Skip to main content

Banish off-putting political buzzwords

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02690/david-cameron_2690846b.jpg
David Cameron in front of a buzzword I want scrapped (Image: Daily Telegraph)

Being a keen follower of politics, I find there is nothing more annoying than hearing buzzwords. You know, those overly used terms spoken by politicians with the full intention to relate to their targeted audience - getting down with the kids, if you like. The reality, however, is that they're doing everything in their power to bore the wits of millions.

So I have taken it upon myself to compile a list of such words and phrases that should really not come from anyone's mouth in the foreseeable future. You may want to take an opportunity of using this article as some sort of drinking game whenever you hear or watch a speech or debate and utter such terms - though I wish not to be held responsible for your alcoholic actions. Please feel free to use the comments space at the end of this post to suggest more words you want gone and discuss your reasoning.

Brexit - Us British souls love a good mash-up of words (and I'm sure our friends elsewhere do too), and there have been impressive ones in recent years - brunch, for example, beautifully describes our first meal of the day between the usual breakfast and lunch times. So when the word 'Brexit' was coined, in relation to Britain's looming cancellation of European Union membership, journalists and Twitter users alike were delighted. That was until after the referendum on 23rd June this year, the day when 52% Briton voters decided its fate.

Since then, many of us have been wondering what sort of 'Brexit' we'll be getting. Most recently, there have been rumours that we'd be getting either a 'Hard Brexit' or 'Soft Brexit', as if it's a shortbread biscuit. Some parties are calling it a 'shambolic Tory Brexit' as they claim they've unlocked the truth of what is to come. Of course it's a 'Tory Brexit' - it was the Conservatives who brought up the damn referendum in the first place.

http://d19lga30codh7.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/brexit3.jpg
Brexit used by politicians & activists alike (Image: Vanguard)
It's confusing enough discovering the potential implications of the UK ceasing membership of the EU as it is. I don't want to hear what type of exit we're going to see. So, ditch the term 'Brexit' - it's getting boring and hasn't happened yet. This might be difficult as this has been the hottest talking point this year, but the emphasis is seriously unhealthy.

Working People - Whether you are unable to work due to suffering a life-long illness, a pensioner or a child; you haven't a chance in hell to get the most out of your situation as it's the 'working' people who apparently reap the benefits. All parties are guilty of this as they try to woo members of the outdated class system. The Conservatives go that much further by opening up to 'hard' working people, assuming that some of us are lazy. While this assumption may be true in small numbers, by targeting 'working' people, I feel generations are being ignored in key policy areas. Why not target everyone when addressing generic points?

Class - I'm talking here about the system. It was easy to distinguish in the Victorian era, but should be given the boot today. Before, it was all about wealth and placement in society but now, it's all a muddle. You can live in a council estate (stereotypically 'working' class), graduate with a decent University degree (stereotypically 'middle' class) and dine with the rich (stereotypically 'upper' class) in one go. It is argued that the 'middle' class determines election winners, and are manipulated with idealistic promises. Yet, who is 'middle' class? I believe we have to stop categorising people and treat each individual as an individual - every case is unique and the world is less simple than when Queen Victoria was on the throne.

Immigrant - Migration is part of human nature. From as far back as when humans existed, we moved to new lands, adapt to fresh surroundings and settled. Today, we have over seven billion people living on earth and migration isn't stopping anytime soon. Yet, with humanitarian crises occurring in large parts of the Middle East and Africa, and economic migration popular by people in Eastern Europe - all sacrificing their lives to leave their homes, searching for an improved place of being - those who choose not to take such action, collectively, get emotionally involved and have their say on matters nothing to do with them. Some choose to help and encourage migration, while others are against it. But again, migration is completely normal behaviour. We all have unique circumstances, so why demonise 'immigrants' and call the current situation a 'crisis' when they're running away from such? We'd all do the same if we were in their position.

