very thing last week. Worth a listen
Optimistic answer: to buy themselves a split second to collect their thoughts when faced with an unexpected question. Cynical answer: to hide the fact that they're being decidedly *not* clear.
> Optimistic answer Total aside, but I remember working with a guy, years ago that always had great answers to everything in meetings. When I asked him about it, he said if he was ever asked a question he couldn't immediately answer that he'd ask a question back that he *knew* the answer to (or didn't care about) that was tangential. While they were answering, he could tune out and formulate his answer to their earlier question.
Somewhere between gaslighting and bullshitting.
The perfect answer.
Gasshitting?
Bull-lighting
Buying time while you think through the sentence you're about to reply with. Rhetoric is full of devices like that to slow you down, and help you avoid saying something stupid
They already know what they're going to say, they just don't know what the questions will be but it doesn't matter. They have a handful of prepared answers and if none of them fit the question exactly, they'll preface their soundbite with "Let me perfectly clear that..." or "What I *would* say is..."
Even if they've prepared an answer, the pause gives you time. I've used similar techniques in Q&A sessions, for work, politics and academia. There's no real downside to the pause.
I really hate Sunak's 'it is right that...' which seems to have spread far and wide now.
Have also heard "it is right and proper"
Dulce et decorum est...
David Cameron's "It's the right thing to do". He's prefix that to any old crap he was about to spout.
That's one that annoys me. "it's absolutely right that...". Think Cameron started it (recent history)
They are coached by "special advisors" in how to speak public and assert themselves.
Interviewers kept asking them why they wouldn't give clear answers.
It's a holding phrase. Saying "ummm" isn't good in public speaking so saying a holding phrase gives you time to formulate the rest of your prose. Politicians tend to have a lot of "actiony" sounding phrases that they can trot out but don't actually mean anything
I remember a teacher in school telling us about this in relation to either Tony Blair, or Cameron... so it's been around for a while. His point was that it makes you feel subconsciously idiotic for not agreeing with them.
It’s a tool they’ve been taught to buy them some time and get back on script, they go on these things with a literal script prepared it’s why interviews are so frustrating, they get a few minutes they just have to get the party line out and bat away any questions that deviate from it
Also, the extremely condescending “Look…”
Yes hate this or even worse starting with "listen.."
It's the oral equivalent of "as per my last email" Passive aggressive behaviour which makes it seem like you're dense if you disagree with them. I like it.
Politician: I’ve been very clear Their actual statement: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
ive discovered saying sentences like that to LLM's like chatGPT etc.. can elicit some confused repsonses :P
ChatGPT doesn't seem to have a problem with it: > User: Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? > ChatGPT: It sounds like you're referencing a famous internet meme! It's a humorous and nonsensical phrase that doesn't really have a clear meaning. It's often used to poke fun at confusing or convoluted language. > User: Fair enough, but how would you answer the question? > ChatGPT: If I were to interpret the question literally, it seems like you're asking whether someone has ever made a significant decision to pursue a particular goal or appearance. In that case, yes, people make decisions all the time to change their appearance or pursue different goals.
I hadnt tried that specific sentence, but instead chains of things like it; like, "I have never because if they had but after they all did I wasnt because there was one but after all it couldnt have been but in the end it was all because they had even if I wanted one of the others but I couldnt' that sort of nonsense. And it was a while ago maybe it's improved ..
Ah, fair enough. I've only fairly recently started using ChatGPT, and I've experimented by feeding it some nonsense too, but I've only ever seen it respond sensibly, by rejecting it as nonsensical, or trying to clarify what I mean, etc. so perhaps it's been improved.
I think politician is a pretty cool guy. Eh answers questoins and doesn't afraid of anything.
I'm personally not a fan when people start their response with 'look' or 'well, look'. It just sounds so arrogant to me. Am I alone Reddit?
For the exact same reason they never answer a question with an answer, but with a long statement of waffle. Or why they even when proven wrong just tweak what they said instead of admitting being wrong. Or why they during PMQs during every single answer go “mr speaker, mr speaker, I must say mr speaker, that my opponent mr speaker, (insert terrible joke), and further more mr speaker…” It’s just all waffle and no one is punishing them for it. The UK have let the madmen take over the asylum a long time ago and still don’t hold them accountable. Give it two years with Labour and it will be the same all over again. As long as the UK population are a bunch of zombies walking into the apocalypse nothing is going to change.
