One phrase that is as popular with politicians as ‘middle class’ is ‘working people’. In the UK, it appears 21 times in the Labour Party’s last manifesto and 12 times in that of the Conservative Party. According to the House of Commons records, it has been used more than 3,500 times in the last decade.
I don’t have statistics on how often ‘working person’ or its local version of ‘ħaddiem’ is used by politicians locally, but I am sure its meaning is as woolly as in most other countries. So, do you consider yourself a working person?
Almost everywhere, politicians resort to a salad-like cascade of words that confuses people. Rather than enlighten their audiences on what they stand for, they create communication barriers that ultimately increase the mistrust many people have in their political leaders.
Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer was asked by a journalist attending the Commonwealth Conference in Samoa whether anyone whose income derived from assets, such as shares or property, could be considered a working person.
Starmer promptly replied: “Well, they would not come within my definition”. He added that his definition was “the sorts of working people who go out, work hard and maybe save a bit of money but do not have the wherewithal to write a cheque to get out of difficulties”.
The British media immediately sparked a public debate on whether Starmer’s narrow interpretation of working people indicated that Labour would not stick to its promise of not increasing taxes on working people. Were people with unearned earnings like rental income from property, dividends and capital gains going to see higher taxes? The political outfall from Starmer’s limited semantics mastery was too dangerous to leave unaddressed.
Starmer’s spokesperson later clarified, saying the prime minister did not think owners of shares fell outside his definition of working people, adding that his definition would include people who “have a small amount of savings or shares”.
Of course, ordinary people have their own understanding of what working is about.
A vox pop exercise by Sky News asked traders in a market whether anyone whose income derived from assets, such as shares and property, could be considered a working person. One person said he has some shares, which he described as insignificant, but says he works 14-hour days on a market stall and does not consider those shares capable of rendering him ineligible to sit Starmer’s description. He argued: “If you have worked all your life and invested in your future, why shouldn’t you be allowed to keep it?”
Politicians are often victims of their own flawed communications strategy
Politicians are often victims of their own flawed communications strategy. They resort to doublespeak and understatement when they should engage in some hard talk to help ordinary people understand the challenges ahead. They also flaunt their humble family origins to convince ordinary people who work hard to survive that they are ‘one of us’. In reality, they are just not in the real world anymore. They are out of touch.
Modern political communication techniques are one of the reasons more people are losing trust in politics.
In a BBC interview, David Blunkett, the Labour peer and Blair-era cabinet minister, said he had been stopped by several recently retired people who asked where they fit under the ‘working people’ categorisation.
“I do not have a particular answer for them, actually,” Blunkett confessed.
Former New York governor Mario Cuomo’s quote: “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose,” captures the contrasting nature of political rhetoric and practical governance.
During campaign season, political leaders often rely on poetic language, grand visions and emotional appeals to inspire and captivate the masses. Using metaphorical language and idealistic promises can create a sense of hope and unity among the electorate, encouraging people to rally behind a shared vision for change.
Effective leadership requires both the ability to inspire and unite and the capacity to translate vision into action, navigate the complexities of governance and uphold the values and principles that underpin our political institutions. It challenges us to consider the power of language, the realities of governing and the enduring tension between idealism and pragmatism in pursuing a more just and equitable society.
More people are becoming immune to the mesmerising effect of political rhetoric wizardry. They are not impressed with platitudes aimed at convincing them that they are at the centre of attention of political parties’ strategies. They do not like being stuck with labels like ‘working people’ by political leaders who live in a virtual reality bubble.