Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BRITISH MEDIA AND THE USE OF “SOCIALIST” AS A
DEROGATORY TERM – an approach from Critical Discour se Analysis
Facoltà di Filosofia, Lettere, Scienze Umanistiche e Studi Orientali Corso di laurea in Mediazione Linguistica e Interculturale
Candidata Claudia Viggiano 1333968 Relatrice Mary Louise Wardle A.A. 2012/2013
to Great Britain,
the country where
“the grass is greener”.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….1
1. THE “CAPITALIST” AND THE “SOCIALIST” …………………………..5
1.1 The Beecroft Report……………………………………………………….5
1.1.1 Vincent Cable’s reaction……………………………………………..7
1.1.2 Beecroft’s branding of Cable as a “socialist”………………………..8
1.2 Party politics in Britain ……………………………………………………9
1.3 The Socialist tradition in Britain ………………………………………...10
1.3.1 The analyses of Socialism applied to the Beecroft-Cable case…….13
2. THE BRITISH PRESS………………………………………………………15
2.1 Broadsheet newspapers – the quality press…………………………….18
2.1.1 Tabloid newspapers – the popular press…………………….......21
2.1.2 “Mid-market”newspapers……………………………………….....24
2.1.3 “Red top” tabloids…………………………………………………..25
3. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:
Philosophy, strategies and aims……………………………………………..27
3.1 What is “discourse” in Critical Discourse Analysis?..............................27
3.2 Power and ideology……………………………………………………….30
3.3 Capitalism and hegemony………………………………………………..32
3.4 From Foucault to Fairclough…………………………………………….34
3.5 Michael Halliday’s Functional Grammar ………………………………36
3.5.1 Transitivity………………………………………………………….38
3.6 Pragmatics………………………………………………………………...45
3.6.1 Social actors………………………………………………………...45
3.6.2 Naming and reference………………………………………………46
3.6.3 Collocational patterns………………………………………………47
3.6.4 Deictic expressions…………………………………………………47
3.6.5 Frames………………………………………………………………48
3.6.6 Entailments and presuppositions…………………………………...48
3.6.7 Modality…………………………………………………………….50
3.6.8 Figures of speech…………………………………………………...51
3.7 Applying Critical Discourse Analysis to Press Discourse……………...53
4. CASE STUDY: TEXTUAL ANALYSIS ……………………………………56
4.1 The language of articles vs. the language of editorials…………………56
4.2 A Right-wing article vs. a Left-wing article:
The Daily Mail vs. The Guardian………………………………………...58
4.2.1 Context, contents and expectations………………………………...58
4.2.2 Typographical features and graphics……………………………....59
4.2.3 Headlines…………………………………………………………...60
4.2.4 Punctuation…………………………………………………………61
4.2.5 Transitivity and modality…………………………………………..61
4.2.6 Lexis…………………………………………………………..........62
4.2.7 Deixis……………………………………………………………….63
4.3 A Right-wing broadsheet editorial vs. a Left-wing broadsheet editorial:
The Daily Telegraph vs. The Independent……………………………….63
4.3.1 Context, contents and expectations………………………………...63
4.3.2 Typographical features and graphics………………………………64
4.3.3 Headlines…………………………………………………………...65
4.3.4 Punctuation…………………………………………………………66
4.3.5 Transitivity and modality…………………………………………..66
4.3.6 Lexis………………………………………………………………..68
4.3.7 Deixis……………………………………………………………….68
4.3.8 Frames………………………………………………………………69
4.3.9 Rhetorical tropes, slang words and figurative language……………69
4.4 A Right-wing tabloid editorial vs. a Left-wing tabloid editorial:
The Sun vs. The Daily Mirror…………………………………………….71
4.4.1 Context, contents and expectations………………………………...71
4.4.2 Typographical features and graphics……………………………….73
4.4.3 Headlines...........................................................................................73
4.4.4 Punctuation…………………………………………………………75
4.4.5 Transitivity………………………………………………………….75
4.4.6 Lexis…………………………………………………………..........76
4.4.7 Deixis……………………………………………………………….78
4.4.8 Frames………………………………………………………………79
4.4.9 Rhetorical tropes, puns, slang words……………………………….79
4.5 Commentary………………………………………………………………81
4.5.1 Right-wing article vs. Left-wing article…………………………….82
4.5.2 Right-wing broadsheet editorial vs. Left-wing broadsheet editorial.83
4.5.3 Right-wing tabloid editorial vs. Left-wing tabloid editorial………..85
4.5.4 General comment and critical remarks……………………………..87
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….89
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………91
SITOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………….94
APPENDIX 1 – The Beecroft Report………………………………………98
APPENDIX 2 – The Daily Maily…………………………………………...127
APPENDIX 3 – The Guardian……………………………………………...132
APPENDIX 4 – The Daily Telegraph………………………………………134
APPENDIX 5 – The Independent…………………………………………..136
APPENDIX 6 – The Sun……………………………………………………139
APPENDIX 7 – The Daily Mirror…………………………………………..140
RINGRAZIAMENTI ……………………………………………………….142
1
INTRODUCTION
«But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.»1
The aim of this dissertation is to explore how ideology is embedded in political and
newspaper discourse and therefore how it influences and manipulates everyday
language. In the course of this work I will be using a particular framework, known as
Critical Discourse Analysis, to examine a news story investigated here as a “case
study”: the reaction and the counter-reaction to the publication of the “Beecroft
Report” on employment law, an event which shocked public opinion in Great Britain
and which will be regarded here as “the Socialist case”. The body of the case study
will include six articles published in British newspapers between 23 and 25 May,
2012; I will compare the six excerpts in sets of two: a right-wing and a left-wing
article; a right-wing and a left-wing broadsheet editorial; a right-wing and a left-wing
tabloid editorial.
Starting from the assumption that language is created and creative at the same time, it
may be argued that those who have the power to access language in its public sphere,
those who are more visible, are the ones who are most likely to be influential to the
masses; therefore political discourse plays an essential role in the shaping of ideology
as “common-sense” knowledge. The Press and the media in general are an important
part of this process, since they are the primary conveyors of the news stories the public
absorbs.
1 Orwell, G., “Politics and the English Language”, 1946, http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html
2
The encoding of ideology in discourse is the main focus of Critical Discourse
Analysis, a multifaceted discipline that works with texts in order to find the “hidden
agendas” entailed in them. The event chosen as a case study is interesting to the extent
that it provides the analyst with valid grounds for investigation.
The Beecroft Report, a capitalist-oriented attempt to “boost the economy”, received
many negative reactions when it was published, in May 2012. Its author, Adrian
Beecroft, is a venture capitalist, as well as a Tory donor and adviser..
Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business – a Liberal Democrat – defined the
proposals as “bonkers” since one of the recommendations in the report included the
possibility, for the employer, to fire at will. In reply, Beecroft accused Cable of being
“a Socialist”, a referential strategy which was used by the Tory adviser with negative
connotations.
In the first chapter of this work I will summarise the contents of the Beecroft Report
and provide an overview of the news story as it was contextualised within the frame of
British politics. In the second section, I will provide an outline of British Party politics
and the structure of the British Government, and then move on to analyse the current
coalition government. In the third section, Owen Jones’ editorial in The Independent
will serve as a starting point for the development of a brief, diachronic study of the
Socialist tradition in Britain, and the reasons for the adjective “Socialist” being
regarded as a derogatory form of address.