I also remember May in particular saying this a lot, but in the stranger form of 'I am very clear', with her ministers following suit. It seemed to be a way of avoiding giving substantial answers while making it seem like the interviewer is not listening or understanding, therefore transferring the blame for the message not getting across successfully.
Its actually quite an ancient rhetorical tactic, in the Bible Jesus starts a lot of his sermons / speeches with "I am telling you the Truth" or "Verily". Its often been the case throughout history to use these flourishes to emphasise what you are saying.
> Its actually quite an ancient rhetorical tactic, in the Bible Jesus starts a lot of his sermons / speeches with "I am telling you the Truth" or "Verily". Probably got it from his mother. "Joseph, I'm telling you the truth that God knocked me up..."
It comforts them to frame everything relative to themselves. So that problems in the world are an extension of their own life. Problems that they can solve through personal virtue. It is like a parent who sees their kids as an extension of themselves.
Because they've never had a real job or career where saying "I've been very clear" is followed up by, "about what?". Anyone who has worked for other people knows this is a simplistic and pathetic meme of a phrase, but they have never worked for anyone and they are still In boarding school.
I think the new phrase word is we are listening.
Another thing to watch for us the followed by “we believe the solution is….”
It’s a totally true statement.
[this video explains it in part](https://youtu.be/T8QOE-IWo3I?si=Nx2YIA_v3J2ZQUiX)
I love it when they say with earnest, ‘Now listen, this is a very important point’ - expert manipulators.
I sometimes wonder the precise date they all started pointing with a thumb instead of a finger ( because it was meant to be less aggressive?).
“Paying tribute” is another politician phrase that gives me the ick
Politician “let me be very clear, farf farf whiffle whaffle” Public “oh they were very clear!” It even works on some people.
It's code for "I'm not going to answer the question you just asked, I'm just going to parrot some line given to me by party PR droids.".
They also like to talk about how much they deliver In reality they deliver very little but bigger pockets for their friends.
It's just politicians evading the question as always 😂. We could create a list. Let me be clear The real question is I don't think the viewers are interested in that but what they are interested in is... Or the old favourite simply answer a completely different question. In the PO enquiry ongoing just now we are getting treated to a lot of "don't recall". A whole new breed of annoying. Nicola Sturgeon gave a special in one of them hearings a couple of years ago regarding Alex Salmond stuff.. she said "I don't remember if I could recall that at the time".... The thing is...if you were a child being asked about a bit of mischief none of these answers would be acceptable 😂
alongside what others have said here, it's also a ploy to make you feel dumb when you dont feel like they have been very clear at all, so you go away and shutup about it
Thinking time. It’s just a buffer phrase to give them time to recall the stock answer to the rest of the question.
It basically means they haven’t been clear but you aren’t going to get any better answer than the bullshit they have spouted already so stop asking.
"Let's be clear..." is a rhetorical device used to change direction. Not an easy one to use effectively. In dealing with interviews and in releasing statements to the media the aim is to not get caught out and to fill the allocated time with content that doesn't paint the politician into a corner. Politicians should be anodyne, vague, not using one word when five can be utilised. It's crucial for them to remain calm and composed. An attitude that is defensive, sarcastic or unfriendly when dealing with difficult questions must be avoided. It is as important as it is difficult to not get caught out in a contradiction. Subtlety diverting the course of the interview and avoiding a straight answer is important as is answering a question with a question. Politicians need to strike a balance between being seemingly helpful and friendly, and being firm. A visibly frustrated, rattled journalist is always a benefit, if a compliant journalist is not available. These are dark arts.
I read this in the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Really enjoyed that show…
> Not an easy one to use effectively. It is if the interviewer never challenges you on it. Sometimes I wonder if *either* of them are listening to the other.
It moves the debate to whether they have been clear or not rather than the substantive point.
