Mind your coalition language
I caused a minor stir with some viewers on Sunday night’s programme when I threw in a reference to the “Conservative-led coalition” prompting a brief debate on twitter which, unusually, has changed my mind about the use of the phrase . I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way the media have dubbed the new government “The Coalition”. Removing the party identities removes the focus of praise and blame, making them a new political entity before they have become one merged party and for many people the word “coalition” is laden with positive values.
I felt Ed Miliband’s new spin doctor Tom Baldwin had a fair point of concern when he raised the issue recently so I thought from now on I will vary my language more and at different times refer to “the government”, “the coalition”, “the Conservative-led coalition” and the “Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition” – all of which seem to be accurate. But here’s now the twitter conversation went with Hugo Rifkind of The Times, former Tory aide Danny Finkelstein now also of The Times (these Times people seem very keen on Twitter – have you noticed?), Patrick Hennessy of the Sunday Telegraph and me :
@hugorifkind : what’s with the miliband-inspired “conservative-led coalition business!??” Was that for a bet?
@krishgm : just a bit of variety – it isn’t wrong is it?
@hugorifkind : well no but ed milliteam were lobbying for usage last week. Just a bit depressing it worked. But it is both true and fair, suppose.
@krishgm : i don’t have a problem with coalition, lib dem/conservative coalition, conservative led coalition. they all accurate
@HugoRifkind : OK, but forests is Chris huhne’s remit, right? So could argue that Tory point is not strictly relevant. (Will shut up now)
@krishgm concern noted! [altho Hugo was actually wrong about Chris Huhne - forests is Tory Caroline Spelman's department]
@Dannythefink : conservative led coalition is a value-laden, political description. It asserts something libs deny. It’s not neutral.
@krishgm I see. Ok. Point taken Maybe it should just be “conservative-lib dem coalition” from now
@PatJHennessy : Dont buckle! Conservative-led coalition is exactly what it is and perfectly fine.
@krishgm : @hugorifkind @dannythefink has convinced me, I think
@krishgm: news language needs to stay neutral. If the phrase is so controversial it is best avoided. But agree “coalition” inadequate
@PatHennessy : Not controversial at all and perfectly neutral. Just @Dannythefink talking b0ll0 !
So at the end of this exchange here’s what I think : I believe it is fair to describe the coalition as “conservative led” because there are far more Conservatives in it, their policies dominate the coalition agreement and the key offices of state (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary) are all held by Conservatives. However I can see there is a Liberal Democrat argument that no coalition is strictly “led” because it is a coalition – an agreement based on compromise in which all parties are technically equal. So the use of “Conservative-led” becomes value-laden as to use it is to dismiss the Liberal Democrat argument and agree with a Labour spin doctor. So because of the associated controversy my own view is currently that I should avoid the phrase. However the exclusive use of “coalition” feels equally unfair and controversial so I think I should use a variety of different, accurate terms : government, coalition, Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, Conservative and Lib Dem government, etc. Unless anyone can convince me of a different position. Of course it is perfectly likely that my editors, who usually settle such dilemmas, might make a ruling (knowing my luck they already have and I am in breach of it). But I’m keen to know what you think. Either here or on twitter.
There are 35 comments on this post
It’s a coalition led by a Conservative Prime Minister thus making it, quite literally, a Conservative-led Coalition
Perfect.
That is all you need, Guru.
But if you chose “coa-bloody-lition”, like The Royle Family, I wouldn’t object at all.
To say that the coalition is Tory-led is a simple fact. It greatly annoys them though as they are hoping that they can do the worst of their mission of wiping out a goodly chunk of the public realm while keeping the LibDems in place as their figleaf.
It’s baffling how linguistics have such a huge effect on a phrase.
KGM (Not to be confused with KGB) I love your take on it.
Britain’s governing coalition?
Conservative-dominated?
Maybe if you had thought about this before being instructed by Baldwin I might agree!
Conservative-dominated or Lib Dem-modified – I think it depends on the issue or policy. A piece by Ray Snoddy on the BBC licence fee deal showed it was a Lib Dem modified rather than Conservative-dominated decision.
Let’s take the word “Conservative” from our party and the word “Party” from your name…
Courtesy of Spitting Image many years ago.
Presumably you will be referring to the ‘Union-led Opposition’ from now on, right?
But no, it should hardly surprise you that names are value-laden. Especially when they’re originating with the opposition!
Patently not – as it isn’t. If you cannot see the difference between this argument on how to describe the coalition and the leadership of a separate political party, you are plainly trying to make a political point which is irrelevant to this discussion. In any case, you are factually wrong, both in terms of who is leader, the voting procedures in the Labour party and Milliband’s expressed comments re certain strikes. You use a technique, recommended by Goebbels, of telling a plausible untruth (or, at best, something with a small element of truth in it) & trying to repeat it as often as possible in any context in the hope that people will believe it. The Conservatives & LibDems are trying a lot of ths, but it has been noticed & will be opposed.