The second chapter will be focused entirely on the British Press and its structure: the
first section will concentrate on broadsheets – the so-called “quality press”; the
second, instead, will be centred upon the “popular press”, which is split into two sub-
categories: “mid-market” papers and “red-top” tabloids. In both sections, I will list the
main national publications and analyse their structure, their popularity and their
reading target, putting a stress on the political leanings of each paper.
The third chapter will serve as an analytical framework for the case study. As
mentioned above, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a multi-disciplinary method
for investigating the ideologies embedded in discourse. Therefore, the first part of this
3
chapter will concentrate on the theoretical and philosophical basis of this procedure.
Drawing on Critical Linguistics, Philosophy, Sociology and Anthropology, CDA
embraces the concept of discourse as a form of “social practice”: the discursive event
is in a dialectical relationship with the social structures which frame it, therefore it is
shaped by them, but it also shapes them. As a consequence, power is achieved and
maintained through the use of manipulated discourse, and this is why CDA harshly
criticises the capitalist system above all: since those who are powerful are also the
owners of the media, the aim is to keep the structure intact, thus driving society into
thinking that there are no alternatives to the status quo; this is Gramsci’s concept of
hegemony.
In the fifth section I will illustrate Michael Halliday’s Functional Grammar: a
framework that sees grammar as semantics and representation, therefore related to the
social element of discourse. In particular, transitivity is an essential tool for CDA
because it construes the world of experience into a set of processes (doing, seeing,
saying etc.), and the analysis of these processes is essential for identifying ideology.
In the second part of the third chapter I will list the pragmatic strategies used by CDA
in actual discourse analysis; in other words, what to look for in the investigation:
social actors, naming options and referential strategies, lexical choices, collocational
patterns, deixis, frames, presuppositions, modality and rhetorical devices (such as
figures of speech and figurative language in general). I will then introduce the
application of these tools to newspaper discourse, with its peculiarities and differences.
The fourth chapter will be the body, the case study of this work; the theoretical
framework summarised in the previous chapter will be applied to the “Socialist case”
through the analysis of six pieces: two articles and four editorials. The first section will
summarise the differences between the language of articles and that of editorials.
In the second section I will compare a right-wing article with a left-wing article: on the
one hand The Daily Mail, on the other The Guardian; the second section, instead, will
concentrate on two broadsheet editorials, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent,
whereas the third section will compare two tabloid editorials, The Sun and The Daily
Mirror . The analyses will be followed by a commentary, which will include my
personal interpretation of the events.
4
The final goal set by this work, then, is to unveil the ideological positions of
newspapers in regard to the “Socialist case”, and see how the authors of the six articles
reacted to it, and whether or not the term may ultimately be connoted negatively.
5
1
THE “CAPITALIST” AND THE “SOCIALIST”
«I was perturbed to be woken on Tuesday morning by a whirring sound in the distance.
I realised it must have been Karl Marx spinning violently in his Highgate Cemetery grave.»2
The object of this first chapter is to provide a historical and political background for
the analysis which will be presented in the next chapters. In order to fully apply
Critical Discourse Analysis, a case study is needed.
The event here chosen as a case study took place in Great Britain in May, 2012,
provoking different reactions in the public sphere, especially among parties and the
media.
1.1 THE BEECROFT REPORT
A controversial Report on Employment Law was signed on 24 October, 2011.3 The
author, Adrian Beecroft, is a venture capitalist and Tory adviser;4 he was contracted to
write the report by Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s advisor.
2 Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit,
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html 3 Adrian Beecroft, Report on Employment Law, http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-
matters/docs/r/12-825-report-on-employment-law-beecroft.pdf
6
This document, entitled “Report on Employment Law”, seeks to reform laws on
employment, by mainly reducing costs in order to support the growth of business:
Beecrof himself declared it would «boost the economy».5
The main points raised by the report are the following:
• Unfair dismissal: according to the report, in order to keep the economy moving,
an essential step forward would be the possibility, for the employer, to dismiss
the “underperforming” employees. Therefore, Beecroft suggests that «the whole
concept of unfair dismissal where discrimination is not involved could be
removed from UK law».6 The approach he suggests is that of allowing
employers to fire at will, provided they make an enhanced leaving payment.7
• Automatic enrolment for pensions: according to Beecroft, enrolling in a pension
scheme should not be mandatory, and micro-businesses should be excluded
from this set.8
• Flexibility at work, especially for small businesses, should be opted out if the
managers require it. This may apply to parental leave as well.
• Licensing for employers of children should not be mandatory, according to the
report.
Such a strong proposal certainly reflects Beecroft’s ideological view and political
position, supporting the capitalist employer and, as a commentator from The Sun
observes, it is not clear how effectively it might get the economy moving.9
Nevertheless, the aim of this work is not to prove Mr Beecroft wrong, but instead to
analyse the reactions from the government and the Press when the report was leaked
4 Robert Winnett, 'Socialist' Vince Cable not fit for office, says Adrian Beecroft,
22/5/2012,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9283748/Socialist-Vince-Cable-not-fit-for-office-says-Adrian-Beecroft.html. 5 Nicholas Watt, Juliette Jowit, Vince Cable accused of being a socialist by Tory donor, 23/5/2012,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/23/vince-cable-socialist-tory-donor?INTCMP=SRCH 6 Adrian Beecroft, Report on Employment Law, http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/r/12-825-report-on-employment-law-beecroft.pdf, p. 4 7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., p. 10 9 Rod Liddle, Thanks for help with the economy, Dr Evil, 24/5/2012, http://www.scribd.com/doc/94683393/The-
SUN-24-Thursday-May-2012, p. 11
7
and then published. On 20 May, 2012, The Daily Telegraph released the content of the
proposals, to which the official publication followed shortly.10
1.1.1 Vincent Cable’s reaction
The most famous reaction to the publication of the report is essential for the analysis
because it arose from within the government; in fact it was the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation and Skills, Vincent Cable who, on 21 May, 2012, declared that
At a time when workers are proving to be flexible in difficult economic conditions
it would almost certainly be counterproductive to increase fear of dismissal. […]
One of Mr Beecroft’s recommendations was a suggestion to bring in no-fault
dismissal. In my daily conversations with businesses, this has very rarely been
raised with me as a barrier to growth.11
Certainly, though, Cable’s most famous reaction was his definition of the proposals as
“bonkers”;12 it was a controversial statement, considering that it came from a member
of the same coalition government which commissioned the adviser to write the report.
Moreover, Cable added that such a dilution of workers’ rights would even be a threat
to the confidence of the consumer.13 Even more shocking is the fact that Cable was
speaking on behalf of the whole parliamentary group of the Liberal Democrats, the
third largest party in Britain and part of the current coalition government.
In the second section of this chapter, an account of British Party politics will be
provided in order to clarify the current situation, but first it is essential to focus on
Beecroft’s counter-attack, which came after Cable’s critique.
10
Telegraph View, The Beecroft report offers a key to growth, 20/5/2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9276800/The-Beecroft-report-offers-a-key-to-growth.html 11
Vince Cable, Statement by Vince Cable on the Beecroft report on employment law, 21/5/2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/beecroft-report-on-employment-law 12
Martin Robinson, Welcome to the People’s Republic of Britain: 'Socialist' Cable and his 'Communist' comrade Clegg are accused of stifling real Tory policies, 23/5/2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148546/Adrian-Beecroft-accuses-socialist-Vince-Cable-comrade-Nick-Clegg-stifling-real-Tory-policies.html 13
Ibid.