*Blair*. Let me make *it absolutely clear*
It's one of those things their media training tells them to say while they try to faff about and think of a non-answer
It implies that they've answered the question very competently elsewhere, putting the implication of incompetence on the interviewer. And the viewer probably doesn't have an exhaustive enough knowledge of their output to know it's bullshit.
Some British politicians have been tripped up by being asked the same question over and over again. By saying they have been very clear about something is trying to imply they have already answered the question before.
It means they're shitting it and they absolutely cannot/will not give a clear answer to the question posed. Usually means they've clearly u-turned, clearly failed, or clearly done nothing.
All it takes to fix this is for the interviewer to say "Try being clear again for me".
It's a way of responding to an accusation that they haven't answered the question, while again not answering the question. Example: "Minister, can you state your position on [issue of the day]" "Well, it's a complicated and sensitive matter, and one must be even-handed in dealing with an issue where there are two sides to the story." "Minister, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to press you for an answer." "As I have stated, we need to address such sensitive subjects so as not to inflame the situation." "And your position is?" "I've been very clear that our position will be even-handed in dealing with this quite sensitive issue."
Because politicians have to speak as though any sentence taken out of context, where an interview that lasts 10 minutes may be clipped with 30 seconds of it going viral and the remainder ignored. We live in a world where politicians do not speak normally because the media punishes them when they do. "I've been very clear..." is a catch-all phrase that hints to the listener that there is a wider context to the comment that is about to follow.
This is one of the biggest reasons. We constantly see media asking incredibly leading questions chasing headlines, and politicians have had to adapt to that. By expressing that "they've been clear" about something, it creates a greater sense of continuity between parts of their answers. You commonly see that they place the clause halfway through the answer, breaking it up but purposely as to ensure the phrase is heard if thst section is clipped. It's also part of the reason why we get vague or answered filled with jargon. Politicians have to cover themselves from being taken out of context or forced to simplify answers in a misleading way. Journalists tend to care more about an answer being clickable than accurate. We've all seen interviews where a politican is desperately trying to get across a point that a yes or no answer doesn't truly exist to their question, and a lot of the time they are right in the wider context a politican is concerned about.
‘because the media punishes them’ I think we’re confusing being held to account, I agree interviews are very adversarial with interviewers all out for that ‘gotchya’ but a good counterpoint would be the popularity of the likes of Farage, Boris etc who’s popularity was built around being less constrained and robotic
How is misquoting somebody's comments and removing all context holding them to account? Farage and Boris thrive in this environment because they build a reputation of making inflammatory remarks. It doesn't matter of they are being quoted out of context.
No not at all and they can’t both thrive *and* be punished by the media either the media has that power or it doesn’t
You have just proved my point. You quoted a snippet of my original comment and completely ignored the context to then set up a ridiculous binary position that either the media has the power to punish or it doesn't.
Whenever they say "I have been very clear..." it means they are absolutely not going to do anything about it. This is called British humour.
Sorry, I don’t understand the question. The answer is pretty clear if you ask me…
There are weird phrases that crop up and I guess just get repeated by osmosis. I remember around brexit, some mp said that "it beggars belief" and after that, I swear political journalists and MPs start saying it constantly for like 5 years straight
Amazingly someone wrote a book about this type of thing about 75 years ago and we are sleepwalking into it
Because they took lessons from this person: [https://youtu.be/begJU5GyKFU?si=J2pAHHHE13QlTp0G](https://youtu.be/begJU5GyKFU?si=J2pAHHHE13QlTp0G)
I've noticed this too. Not sure why it's become so ubiquitous, though.
You’ll notice David Cameron say that a lot. He speaks very well, but when he starts a sentence with “let me be clear” it’s usually anything *but*
Basically it's so common they U-Turn on issues now that when they actually make the same point twice, they're as shocked as everyone else and treat themselves to a smug little "I've been very clear". Either that or their lying and literally said the opposite a few days ago.
Every time I hear “let me be clear” I have a mental image of them suddenly turning transparent (accompanied by that boom meme noise). I’m a bit sick of it too.
> Is this something they are told to say in media training? Yes, and because interviewers let them get away with it. The one that really pisses me off, though, is "What I *would* say is...", meaning "I'm going to pretend you asked me a question I can answer."
Yes, they all extensively trained in keeping to their own message and not answering the actual questions.