Um, chill, mate. It was what is commonly known as a ‘joke’.
Nice shoehorning in off a Nazi reference, though – classy!
Anyway, I agree – the Unions won the Labour Leadership fare and square. No point arguing about it.
And in continuing the jester spirit…
It might be Tory central banging a drum for “Conservative-led coalition” come the next general election if they is something to shout about, with Lib Dems pushing for parity whatever the fortunes, and if the partners don’t deliver Labour might push for parity too.
KGB in 3 comments.
Nazi in 10 comments.
Whatever happened to comparisons to good nu British political spin? :^\
Krishnan,
How about “public school boy/barrow boy/big business/Toadies to Yanks/war mongering/spiv coalition”?
I know it’s a bit of a mouth full but it’s a good deal more accurate than the entire content of twitspeak.
Loving the sheer historical denial of this – better than Hollywood. Labour took us to war, in Iraq, in Afghanistan.
Its moot that the Tories supported it, though I’m sure they would argue that in times of War you stand with the country right or wrong.
Either way, whether the coalition is Tory Led, Tory Dominated etc, another war would break it, so there’s at least one benefit of that we can all accept.
Your position that the Tories are all toffs is risible. Sure, there’s plenty of the Bullingdon club there, but governments are elected by all the people on our democracy, not just the rich and plenty of working class people vote Tory.
And its not like Labour doesn’t have its quota of posh peeps. Starting with Harman, who had elocutions lessons to make herself less posh and is from one of England’s oldest aristocratic families. I could do you a list. From Debretts.
The underlying logic of this kind of tosh is that only working class people should have the vote.
Krishnan, if you stop using conservative-led now you will be buckling to pressure from Danny Tory-boy Finkelstein, and you’ll have nothing but tweets from Ed Balls.
The coalition (or stitch up as I prefer to think of it) is very much led by the conservatives, not only in personel but also in policy.
Danny, like his mates Cameron and Osborne, want to use the lib-dems as a human shield. They want the conservative party linked as little as possible to the student fees, slashing cuts, unemployment and privatisation of the NHS even though they are all part of the tory ideology and you will be supporting that if you don’t occasionally point out that it is very much a conservative-led coalition.
Its astonishing how the Spitting Images epithet ‘Tory Boy’ sticks. Its such a powerful image.
Shame there isn’t a similar character for the equally nauseous Socialist Youth, the sort of creep epitomised by Rick in the Young Ones
What’s wrong with “the government”?
“It’s a coalition led by a Conservative Prime Minister thus making it, quite literally, a Conservative-led Coalition”
“To say that the coalition is Tory-led is a simple fact.”
Good. So we’re all agreed on terminology. It’s all down to numbers, party strength and who the leader is.
The Conservative-led coalition defeated the Nazis in 1945.
Rob @ 11.41 a.m.,
Wrong.
Using your definition, the Nazis were defeated by a coalition of military forces led by the Soviet Union, who were greater in numbers, “better” politically organised and more powerful in the Eastern front than were the Allies in the Western front. The Soviet Union also suffered twenty million casualities out of a total of fifty million casualities and suffered much greater loss in its socioeconomic life.
Here, here’s your petard back.
It was a Labour-led decision in the War Cabinet that stopped Britain from trying to negotiate a peace with Hitler in 1940 – among the Conservatives, Chamberlain and Lord Halifax were for it, while Churchill was, of course, resolutely opposed. It was the votes of Labour’s Attlee and Greenwood that decided it.
Okay drop, Conservative led, coalition, tory dominated etc.
Junta will do just fine.
Rather insensitive to those actually living under a Junta, don’t you think. Or is the wealthy losing out on their child benefit really as traumatic as being tortured to death?
Maybe for a middle-class socialist it actually is? It’s difficult to tell.
PM Conversative, but would not be PM without Lib Dems.
?Policies/?people taking the lead..If one figurehead makes unilaterally all the decisions,then DC is the lead BUT if the coalition, whatever the numbers/party, has powers of persuasion to direct policies in the name of that party then there is not a lead. It is credit reversal, if other is stated.
I am satisfied with the term ‘coalition’ . It is a temporary measure of how parties can work together and for that alone it is being measured.
Just to clarify that comment .
The measure of the terminology to correspond to the factual situation must take into account ,the other party . Both parties could not have been in the orginal position alone , therefore none has right to superior accredditation.