8
1.1.2 Beecroft’s branding of Cable as a “Socialist”
The sharp reply to the “bonkers” incident came straight after the accusation: in order to
defend his proposals and put Cable in a bad light, Beecroft told The Telegraph that
He is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he’s one of the Left. […]
I think people find it very odd that he’s in charge of business and yet appears to
do very little to support business
adding that Cable’s objections are «ideological, not economic»14.
The way Beecroft brands the term “socialist” as a derogatory one is quite peculiar, but
not new. As Owen Jones observes, the transformation of the word into a “swear word”
has found safe ground in British politics since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc;15
moreover, Richard Seymour underlines how this vilifying meaning is present in the
United States as well, though with a more traditional basis than in the UK16.
A similar episode which needs to be cited is the one concerning Nick Clegg, the
Deputy Prime Minister, being accused of «old-style communist» policies by Tim
Hands, master of a private school college: «Hands was referring to Clegg's suggestion
that universities should take students from less privileged backgrounds with lower A
Level grades.»17
However, in order to have a more accurate overview of the context in which these
events have taken place, several factors need to be taken into account: first of all an
outline of current party politics in Britain is central; secondly, a brief historical account
of Socialism in the UK is essential for the understanding of the whole “Socialist case”.
14
Robert Winnett, 'Socialist' Vince Cable not fit for office, says Adrian Beecroft, 23/5/2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9283748/Socialist-Vince-Cable-not-fit-for-office-says-Adrian-Beecroft.html 15
Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit, 25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html 16Richard Seymour, Are Vince Cable and Barack Obama socialists? If only, 24/5/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/24/are-vince-cable-and-barack-obama-socialists?intcmp=239 17 Juliette Jowit, Nick Clegg using 'old-style communist' tactics, says public school head, 22/5/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/22/nick-clegg-old-style-communist-tactics
9
1.2 PARTY POLITICS IN BRITAIN
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutional
monarchy with a parliamentary system. At the time of writing, at the head of the
Parliament is a coalition government made up of Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats, elected on 12 May, 2010.18 The government is run by the Prime Minister,
David Cameron – a conservative – and the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg – a
liberal democrat.19 Therefore, the Cabinet ministries are occupied by politicians
originally from both the parties – of which Vincent Cable is an example.
Three are the main political parties in the United Kingdom:
• The Conservative Party, officially “Conservative and Unionist Party” but also
colloquially referred to as the “Tory Party”; it is traditionally the centre-right
party. The present leader of the Conservatives is the Prime Minister himself,
Gordon Brown.
• The Labour Party is the second biggest party in the UK, and traditionally
centre-left. Ed Miliband is the current leader of the opposition.
• The Liberal Democrats are the third party in Britain, currently part of the
coalition government; liberalist and mainly centralist, the party describes itself
in these words: «The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free
and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of
liberty, equality and community.»20
A coalition government has possibly a more heterogeneous field of action, and this
is probably the reason why it is more likely to include opposites—forms of address
which are the farthest possible from each other; a field in which a close Downing
18
BBC News, David Cameron is UK's new prime minister, 10/5/2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675265.stm 19
How government works, https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works 20 Preamble to the Federal Constitution, http://www.libdems.org.uk/who_we_are.aspx
10
Street adviser – a venture capitalist – and two Lib-Dems respectively branded as
“socialist” and “communist” can coexist and work for the same cabinet. 21
However, a critical analysis of the news reports cited above cannot abstain from
giving a diachronic account of the facts: the question that arises here is when, how,
why and whether the term “socialist” happened to turn into an insult.
1.3 THE SOCIALIST TRADITION IN BRITAIN
The history of British Socialism cannot be thought of as detached from the history of
the Labour Party: firstly because it was the socialist ideology that fostered the growth
of the party, together with the reinforcement of class consciousness; secondly because
it was the party itself that endorsed the socialist ideals and worked for social reforms.
As observed by Martin Pugh, Marx and Engels themselves thought of Britain as the
best field of action for Socialism: since it was the most developed country in Europe,
they thought the workers would soon become more class-conscious because of social
injustice.22 In fact, it appears that workers were pretty content with their situation, even
though this might have ground for truth only if it is considered that the most conscious
workers were the skilled or semi-skilled ones, often regarded as “the labour
aristocracy” and accused of being «an obstacle to the development of class
consciousness».23 Nevertheless there was still the possibility of – limited – upward
mobility, as enhanced by the chance given by education.24
21 Martin Robinson, Welcome to the People’s Republic of Britain: 'Socialist' Cable and his 'Communist' comrade Clegg are accused of stifling real Tory policies, 23/5/2012, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148546/Adrian-Beecroft-accuses-socialist-Vince-Cable-comrade-Nick-Clegg-stifling-real-Tory-policies.html 22 M. Pugh, State and Society: a Social and Political History of Britain 1870-1997, Arnold, London, 1999, p. 102 23
Ibid., p. 104 24
Ibid., pp. 103, 104
11
However, the people most likely to join socialist societies in the late 19th century were
the middle-class intellectuals such as, for instance, the case of the Fabian society.25
Socialist ideas were obviously fostered by the Trade Unions, which had slowly
become so strong that they were able to join forces with the Independent Labour Party,
the Fabians and the Social Democratic Federation: this is the background for the birth
of the Labour Party in 1900; indeed, the Edwardian Era witnessed the growth of trade
unions alongside with that of the working-class movement.26
Probably the biggest turning-point in the history of British Socialism was the election
of the Attlee government in 1945; as Jones observes, the manifesto of the new Labour
government announced that it was «“a Socialist Party, and proud of it”, with the
ultimate goal of establishing a “Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain”».27 As
Peter Dorey explains, «Many supporters at the time confidently anticipated the arrival
of socialism, believing that the policies of the Attlee governments represented the
transcendence of capitalism.»28
Thus, a certainly positive meaning was ascribed to the word, even though the
following reforms of the Welfare State and the Keynesian mixed economy were
probably the proof that the “age of consensus” had already started: the political parties
mainly agreed upon social and economic reforms, thus being moderate and – possibly
– forgetting about naming conventions.29
What happened with the Cold War, then? Margaret Thatcher, the leader of the
Conservatives and Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 was a «turning-point in
ideological terms» because she and her followers «took socialism and the state as their
ostensible targets».30
25 Ibid., p. 59 26 Ibid., p. 151 27 Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit, 25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html 28 P. Dorey, British Politics since 1945, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995 29 M. Pugh, State and Society: a Social and Political History of Britain 1870-1997, Arnold, London, 1999, p. 276 30 Ibid., pp. 341, 342.
12
In her memoirs, she described post-war Britain as a “socialist ratchet” and,
reflecting on the 1983 general election, she argued that “socialism was still built
into the institutions and mentality of Britain”. In her mission to “create a wholly
new attitude of mind”, as she put it soon after her first election victory, she
appeared to crush “socialism” into the dust.31
Obviously, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc only served Thatcher to prove herself
right.
