The political world, not unlike the business world, is obsessed with the importance of communication. Politicians quickly realise that they need to master the language techniques that persuade people to vote in a certain way.

Political language is an indispensable tool to gain power when making public appearances on TV and radio, when talking to journalists, and when answering members of the public’s questions.

In 1946, George Orwell wrote a highly influential essay entitled Language and Politics. He criticises the language used by politicians, stating it is lazy and relies on “stock phrases” rather than any meaningful discourse. So, has much changed in the language of politics?

Many politicians employ language experts to write their speeches and to advise them on how best to project themselves to the electorate. When one dissects the language of politics today, it soon becomes apparent why some feel that politicians have lost touch with reality.

One annoying weakness in political communication is the phenomenon of doublespeak, a term coined by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It refers to “language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words”. It is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. For instances, when a politician admits to “making mistakes”, it is rarely a sign of humility. It is likely a euphemism aimed to retain some credibility with the public after an incident of a severe political failure.

Soundbites are another valuable tool for politicians, especially when elections are approaching. A soundbite is a short sentence or phrase that is easy to remember, often included in a speech made by politicians, and repeated in newspapers, television and radio.

One famous soundbite was ‘Education, Education, Education’, coined by Tony Blair to project himself as the champion of reform to improve the UK’s economic performance. Of course, not much has improved in the UK’s education system since Blair declared himself as a visionary who could halt the decline of his country.

Platitudes are arguably the most annoying feature in many political communications today. Social media, especially Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter), has increased the dose of remarks or statements, especially ones with moral content, that have been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful. Platitudes are even worse than clichés. They are sanctimonious statements that are not only old and overused but often moralistic and imperious.

Orwell saw a direct link between the decay of language and the decay of independent political thought. Good political writers may have different styles, but you will never find a good writer whose work is full of platitudes. To be effective in winning over sceptical readers, political writing must be original and creative, not unoriginal and dull.

A critical analysis of the deluge of political reporting we are subjected to daily will help one understand the phenomenon of political spin – a type of propaganda politicians use to present their desired interpretation of an act or situation rather than explicitly stating the truth.

Caroline Fisher is a former journalist and “spin doctor”, and a professor at the News and Media Research Centre at the University of Canberra, Australia. She argues: “In the social media era, politicians have regained a lot of control. They don’t need the traditional media like they used to; they can publish themselves to their own audiences.”

Strategic lying has indeed become endemic in most political communication.

The insincerity of political communication is often too obvious. When a politician refers to a rival as “my good friend”, you must interpret this as a thinly veiled effort to mask contempt for a colleague under the guise of decorum.

Another detested cliché sounds like, “I am overwhelmed by the encouragement I have been getting from my friends to run for office”. The idea that ordinary people are deeply engaged in the decision-making processes of politicians is laughable.

Election campaigns often prove to be slippery for politicians trying to impress the electors to win their vote. Journalists are getting better at grilling established and wannabe parliamentarians by asking them embarrassing questions.

Almost always, shrewd interviewees want to appear confident in front of the journalist’s microphone when asked uncomfortable questions. The most common tactic is for a politician to reply to a challenging question by saying: “I am glad you asked me this question.”

For those who want to understand more about the shallowness of political communication, I would suggest viewing the evergreen comedies Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister again. They are as relevant today as they were 30 years ago.