We now see how both are vyeing for superiority in this power struggle , which should not in fact be apparent, but rather a display of team work people should not lead and policy take priority to be fairly judged.
DC’s job is the PM, but only with permission of the Lib Dems, for the coalition could not have been formed without this permission.
If they can prove how they can work together,at the next election the public may give one of them permission to be in power.
Here in Wales the Labour/Plaid coalition in the Welsh Assembly is often referred to as ‘Labour-led’ as Labour has many more seats.
Conservative-led is an accurate description and judging by recent polling one most people wpuld agree with.
58% polled thought the Lib Dems had little or no positive effect on the government.
I think Vince Cable was talking about action and not the fruits of action.
IF (and it is a very big IF), the current co-government manages to solve the deficit, crack inflation, reduce unemployment, revive industry, improve public service efficiency, start reducing taxes, refresh democracy and create a general feeling of well-being and happiness by the time of the next election, will the Labour supporters still demand that it be referred to as the “Tory-led Coalition” ?
And if Cameron’s boys and girls are indeed so confident that they will achieve monumental success in that timeframe, surely they shouldn’t be objecting to having their party-label in the forefront of the nomenclature ?
And both scenarios lead to one inescapable conclusion – the Lib-Dems end up nowhere. If the coalition is a success, they won’t get the credit, but if it’s a failure, they’ll get the blame. It’s a tough old world, Nick.
Krishnan
This Government (and all previous UK Governments of modern times) are made up of individuals, not parties. Usually all the individuals are from one party, so we’ve gotten used to calling it “the Conservative Government”, “the Labour Government” and so on. But this is still a misconception, albeit a widely-held one. The technical term for the present Government is “the Cameron Government” (or, to be scrupulously precise, “the Cameron Ministry”). The term “Conservative-led Government” is partially correct (since Cameron is a Conservative), but mostly false (if Cameron resigned his membership of the Conservative party this second, his Premiership does not instantly lapse).
If you don’t want to use the legal term, then the question becomes “well, what term do you use?” Your observation “Removing the party identities removes the focus of praise and blame…” is indicative here. Under the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, the Cabinet collectively bears responsibility for individual Ministerial actions – legally, there is no focus of praise or blame. So you can legally describe it as “the Coalition Government”. If you want to neutralise it as much as possible, you can call it “a coalition government”, or “the coalition Government” without the capital.
Failing this, C4 News have reported on coalitions in the past (Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc). How did you describe those governments?
I hope this has helped you.
The argument against “tory-led” coalition is that it’s redundant (your viewers know the arrangement), so to include it suggests you are trying to make a point and therefore does make it value-laden.
Simply calling it the coalition, on the other hand, is in no way unfair: yes, it suggests responsibility cannot be properly attributed solely to the Conservatives. That’s because it reflects the reality: it can’t. In the current climate of cuts it’s a political benefit inherent in the arrangement. (There are plenty of disadvantages too.)
It is one, of course, a benefit that Tom Baldwin would like to see removed, but there’s no journalistic reason to do so.
You didn’t call it “The Fianna Fail led coalition government”, you called it “the Irish Government”
You didn’t call it “The CDU-CSU led coalition government”, you called it “the German Government”
You didn’t call it “The Il Popolo della Libertà led coalition Government”, you called it “the Italian Government”
You didn’t call it “The Labour led coalition government”, you called it “the Welsh Assembly Government”
Given this, it’s difficult to understand why you’re calling it “the Conservative-led Government”
In Ireland, for what it’s worth, we’ve had a range of terms for our coalition governments. ‘The Government’ has always worked as a phrase, but when its composition was relevant we’d vary depending on composition and relevance.
‘Rainbow Coalition’ or ‘Inter-Party Government’ worked well to describe coalition governments with more than one party.
‘Fianna Fail-led Government’ was very common in referring to our governments over the past fourteen years, especially the Fianna Fail-Green Coalition of the last three. However, there was a common and largely accurate perception that when the Progressive Democrats were in government as very much a minority party they nonetheless proved the tail that wagged the Fianna Fail dog. In that context, it often made sense to speak of ‘The Fianna Fail – PD Government’. ‘The Government’ was always a safe phrase.
I can only sigh at all this argument when the coalition is so clearly ”Conservative-led”. That’s a fact. The rest is semantics or just tripe.
Given your earlier analogy of blogging and the gym, I fear you are a little short of breath walking up hill in blogsville
Don’t forget there are old men out here who rely on this for distraction in preference to day time telly.
“and for many people the word “coalition” is laden with positive values”
Why is that a reason not to use it? A coalition government is a positive step forward. I want consensual politics. Tribalism has damaged our political debate, poisoned society and adversely affected everything from the economy to public services. We need more coalitions in every walk of society.