Another move towards the centre by the Labour Party – thus abandoning the remains
of socialist ideas – was accomplished when Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister and
the Labour Party turned into what was called “New Labour”. A fine description of this
shift is provided by the sociologist Anthony Giddens:
The values of the left - solidarity, a commitment to reducing inequality and
protecting the vulnerable, and a belief in the role of active government - remained
intact, but the policies designed to pursue these ends had to shift radically because
of profound changes going on in the wider world. Such changes included
intensifying globalisation, the development of a post-industrial or service
economy and, in an information age, the emergence of a more voluble and
combative citizenry, less deferential to authority figures than in the past.32
Giddens then further explains the shift towards the centre by adding that, in order for
the Party to win the elections, it had to turn into a «left-of-centre» party;33 this move
might be seen as a “mystification” of radicalism and a deletion of dangerous edges.
Having accounted for the evolution of party politics, it is therefore pretty clear how
weak the field of exposure might be for a bare accusation of radicalism to take place
and shock the public sphere. For an external commentator, therefore, it may even seem
31 Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit, 25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html 32 Anthony Giddens, The rise and fall of New Labour, 17/5/2010, http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/05/labour-policy-policies-blair 33 Ibid.
13
that the political parties have ultimately agreed upon a silent deal, that would prevent
them from using these “extremist” policies.
1.3.1 The analyses of Socialism applied to the Beecroft-Cable case
This is how the historical facts fit in with the context of the “swear word” event: but
what did Beecroft actually mean? It is pretty clear how insulting it may be, but not
clearly which goal it aims at fulfilling.
Owen Jones, a commentator from The Independent, provided a thorough analysis of
the history of Socialism up to this event, and attributed the Beecroft attack to the
Overton Window theory:
Beecroft's use of “socialism”, then, relates to a theory called the “Overton
window”, which describes what is seen as politically acceptable at a given time.
Rather than having to engage in a debate over the merits of bosses being able to
dismiss their workers at will, an opponent can be dismissed as a “socialist”, which
– for Beecroft – is code for “extremist” or “someone with views outside of what is
politically acceptable”.34
This is, then, according to Jones, a way of avoiding defence by heavily attacking the
opponent; such a move is also useful as a shift of focus, in order to draw the attention
upon something else, possibly more shocking.
An interesting comparison between the UK case and the US case is made by Seymour
in The Guardian, who asserts that the same is happening to Obama in the United
States, but with a difference: the USA have a historical tradition of “anti-socialism”
34 Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit, 25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html
14
that Britain has not – yet – gained. Seymour therefore argues that an accusation of this
sort «falls rather flat» in this context.35
Whether or not this attack be grounded in the cultural tradition of Great Britain, it is
certainly an interesting event worth noticing: because at the basis of Fairclough and
Wodak’s Critical Discourse Analysis is the assumption that «the discursive event is
shaped by situations, institutions and social structures, but it also shapes them.»36
Created but also creative, the ideological discourse fits in with a context and redefines
it.
In the reactions of the Press lies the ideology they support: are they “conservative”
towards the “S word”, unwilling to take it for granted? Or are they caught up in the
definition, embracing the derogatory meaning and possibly not struggling with its
denotative meaning? In order to approach the newspaper reactions, though, an
overview of the British Press and its structure is an essential tool for analysis.
35 Richard Seymour, Are Vince Cable and Barack Obama socialists? If only, 24/5/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/24/are-vince-cable-and-barack-obama-socialists?intcmp=239 36 N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis” in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p. 258
15
2
THE BRITISH PRESS
“So much for Objective Journalism. With the possible exception of things like box scores,
race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism.
The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”37
Since this second chapter is focused upon the media reaction to the “socialist case”, a
clarification needs to be made. What and who are the media?
D. M. Lewis defines the word and the whole concept as «both the technologies of
communication and the public and private corporations that use them»;38 such a
description is inherently contradictory with the myth of free journalism, since
«anything that is said or written about the world is articulated from a particular
ideological position»;39 coherently, those “corporations” that use the technologies of
communication make their ideological stance implicit or explicit in their production. In
order for the analytic tools to be presented in the next chapter, an introduction to the
British press and its positions and perspectives is essential for a better understanding
of the roles it embraced in the case described above.
The structure of the British Press is quite curious, since from the very beginning a
peculiar feature arises: there is a sharp distinction between the “quality” newspapers
37 H. S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, San Francisco, Straight Arrow Books, 1973 38 D. M. Lewis, “Online News: a New Genre?”, in J. Aitchison, D. M. Lewis, New Media Language, London, Routledge, 2003 39 R. Fowler, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London, Routledge, 1991, p. 10
16
and the “popular” ones, and this huge difference is not only about the format of the
paper itself, but it is rather a matter of class.40
To an Italian, the idea of a tabloid daily newspaper is not as straightforward as it may
be to a British citizen, for in Italy, the major daily publications are associated with a
more serious and politics-based idea, i.e. that of the broadsheet. Therefore, the popular
gossip and crime stories which appear in daily British tabloids are much more likely to
be present, in Italy, in their fellow popular magazines, though with a weekly schedule
and with a different format, of course.
James O’Driscoll provides readers who wish to approach British newspapers with a
useful table (“table 1”) which will be used here as a reference point:41
Left Centre Right
40 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 79 41 J. O’Driscoll, Britain for Learners of English, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 154
17
Another interesting reference point is a table (“table 2”) published on The Guardian
website on 4 May, 2010: it displays each national newspaper’s political support in the
general elections from 1945 up to 2010, an essential feature in the understanding of
each paper’s bias.42
A third table – taken from The Guardian website – provides an interesting ground for
analysis in terms of popularity: the figures display the daily newspaper circulation in
June 2012 and will be used as an account for each paper’s readership.43
42 Katy Stoddard, Newspaper support in UK general elections, 4/5/2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-support# 43 The Guardian, ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation June 2012, 13/7/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/jul/13/abcs-national-newspapers
18
2.1 BROADSHEET NEWSPAPERS – THE QUALITY PRESS
A broadsheet newspaper is defined by the Collins English Dictionary as «a newspaper
having a large format, approximately 15 by 24 inches (38 by 61 centimetres)»;44 apart
from the size, which may vary and which is not the main classification rule, a
broadsheet is also known as a “quality newspaper” due to its approach to news stories
and its choice of topics. As mentioned above, the readership of the different papers is
divided by class: the “quality press” only sells to a certain segment, and the type of
articles contained in it are addressed to that segment. Richardson explains the division
as follows:
44 Collins English Dictionary, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/broadsheet?showCookiePolicy=true
19
Broadsheet newspapers tend to sell more within the elite and upper middle
classes, the mid-markets tend to sell to the middle and lower middle classes and
the red tops tend to sell to the working classes.45
According to his table, the upper and middle classes make up almost the 79% of the
broadsheet readership;46 therefore, the target being different, the language and the style
must adjust to it.
As far as the content is concerned, a fundamental point is to be made: «the broadsheets
provide information», as opposed to the “sensation” provided by the tabloids.47
Mainly, the layout of a broadsheet displays headlines which are usually not more
extended than two columns, and in smaller print. Typographic elements are
standardised, featuring the same font size across the article, and paragraphs are quite
long. Even punctuation is traditional, and the structure of sentences varies in order to
sustain the interest of the reader as much as it does to create cohesion, which is
achieved through referencing and repetition. Lexical choices are more specific, and
they are addressed to a more educated public. The use of modifiers does not strive for
sentimentalism but, instead, it serves to provide more details.48 Rarely using puns and
personalisation, the articles tend to be more formal and sober because the readers
expect a factual and “value-free” tone, even though, as Richardson asserts, it is
impossible to argue that news reporting is valueless.49
In the quality press, the news selected relates more to the political and economic side –
both internal and international – rather than to crime stories and gossip.
