Today I have listened to interviews with two prominent Labour politicians, John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary. In the latter interview the interviewer, John Sopel, raised an issue that related to a speech Miliband gave some time ago. He had said in that speech he said that the "Labour Party can win the next election".
At the time the press pounced on his use of "can" suggesting that it was equivalent to saying "probably won't". It was interesting because Hutton had used exactly the same form of words earlier in his interview.

Miliband became quite agitated and said that all that he had meant was that labour can win and he had chosen "can" instead of "will" because you should never take things for granted, should never be complacent. Of course he has a point. He didn't go on to suggest, though he could have, that the use of "will" could be interpreted as arrogant. I never heard his original speech so I can't comment. I did however hear John Hutton say those words and he stressed them as
"labour CAN win" and hearing the rise and fall of his voice with this particular stress the inescapable impression was that he was saying that it was unlikely.
This may not have been his intent, but it certainly was his result. The meaning of "we can WIN" is considerably different from "we CAN win" and different again from "WE can win". I suspect that they know all this but that what they really feel comes out in the way they emphasise things rather than what they are trying to pretend they feel.

With that said the word choice issue is a bit of a no-win situation here. Use "can" and be accused of a lack of confidence, use "will" and be accused of arrogance.

Anyone have any thoughts on these forms of words and politicians choice of what they say?

It doesn't matter what or how politicians say anything. If it suits their purpose, the opposition will seize on what is perceived to be a weakness or a misstatement (even when it is not) and attempt to use it to their advantage.

Fascinating.

I think the context is essential in looking at things like this.

Probably also, a politician should avoid such statements put so directly. Had the sentence continued with ..., and will if ..., then at least the argument would be over what the if was.

This would have been much more so, had he said "Labour should win..."

To me, "can" = possess the capacity; "will" = have the intent, whereas "shall"= unequivocal and assured intent.

I agree with Proofreader that political speak is little more than nit-picking nattering.

Asa: That's the usual US understanding. In the UK, though, shall and will have, or at least had, very different usages.

quote:

If it suits their purpose, the opposition will seize on what is perceived to be a weakness or a misstatement (even when it is not) and attempt to use it to their advantage.

I am in total agreement. In the U.S. even though one politician has himself used the words "lipstick on a pig" regarding a woman candidate, that same politician criticized another for using that same phrase, calling the politician sexist. I will never understand how the American public can let the politicians get away with stuff like that.

Does the US electorate get the politicians it deserves, or does it not deserve the politicians it gets?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Does the US electorate get the politicians it deserves, or does it not deserve the politicians it gets?

The same could be asked of the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Does the US electorate get the politicians it deserves, or does it not deserve the politicians it gets?

You have struck one of my favorite chords, Richard. We deserve precisely what we get. You don't have to be too savvy to be a pol over here-- a cheerleader will do. We don't like putting a lot of money into public schools. And the pittance we put in had better be used in a politically correct manner-- horrors, not for anything that might teach the little buggers how to discern between lying candidates!

quote:

how to discern between lying candidates!

There is no visible difference, unless one inadvertently tells the truth.

quote:

There is no visible difference, unless one inadvertently tells the truth.

Which, of course, means the end for his or her political career.

It's happened in the past, most memorably to me with Edwina Curry a while ago and I reckon it'll happen soon with our present Chancellor. He made the mistake of admitting that our country's finances are in a dreadful mess and came close to admitting that he can't do anything about it. Of course, all savvy citizens know this - but they don't like to hear it voiced.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
...our present Chancellor. He made the mistake of admitting that our country's finances are in a dreadful mess and came close to admitting that he can't do anything about it. Of course, all savvy citizens know this - but they don't like to hear it voiced.

Look quickly! For the next 24-48 hrs in the wake of yesterday's [inevitable, to savvy citizens] Wall St debacle, we're getting treated to the fastest, most adept tapdancing since the Nicholas Brothers came down the staircase in Stormy Weather

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,

I have been saying for a long time, to those who will listen, that the US economy is in a dreadful state and riding for a fall. The USA has been living on borrowed money for years and now has the biggest debt in the history of the world. Today it's $31,798.92 - per US citizen, and will soon be more when the US Government steps in to prop up or otherwise rescue Lehman Brothers. Take a look here http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The debt is presently being met by by printing fiat currency and, for the moment, the world still believes that the dollar has some worth. Sadly, that won't last and we are now seeing only the beginning of the crash. Sadly the collapse of the US economy will not even allow most of the rest of the world to revel in the epicaracy of the situation, since all western economies will follow the USA's - Britain's first.

Watch out for further purchases of US, UK and other European assets by Arabs, Russians, Chinese and other countries who are now holding billions of depreciating dollars and want to put them into something that will keep its value.

quote:

soon be more when the US Government steps in to prop up or otherwise rescue Lehman Brothers.

From what I understand of the situation, the US government is allowing Lehman Brothers to file for Chapter 11 bankcruptcy protection. Surely, if they intended to bail them out, they'd have acted before the company officially went bust?

You'd have thought so - but they might be hoping that some other bank will step in and rescue them. Some hopes!

Now they've already stepped in to rescue Fannie and Freddie, I reckon they'll rescue Lehman Bros. Which means that all US taxpayers take the loss rather then just those with credit with Lehman Bros.