Leaders' -ism, -ista, -ite - Any Churchill-ites around? How about Wilson-istas? I thought not. So why do many British leaders today have them? We have Blairites and Brownites, apparently to distinguish those who support the ideals of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the past two Labour Prime Ministers. We also have Corbynistas, those loyal to current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Can we quit these pointless '-isms' when the only Blairite is Tony Blair, the only Brownite is Gordon Brown and the only Corbynista is Jeremy Corbyn? Be your own '-ista'!
https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2012/10/21/14/AN10677785Demonstrators%20hol.jpg
Anti-austerity protest (Image: Standard)

Austerity - When the Conservatives led a coalition government from 2010, they imposed so-called austerity measures to 'balance the books'. This meant cutting funds from various departments. Using that word to describe the government's actions then was acceptable. But six years later, that word still bubbles in today's economics. Today, even a small cut is seen as an austerity measure. While Labour, in opposition, claim they're an 'anti-austerity' party, if they reduce funding in, say, defence, could we not argue that as being an 'austerity' measure? Scrap the term and see each cut as a cut, and not over-complicate simple policy decisions.

Feminism - While I have nothing against those who claim to be one, feminism in its original form has been fizzled out and is quickly becoming a social trend. In the past, many feminists have fought great battles for women's workers and equal rights and some argue there's still a way to go. Yet I argue the identity of one is losing its meaning, especially when men claim to be one like London's Mayor Sadiq Khan. No, he isn't. Neither am I. Just because we want reasonable rights for all, that doesn't make us a feminist. That's an insult to those who protested for such rights all those decades ago.

Establishment / Elite - Suddenly, we're all against them. Elitism was one of the reasons why 52% of British voters chose to vote to leave the European Union - breaking the status quo, going against what the establishment's wishes. We're often told 'elitists' are large business owners, bankers and the wealthy. They are likely to be Conservative voters who 'don't care' for the 'silent majority'. But even the Tories want to go against the establishment and big company bosses attempt to reveal their more 'human' side by suggesting they're not part of the 'elite'. Perhaps they're scared they'd lose their popularity but can we not all agree that 'elitism', in its previous form, is dying? Such behaviour may be rife in the eyes of many, however, calling them names isn't going to change their ways.

I chose these words - which I'll be adding as I go along - on the basis of its context, as opposed to tone of which they are said. Otherwise, I'd be adding a whole lot more. Obviously, it's a free world. You can use these words and phrases all you like. But I hope you can resonate with my frustrations of these over-used and now meaningless terms.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Splitting Britain to its eventual death

Londoner Mo Farah and Sheffield-born Jessica Ennis-Hill set to see their cities drift away from Westminster bubble (Image: Daily Mail) I don't know about you, but I'm loving this year's Olympics. The daunting talk about Brazil's corrupt politics, high levels of extreme poverty and the doping scandal are secondary topics for discussion while the spectacular sporting action and country's tourism boost are dominating headlines. But for me, I've been particularly impressed by UK's togetherness in pride for Team GB's overwhelming success so far. The country's dominance in rowing and cycling is something worth celebrating and hopefully they can provide a new wave of inspiration for many that London 2012 sadly couldn't. With Team GB continuing to shine in Rio de Janeiro, it's a big shame that back at home, political leaders are going out of their way in breaking up the country. In this rate, come Tokyo 2020 Olympics or whoever hosts the 2

Sepp Blatter mustn't resign, yet

Fifa President has to clean-up his mess before deciding to leave Living in Blatter-land World football governing body, Fifa's President Sepp Blatter has been under the spotlight for the second consecutive week and again for all the wrong reasons. Last week he banned British isle national sides from wearing a poppy branding the flower "political" but this time around, on countless interviews with major broadcasting companies yesterday, he controversially said that "there is no racism in football" and if racism occurred in a match, then players involved must handshake at the end of the game. This has sparked anger across the world of football including hierarchies of the English Professional Football Association (PFA), football players such as Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand and pundits alike. After hearing those comments by Blatter, people such as myself would bang our heads on brick walls. Today, the 75-year-old went to clarify his previous afterno

Settling the transgender debate like grown-ups

Flag that represents the trans community (Image: The Age) The 'transgender debate' has been hard to escape in recent years. It's impacting many areas of our lives, including in schools , work and sport . Sadly, the media narrative of these stories has made it impossible to rationally discuss how to best support people who have decided to make this life-changing decision, or how to assure their 'opponents' that they aren't being cast aside, or their rights have been taken from them. I'll try and analyse this as level-headed as possible and conclude what we (UK as a whole) should be doing, as a way of being a world leader on what is seen as a divisive matter, where it ought not to be. The current narrative is arguably led by two very different sides - one, the so-called 'pro-trans' groups, who combatively argue that people who want to transition should have easy access to basically everything; from legally changing their gender, to requiring advanced