There are five main broadsheet newspapers in the United Kingdom, and none of them
refrains from having a particular political leaning.
The Times is the oldest as well as the most famous broadsheet newspaper in the United
Kingdom, though not the most popular: as for the figures in table 3, its circulation in
45 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 80 46 Ibid., p. 81 47 S. Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008, p. 230 48 Ibid. 49 49 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 86
20
June 2012 was of 400,120 copies a day. Owned by Rupert Murdoch, it was established
in 1785. As O’Driscoll’s table displays (table 1 above), the paper’s political stance is
traditionally centre-right supporting the Conservatives, although it shockingly
supported Blair in 2001.50 The Times also has a Sunday edition, called The Sunday
Times.
The Daily Telegraph is the most popular broadsheet across the United Kingdom, with
a circulation figure of 573,674 copies a day (table 3). Politically speaking, some
humorously define it as The Torygraph since, as table 2 above reports, it has always
supported the Conservative government, though not being uncritical of David
Cameron.51 Owned by David and Frederick Barclay, it was first established in 1855. It
has a Sunday edition as well, called The Sunday Telegraph.
The Guardian, established in 1821 and currently owned by the Scott Trust, has a
circulation of 211,511 copies a day, according to the figures shown in table 3. It is the
most popular centre-left, liberal broadsheet; its readership being split between Labour
and Lib-Dem voters, The Guardian might be considered a Labour paper.52 As well as
the two other broadsheets mentioned above, it has a Sunday edition as well, or rather a
“sister paper”, The Observer, which was established in 1791 and became part of The
Guardian company only in 1993.
The Independent is a relatively “young” newspaper, since it was established only in
1986. Owned by Alexander Lebedev, it is a centre-left, liberal paper although
traditionally it does not support any party.53 The figures in table 3 display its minor
popularity - “only” 90,001– compared to the previous ones. Nevertheless, not only
does it have a Sunday edition, called The Independent on Sunday; it also has a concise
daily edition, called i, which sells about 272,597 copies a day, and which is defined as
50 BBC News, The politics of UK newspapers, 30/9/2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8282189.stm 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.
21
a title designed for «“lapsed readers of quality papers” and those wanting a
“comprehensive digest of news”».54
The Financial Times, unrelated to The Times, is the main finance-oriented British
broadsheet, and was established in 1888; it is owned by Pearson PLC. Its estimated
circulation was of 297,225 readers a day, as seen in table 3. According to Richardson’s
table cited above, The Financial Times is the newspaper most read among the upper
classes: 57% of its readership is made up of the top managerial and professional
positions.55 Liberalist in its economic approach, it supported Margaret Thatcher’s
monetary policies in the Eighties, but it turned to backing Blair in 2001 and 2005, even
though its readership, in 2004, did not mean to do the same, as demonstrated by Ipsos
MORI.56
2.2 TABLOID NEWSPAPERS – THE POPULAR PRESS
It is a fairly general assumption that tabloid newspapers are “trivial” and “not serious”;
nevertheless, their linguistic features often provide very interesting grounds for
analysis.
According to the Collins English Dictionary, a tabloid can be defined as
A newspaper with pages about 30 cm (12 inches) by 40 cm (16 inches), usually
characterized by an emphasis on photographs and a concise and often sensational
style.57
Tabloids are also known as “the popular press” due to their impressive circulation (up
to three million copies a day);58 the same conditions of the broadsheet newspapers
54 Mark Sweney, Independent's new daily i to target 'lapsed readers of quality papers', 18/10/2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/18/independent-new-newspaper-i 55 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, pp. 80, 81 56 Ipsos MORI, Voting Intention by Newspaper Readership, 9/3/2005, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/755/Voting-Intention-by-Newspaper-Readership.aspx 57 Collins English Dictionary
22
apply to tabloids: their popularity is mainly related to class;59 indeed, almost 80% of
the readership of the popular papers is made up of skilled, unskilled and unemployed
manual workers.60 This means that, in a virtuous circle, people buy the title because
they know what to expect and, accordingly, the publishers try to fulfil the expectations
of the public.
The readership not only influences the choice of the topics – mainly gossip, crime
stories, and generally entertainment – but it also expects a certain style in the linguistic
choices present in the paper. This is because tabloids make their stance explicit from
the very first page: as Sara Thorne puts it, «the broadsheets provide information, while
the tabloids provide sensation»;61 this means that the reader of a tabloid newspaper
does not want accuracy and sobriety, but emotions, personalisation, an attractive
language and captivating captions as well as pictures – the case of the “page three girl”
is an outstanding example.62
Before moving on to the features of the popular press, an essential distinction is to be
made; two sub-categories fall under the group of tabloids:
• The red-tops are the tabloid papers which are explicitly the ones dealing with
the entertaining side of news reporting;
• The middle-market papers, instead, fall between broadsheets and tabloids
because they rebut any claim that their content is for entertainment only;63
however, their linguistic style and their graphic layout – including the presence
of large pictures and big captivating headlines – are much closer to that of the
red-tops, which can be easily distinguished from broadsheets.
58 BBC News, The politics of UK newspapers, 30/9/2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8282189.stm 59 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 79 60 Ibid., p. 81 61 S. Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008, p. 230 [emphasis mine] 62 James Cridland, The mass-market tabloids, 28/6/2010, http://www.mediauk.com/article/32720/the-mass-market-tabloids 63 S. Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008, p. 233
23
Starting from the front page, the differences are evident: the headline is in bold-print
and sometimes it can even extend across the whole page; paragraphs are usually
shorter than those in broadsheets—around two lines each; typographical features, as
opposed to those of the quality press, are not standardised: they are highlighted by the
use of different font types and sizes, and especially by the use of bold and larger prints
in the first paragraph of each article.
Punctuation is not traditional either, and it features a widespread omission of commas;
the use of inverted commas to report direct speech – whereas broadsheets prefer
indirect speech – or to emphasise a certain part of text; moreover, tabloids prefer
dashes instead of parentheses, in order to convey a more informal context.
Rhetorical effects are given mainly by puns and alliterations, whereas the structure of
the sentences is quite simple and repetitive, in order to keep the language catchy and
inviting.64
Finally, Martin Conboy provides a thorough description of tabloids in his book
Tabloid Britain:
The tabloids are now identified as drawing upon and amplifying all the following
features of popular journalism down the years: sensationalism, emotive language,
the bizarre, the lewd, sex, suppression fees, cheque book journalism, gossip,
police news, marriage and divorce, royal news, celebrities, political bias and any
form of prurience which can be included under the general heading of human
interest.65
There are two more essential features underlined by Conboy: the first is the creative
role of the tabloid press in embedding nationalism in British media culture:
Tabloids provide an explicit sense of place, a textual locus for a popular national
community. […] The tabloids police the borders of national identity, for these are
the parameters of their survival strategy in a highly competitive area of globalised
culture. It is therefore no surprise that they depend on a vigorous form of popular
64 Ibid., pp. 230, 231 65 M. Conboy, Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language, London, Routledge, 2005, p. 12
24
nationalist vernacular to promote their distinctiveness and maintain their market
share within a fragmenting news media environment.66
Finally, Conboy assigns newspapers the role of educators:
The tabloid press performs a significant role as a social educator. An important
part of this process is the normalisation of certain modes of social belonging.67
The role of social creators embraced by newspapers will be further investigated
in the next chapter but first, an overview of the British tabloids is needed.