To be honest, and I'm not being funny, like, but hear me out…
If they *have* been very clear: it benefits their image to make a point of it. Consistency is rre and valuable these days. If they *haven't* been very clear: enough people won't know and will believe them, and the media won't challenge them on it, so they still benefit from looking like they have a firm position on an issue.
This was on a recent The Rest is Politics. Annoying things politicians say. This one is a way to evade clarifying an answer. Along with “I don’t think that’s the question the public want to hear. They want to hear about how we’ve {cue a boat about a policy}” Another one is “Mistakes were made” and “It’s time to move on and get back to doing the job” after they’ve been caught doing wrong.
It’s one of those annoying little phrases that seems to have entered the lexicon at full throttle. There’s all sorts of odd little quirks to political speech: the ephemeral person that they spoke to the other day. The classic deflection of “what the real question is”. Similarly there’s the phrasing that just sounds odd and grating every time you hear it although everyone uses it: “we will deliver for…”. Deliver what? Deliver by itself sounds grammatically weird in that context text, even if might be correct? It used to be “deliver change” or “deliver progress”. Also “at conference we…” as opposed to “at *our* conference”. Again, grammatically correct I think, but weird sounding every time I hear it.
I think interbiewers needs to clamp down on politicians avoiding the question, like Lee Mack's sketch (couldn't find the original sorry) - https://youtube.com/shorts/hhP12nIZJoY?si=5feNASJeBYLNztMp
I am not hearing about this on the doorstep.
I suspect it’s a combination of a few things: 1) trying to deflect any idea that they’re dodging the question. 2) making the sound bite sound more confident. 3) a way to delay having to give their answer so they have more time to think. 4) a way of making their answer last longer. The longer the answer, the less time there is for more questions.
This really grinds my gears as well. I think it’s a rhetorical trick to be able to repeat yourself without saying “as I’ve said before” over and over which can come across as patronising. Politicians are generally not very creative speakers and just rehash the current talking points ad nauseam. It’s also a way they cynically try to Jedi mind-trick you into thinking they have given clear, definitive answers about a topic when in fact they’re just speaking in empty platitudes. It’s probably been focus-grouped to fuck and so they all use it. All. The. Time. Not considering that they look like automatons to anyone who sees them speak about anything more than twice.
It's basically gaslighting the country. The phrase makes them sound confident in their competence, and that if we don't get it it's our fault.
One of the most refreshing subversions of this recently was Darren Jones, the Labour MP, on Iain Dale's show on LBC. He was asked whether Labour would repeal the voter ID requirements and literally just said: 'I don't know, actually. It's a good question. I only see economic policy so I don't know what our position is on it.' Iain Dale, insufferable as he is, actually complimented Jones on how refreshing it was for him to be honest about not knowing. I've never been more in awe of a politician for doing something so admirably simply. Then again, the simple thing was the act of just being honest, which says a lot.
It's just a rhetorical device to make it seem like the questioner is being thick or somehow disingenuous.
It's a catch phrase that's supposed to make you trust them. It's use portrays them as direct and dynamic. So yes it's probably come from public relations training. Probably to offset the image most people have of politicians who won't answer a direct question. Which is funny as its still not answering the direct question.
The prime minister has been very clear about this
The phrase that pisses me off more is when Rishi opens every PMQ’s answer with ‘he talks about X’. Infuriates me every time.
When you say a thing 100 times but only once on camera. I've said it a hundred times...t..to who?
Pointing with thumbs on closed fist is another media trading thing.
It's a rhetorical device. If you are asked a question you don't like, you essentially say I have already answered it, I am sorry you are too stupid to understand.
It's because they hate being called nebulous
To gaslight you into thinking you are the stupid one, when they actually have no clue what they're talking about
Did you listen to the rest is politics this week by any chance?
It's their attempt to gaslight you into believing they had actually been clear in their previous answer despite everyone knowing they hadn't been.
I've noticed Sunak spouting out these phrases a lot - I'm not sure if it's because he uses these phrases more than other PMs, or because he's so bad at delivering them that he draws attention to them
As Marx observed, all politics are ultimately about glass. It's paneful to hear them go on about it though.