Boris Johnson, whatever else he may be, is a journalist with a colourful turn of phrase. His description of Theresa May's Chequers Plan as being like a suicide vest wrapped around the British constitution, with the detonator handed to Brussels, is a skilful and powerful use of language that does credit to his ability as a wordsmith. It has led to his opponents, and supporters of Theresa May, responding in the way that is often nowadays the case. That is rather than dealing with the substance of his words, as powerfully conveyed by this imagery, they instead feign offence and indignation at the imagery itself.
The English language of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Orwell draws its power to conjure up vivid imagery because its depth and texture is built upon the use metaphors, similes, idioms, proverbs, allegories, and other such devices. Skilful writers avoid purple prose, but also avoid cliches or well worn metaphors, always being on the look out, therefore, for new variations on those old themes. Bojo's suicide vest metaphor was a skilful use of such techniques to powerfully convey in a few words, the message he was elaborating. The real question is not about the vehicle he used to convey that message, but the message itself. The fact, is that May's supporters have no ability to challenge the central point that Bojo was setting out against the Chequers' Plan, which everyone knows is dead, and so chose to feign offence and attack the metaphor rather than its substance.
It could be argued that Bojo, thereby failed, in his endeavour, because in his choice of words, he allowed his opponents to divert attention from the substance of his argument on to these irrelevancies. But, then, as I wrote recently, what does that say about the level of politics, indeed the level of culture we have sunk to, if all language, like all politics must be framed in the most bland, the most innocuous, the most banal terms?
The same is true in relation to Chuka Umunna's use of the well worn metaphor about attack dogs. When I wrote about that on Saturday, I made sure not to criticise his use of that choice of words. In fact, as I wrote, there, what I actually find more offensive is the use by some Labour MP's of the terms such as “rabble” to describe their party members. Umunna clearly was not intending to describe party members as dogs, in the use of that phrase, but those MP's who call their party members rabble, are directly aiming that epithet at a specific target, and with clear intent. What was offensive in Umunna's comment was not the use of a common metaphor, but what is behind his words, as I set out on Saturday. What is offensive is the implication in his comments that MP's have a god given right to their sinecures, that party members should not challenge; that the only reason for a Labour MP being a party member is to be an MP, and that denying them of that right is the same as denying them the right to be a party member; that party members should be nothing more than foot soldiers, and that Jeremy Corbyn should pull them into line, to prevent them challenging MP's.
What is offensive in Umunna's comments is that, for three years, Corbyn's opponents have done everything they could to undermine him, and the party, throughout, and still sewing division, with their constant attacks, and now they call on Corbyn, and the vast majority of the party membership to desist from fighting back! For three years, the Labour Right, and their supporters amongst the Tory media, Jewish Tory organisations and so on, have used any word, any phrase that could possibly be misconstrued, any comedic statement that could be taken out of context and given sinister interpretation, so as to attack Corbyn, McDonnell and their supporters. So, it's not surprising that John McDonnell felt justified in turning the tables on Umunna, by criticising his use of the term “attack dogs”, to describe party members passing no confidence votes in right-wing MP's.
But, we should avoid those same kinds of juvenile behaviour of the Right. We are better than that. Instead of playing word games with the likes of Chuka Umunna, it would be better for McDonnell and the party leadership to tackle them head on, in the way Chris Williamson is doing with the Democracy Roadshow. No more pussy footing around over the question of mandatory reselection, and the other democratic reforms required. We should say openly, that the time for the Labour Right is up. We want them out as MP's, and we want new candidates that reflect the party's present membership and ethos. We want mandatory reselection now, and we want to start building the campaign for the next election, immediately on the basis of a new generation of candidates, and policies that can enthuse our voters, and put an end to the constant sniping, and fifth column activities of the PLP.
No comments:
Post a Comment