2.2.1 “Mid-market” newspapers
In the United Kingdom there are two middle-market newspapers only, and both of
them present features which are similar to those of the red-tops. Moreover, both of
them have a centre-right political leaning.
The Daily Mail is the mid-market owned by Lord Rothermere; it was established in
1896 and it is currently the best-selling mid-market paper, with a daily circulation of
1,939,635 copies a day (table 3). As table 2 above demonstrates, The Mail has always
supported the Conservatives, so it can be described as a right-leaning, populist paper.68
It has a Sunday edition, called The Mail on Sunday.
The Daily Express, like The Mail, is a right-wing newspaper, as demonstrated by its
political support throughout the years (table 2). Owned by Richard Desmond, it has a
circulation of around 602,482 copies a day, as estimated by The Guardian (table 3). Its
Sunday edition is called The Sunday Express.
66 Ibid., p. 9 67 Ibid. 68 BBC News, The politics of UK newspapers, 30/9/2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8282189.stm
25
2.2.2 “Red-top” tabloids
As mentioned above, red-tops are the most popular tabloids, the ones with the largest
circulation and with a working-class readership.
The Sun is definitely the most famous and popular tabloid in Great Britain: according
to the figures in table 3, as of June, 2012 its circulation reached 2,583,552 copies a
day; its right-wing allegiance did not prevent it from backing Blair in 2001 and 2005
although it mainly maintains its populist, conservative position – it was Thatcher’s
biggest supporter.69 Nevertheless, as table 2 displays, The Sun apparently supported
the Labour party from 1945 to 1970. The paper was established in 1964, replacing the
failing Daily Herald, and it is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Its Sunday version is
known as The Sun on Sunday, which was established in 2012 to replace its predecessor
News of the World.
The Daily Mirror, established in 1903, is a red-top published by the Trinity Mirror
company; its circulation in June 2012 was of 1,081,330 copies a day (table 3). It is
considered the bitter rival of The Sun due to its left-wing leaning.70 It has always
backed the Labour party and it is said to be very critical of the Tories.71 It has a
Sunday edition as well, called The Sunday Mirror.
The Daily Star is another right-wing red-top tabloid, established in 1978 and currently
owned by Richard Desmond. Its circulation was estimated by The Guardian at
602,296 copies a day (table 3); The Star has a political stance which is similar to that
of his “sister paper” The Daily Express, since they are owned by the same person.72
Nevertheless, it has seldom shown any particular interest in political matters.
The scheme above is only a starting point for the purpose of the analysis of the
“socialist case” as it took place within the larger context of British politics and media. 69 Ibid. 70 70 James Cridland, The mass-market tabloids, 28/6/2010, http://www.mediauk.com/article/32720/the-mass-market-tabloids 71 BBC News, The politics of UK newspapers, 30/9/2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8282189.stm 72 Ibid.
26
In order for the analysis to be accurate, it certainly needs to draw upon certain
analytical tools which will serve not only to account for the hidden agendas in
newspaper discourse, but also to understand and criticise them. This is what Critical
Discourse Analysis ultimately aims at.
27
3
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Philosophy, strategies and aims
“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too.
Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action:
you liberate a city by destroying it.”73
This chapter will serve as an account for the analysis which is the object of the next
one; it will give an outline of the multi-disciplinary framework which will be used
throughout this study of the “socialist” case.
As Fairclough defines it, Critical Discourse Analysis is both a theory and a method for
studying language in its relation to power and ideology.74 Although it might seem easy
to identify the hidden agendas in discourse, an analytical scheme is certainly needed;
but first, in order to truly describe Critical Discourse Analysis, the very meaning of the
word “discourse” needs to be unravelled.
3.1 WHAT IS “DISCOURSE” IN CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALY SIS?
The notion of language is threefold and sometimes misleading: it is used with three
different meanings and thus in three different modes of action. Chilton identifies the
three distinct natures of language in these terms:
73 G. Vidal, The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Tucson, Odonian Press, 1992. 74 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 1
28
1. Language(L), i.e. the human capacity for language;
2. Language(l), i.e. a particular language – such as English or Chinese;
3. Language(l/u), i.e. the use of a language – or discourse.75
Another point which might be helpful in understanding the function of language is
given by Richardson when he states his fundamental assumptions:
1. Language is social: it is what gives people meaning and makes them cooperate
by producing and reproducing social reality;
2. Language use enacts identity: it lets speakers identify with a certain social
position and therefore be understood in the context within which they act;
3. Language use is always active: it is always directed at doing, asking or
informing;
4. Language use has power: it does not operate democratically, since some
people’s speech is more powerful than others;
5. Language use is political: since it shapes reality, it is a powerful instrument of
the “political animals”.76
Critical Discourse Analysts make it quite clear that the definition embraced in their
study of ideology is that of «language use in speech and writing» and, consequently, as
«a form of social practice».77 This means, primarily, that language is a mode of action;
secondly, that this mode of action needs to be socially and historically situated.78 This
implies that there is a dialectical relationship in which the «context of language use» is
crucial:79
75 P. Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse – Theory and practice, London, Routledge, 2004, p.16 76 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, pp. 10, 11, 12, 13 77 N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p.258. 78 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 131 79 R. Wodak, M. Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology” in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage Publications, 2009, p. 5
29
Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a
particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social
structure(s) which frame it: the discursive event is shaped by them, but it also
shapes them. That is, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially
conditioned. […] It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain and
reproduce the social status quo, and in the sense that it contributes to transforming
it.80
This two-fold relationship is the main focus of the whole work of Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA from now on), a discipline that is multidisciplinary in the sense that, in
order to fully analyse language and its multi-faceted aspects, this field of study must
also relate to a multi-faceted background: the roots of Critical Discourse Analysis thus
lie in Critical Linguistics, Anthropology, Philosophy and Sociology.81
Such an interdisciplinary approach is justified by its problem-oriented focus since, as
seen above, discourse is mainly social.82 However, it cannot be restricted to discourse
analysis only, even though it explores how texts work within sociocultural practice.83
What Critical Discourse Analysis aims at showing and making clear is that language is
biased. A text analysed through CDA is not a mere observation of the facts, but instead
its goal is to raise language consciousness in the speaker and the listener. Language
use is always ideological. Everything happens through the use of language, that is why
language is studied in its relation to power and ideology. Language, therefore, has
gained economic importance:84 those who are able to access language are able to
modify it as well and, therefore, the more powerful they are, the more likely their
discourses and ideologies are to be turned into common-sense assumptions.
80 N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p.258 81 R. Wodak, M. Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology” in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage Publications, 2009, p. 1 82 Ibid., p.3 83 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 7 84 N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p.259
30
3.2 POWER AND IDEOLOGY
As Fairclough points out, language is significant «in the production, maintenance, and
change of social relations of power».85 Power, therefore, is achieved and maintained
through the use of language; but how can language be ideological and, thus, subject to
dominance and distortion?
Fairclough focuses his analysis on what are called “common-sense” assumptions,
which are «implicit in the conventions according to which people interact
linguistically, and of which people are generally not consciously aware».86 An
example he provides is the relationship between doctors and patients, which
automatically and unconsciously forces the patient to behave in a certain way and with
certain schemata that entail forms of authority and hierarchies which are so
“naturalised” that they sound natural.
These assumptions, according to him, are ideologies; and they are ideological because
the nature in which they are embedded in linguistic conventions depends on the power
relations that underlie the conventions: since the use of language is the commonest
form of social behaviour, these forms of legitimisation of the existing social relations
of power are achieved through the use of language itself.87 It can therefore be asserted
that
the exercise of power, in modern society, is increasingly achieved through
ideology, and more particularly through the ideological workings of language.88
Language has become the main focus of several fields of study; certainly this is the era
of media, and language is a tool that is being used for every goal and in every aspect of
society.
In order to further clarify the relationship between power and ideology, another
distinction is needed when analysing power; power can be exercised through two
different methods: hence there is power through coercion and power through consent.
85 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p.1 86 Ibid., p. 2 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid.
31
The latter is the one that is of interest here, because the relation is straightforward:
ideology is the prime means of manufacturing consent,89 and the ruling classes find it
easier to rule by consent.90
For instance, an interesting point is raised by Steven Lukes’ theory of the “faces of
power”: his idea is that there are three main different views of power, but the model he
suggests is that «individuals and groups gain power from their social relations to
others and their position in a hierarchical social system»;91 A makes B do what A
wants B to do but, at the same time, A makes B want to do what A wants B to do.
Thanks to covert power.
Fairclough states that common sense is substantially ideological, and this ideological
common sense is «in the service of sustaining unequal relations of power»;92 starting
from this basic point, it is possible to quote Wodak and Meyer in adding that
ideologies may differ and, in fact, are interpreted in different ways, but they have four
central characteristics:
1. Power is more important than cognition;
2. They are capable of guiding individuals’ evaluations;
3. They provide guidance through action;
4. They must be logically coherent.93
Therefore, the basic assumption that ideology is «a constant and relatively stable set
of beliefs or values» cannot directly link the manipulation of language to power. 94
Other frameworks are needed in order to understand the extent to which discourse is
biased – and a site of struggle at the same time – and, in order for this to happen, an
analytical framework needs to be introduced to the critique.
89 Ibid., p. 3 90 Ibid., p. 28 91 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, pp. 30, 31 92 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, pp. 69, 70 93 R. Wodak, M. Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology” in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage Publications, 2009, p. 8 94 Ibid.
32
3.3 CAPITALISM AND HEGEMONY
Critical Discourse Analysis makes it clear that, since language is always biased, the
analyst’s approach to discourse does not claim to be neutral.
Crucial for critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in
society. Continuing the tradition that rejects the possibility of a “value-free”
science, they argue that science, and especially scholarly discourse, are inherently
part of and influenced by social structure, and produced in social interaction.95
In fact, the theoretical origins of the philosophy underlying Critical Discourse Analysis
are also inspired by Western Marxism, which emphasises that
Capitalist social relations are established and maintained (reproduced) in large part in
culture (and hence in ideology), not just (or mainly) in the economic ‘base’.96
Therefore, an analysis of ideology and power must relate to capitalism as the first
determiner of social conditions.
A society is capitalist if its mode of production divides society into different classes.97
Therefore, capitalism is not fair to the extent that some people live off the labour of
others, referred to as surplus labour: this surplus is the profit of the capitalist because
the worker – the proletarian – is not paid as much as he/she deserves.98 According to
Marxist critics, this system is wrong not only because «those who work do not gain
and those who gain do not work»99, but also because a capitalist society only enables
the wealth of the owner to increase exponentially; even though the lower classes earn
more money, they are still part of a vicious circle that, compared to the profit of the
capitalist, is exploitative.100 The more the employee works, the more the employer
earns. This is a clear reason for the dominant classes to keep their power intact.
95 T. Van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in Schiffrin et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, p. 352 96 N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p.260 97 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 3 98 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid., pp. 4, 5
33
Nevertheless, what Critical Studies wishes to display is that capitalism is not
permanent and, consequently, that society is not what Leibniz would define «the best
of all possible worlds». Capitalism consists of an on-going struggle of naturalisation of
social differences and unequal power relations, all coherently achieved through the
means of discourse practice: therefore the «owners» of this system can be referred to
as the “dominant bloc”.101
Another inspirer of the work of Critical Discourse Analysis was Antonio Gramsci with
his revolutionising concept of hegemony; Gramsci provides an explanation to the
apparent neutrality of discourses and the institutions which entail them: dominant
ideologies appear neutral because they cling on to those common-sense assumptions
which are actually disguised beliefs but have become so latent that they stay
unchallenged.102 Therefore
When most people in a society think alike about certain matters, or even forget
that there are alternatives to the status quo, we arrive at the Gramscian concept of
hegemony,103
which leads back to that dialectical nature of discourse as both created and creative.
Hegemony also leads back to that construction of consent through the means of
ideology and normalisation:
Hegemony is about constructing alliances, and integrating rather than simply
dominating subordinate classes, through concessions or through ideological
means, to win their consent.104
This is why the struggle for domination can be seen as an on-going process: power
works through opacity and, in order to be legitimised as fair by society, it has to work
reflexively105and create a product that is both «conservative» and «revolutionary»:
such terms are being employed because capitalist ideology aims to change itself in 101 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p. 27 102R. Wodak, M. Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology” in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London, Sage Publications, 2009, p. 8 103 Ibid. 104 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 76 105 Giddens, A., in N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997, p.260
34
order to suit the changing of times, though at the same time keeping its focus on the
maintenance of the status quo.
This kind of maintenance is further explained by Foucault’s philosophical views on
discourse and its superstructure, a view that brought about new perspectives of
critique.
3.4 FROM FOUCAULT TO FAIRCLOUGH
Michel Foucault’s contribution to Critical Discourse Analysis consists in what he
called «orders of discourse». According to him, an order of discourse is a
macrostructure, a set of discursive practices associated with a particular social domain
or institution: for instance, during lectures, during a trial in court or an informal
conversation.106 These “frames” are linked to social order, creating independent
networks which constrain discourse and practice.
Fairclough embraces this form of interdiscursivity by adding that every form of social
order has a related order of discourse: consequently, every form of practice has its
related schemata of actual discourses:107 the social “space” of language is structured as
follows:
Social order Order of discourse
Types of practice Types of discourse
Actual practices Actual discourses108
As a result, social institutions are not the only ones provided with their own orders of
discourse, but even the whole structure of society has its own, and this order structures
the others related to it.109
106 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 12 107 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p. 24 108 Ibid.
35
How discourses are structured in a given order of discourse, and how structurings
change over time, are determined by changing relationships of power at the level
of the social institutions of the society. Power at these levels includes the capacity
to control orders of discourse: one aspect of such control is ideological – ensuring
that orders are ideologically harmonised internally or with each other.110
This set of networks does indeed constrain practice, which raises the question of to
what extent our use of language can be thought of as “free”: controlling orders of
discourse, the institutional and societal power-holders maintain their power;111
nevertheless, actual language practice can – and should – refute those which seem
insurmountable constraints which, for instance, force us to occupy a certain position
when a certain «frame» – in pragmatic terms – takes place. For example, rejecting an
already-framed set of language choices is what has been done by feminist writings and
re-writings, and by postcolonial literature in the last few decades.
This background is the set of knowledge which inspired Norman Fairclough’s view of
Critical Discourse Analysis: discursive events consist, according to him, of text,
discursive practice and social practice; the analysis needs to relate the form and
function of the text with the way it is produced and consumed and, consequently, with
the whole context in which it takes place.112 This virtuous circle of influence is further
explained by Richardson as follows:
CDA approaches discourse as a circular process in which social practices
influence texts, via shaping the context and mode in which they are produced, and
in turn texts help influence society via shaping the viewpoints of those who read
or otherwise consume them.113
What does this analytical framework lead to?
In order for textual analysis to become discourse analysis, a revolutionary view of
grammar needs to be introduced: the core of systemic grammar is an approach that
109 Ibid., p. 25 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid., p. 31 112 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 37 113 Ibid.
36
does not simply draw upon form and content of the texts analysed, it also works on the
function that grammatical elements fulfil in their context of use. Moreover, when
textual analysis takes into account social conditions of production and consumption,
then it becomes discourse analysis.114
Therefore, in order to move on to a practical application of analysis, an introduction to
the influence of M. A. K. Halliday is essential.
3.5 MICHAEL HALLIDAY’S FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR
The work of the British linguist Michael Halliday has been a great inspiration to all the
scientists of language and (socio)linguistics. His Introduction to Functional Grammar,
which first came out in 1985, is important because Halliday’s approach to grammar is
functional rather than formal.115 Functional because it accounts for how the language
is used, a characteristic that implies that meaning unfolds from the social context in
which it is set. According to this functionalist view, every text or discourse is social
because it comes from real situations; consequently, meaning is social because people,
in order to understand each other, need to draw upon certain structures that come from
experience and cooperation.
Language has evolved to satisfy human needs; and the way it is organised is
functional with respect to these needs – it is not arbitrary. A functional grammar is
essentially a ‘natural’ grammar, in the sense that everything in it can be explained,
ultimately, by reference to how language is used.116
The difference between a formal grammar and a functional grammar is in their
approach. Formal grammars start their study from the words (morphology), then move
on to sentences (syntax) in order to explain the meaning of those forms. Functional
grammars, instead, take the opposite direction: for functionalists,
114 Ibid., p. 39 115 M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.), London, Arnold, 1994, p. XIII 116 Ibid.
37
a language is interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through
which the meanings can be realised. The question is rather: “how are these
meanings expressed?”. This puts the forms of a language in a different
perspective: as means to an end, rather than as an end in themselves.117
If language is a system of meanings, accordingly it is right to view language «as social
semiotic» because it maps relations between texts and social structures.118
However, Halliday’s contribution to the analytical foundations of Critical Discourse
Analysis – in particular that of Fairclough – is not limited to this functional method,
but derives from it.
Since it is meaning that makes language and language that exploits meaning to build
itself, there must be functional components within language as well. These are called
“metafunctions” and serve different purposes:
• The “ideational” metafunction appertains to the representational function of
language, and it relates to understanding the environment in which the
discourse event takes place and construing a model of experience;
• The “interpersonal”, or active metafunction appertains to the pragmatic
function of language and it relates to the exchange that takes place when
enacting social relationships;
• The “textual” metafunction appertains to the message itself, and it relates to the
creation of relevance within a certain context, therefore to coherence.119
Having taken this into account, Halliday adds that another characteristic of functional
grammar is its way of labelling the parts of text: instead of branding the linguistic units
by class – as formal grammars do – it assigns functions to them.120 For instance, the
phrase “beautiful people” can be labelled as an “adjective-noun” pair according to
117 Ibid., p. XIV 118 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 10 119 M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.), London, Arnold, 1994, p. 36 120 Ibid., pp. 24, 25
38
class, and as a “modifier-head” pair according to the function it takes up; but why such
a distinction?
The functional labelling serves the real task of signification: the question shifts from
“what are they called?” to “how do they work?”, in order for them to be interpreted as
part of the system. In Halliday’s words:
The purpose of functional labelling is to provide a means of interpreting
grammatical structure, in such a way as to relate any given instance to the system
of the language as a whole.121
Each of the metafunctions mentioned above takes up a different role within the clause,
which changes its status:
• Ideational (or experiential) metafunction � clause as representation;
• Interpersonal metafunction � clause as exchange;
• Textual metafunction � clause as message.122
What Critical Discourse Analysis is mostly interested in is the experiential function,
because it is concerned with representing patterns of experience. When people speak
they have in mind certain personal – and social – representations of events, and the
way they experience them is crucial and is reflected in the grammar of their language
use because, as Richardson points out, every aspect of textual content is the result of a
“choice”.123
3.5.1 Transitivity
Norman Fairclough introduces Halliday’s framework by explaining that «the linguistic
system functions as a “metaphor” for social processes as well as an “expression” of
them.»124
121 Ibid., p. 29 122 Ibid., p. 36 123 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 38 124 N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow, Longman, 1995, p. 32
39
This idea of processes is crucial for understanding the division into categories applied
by Halliday, because the claim that reality is made up of processes implies that the
clause plays a central role in embodying a general principle for modelling
experience.125
If what people regard as “experience” is a set consisting of “goings-on”, then to a
certain degree the events need to be re-organised and ordered. The way people
describe this “flow” is a result of choice, and it is the object of study of transitivity.
Therefore, transitivity can be described as the grammatical system which construes the
world of experience into a manageable set of process types.126 What transitivity shows
the reader is that these types of processes are all different from one another, and they
can be analysed with different perspectives as well. Therefore it all depends on
grammatical categories and on what they convey: the processes are then summarised
by Halliday with a circle because, although there are three main processes, they are
still connected to each other, forming three more processes altogether, which derive
from the blending of the main ones.127
Halliday’s scheme of what he calls «the grammar of experience» is the following:128
125 M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.), London, Arnold, 1994, p. 106 126 Ibid. 127 Ibid., p. 107 128 Ibid., p. 108
40
Therefore, the six process types are structured as follows:
• MATERIAL PROCESS:
The use of functional grammar helps to understand the function of the elements
which are present in the sentence. Material processes are processes of doing.
Therefore, the logical subject of the sentence is the ACTOR, since it is «the one
that does the deed».129 Every process has an actor, whereas sometimes there is a
second participant, that is the GOAL, which implies “directed at”130: the goal,
of course, is only present when the sentence is transitive.
The grammatical elements of a material process, accordingly, are 129 Ibid., p. 109 130 Ibid.
41
Actor – Process – Goal
An example of a material process is the following:
Tom kicked the ball
Where Tom is the actor, the process is always expressed by a verbal form, and
the ball is the goal.
• MENTAL PROCESS:
It is a process of sensing, conveying the idea of «feeling, thinking and
perceiving».131 Mental processes are not as straightforward as material
processes, but they can be labelled as three sub-categories: PERCEPTION
(seeing, hearing), AFFECTION (liking, fearing) and COGNITION (thinking,
knowing, understanding).132 In a mental process, the grammatical elements are
Senser – Process – Phenomenon
For example:
I don’t like it
Where I is the senser, don’t like is a process of affection, and it is the
phenomenon.
• RELATIONAL PROCESS:
As Halliday himself explains, a relational process is a «process of being». In a
relational clause, something is being said to “be” something else, therefore a
relation is being set up between two separate elements.133 A more systematic
construction accommodates an INTENSIVE (“x is a”), a CIRCUMSTANTIAL
(“x is at a”), and a POSSESSIVE relation (“x has a”). The elements which
appear in relational processes are usually regarded as
Carrier – Process – Attribute
A clause which can be taken as a sample is
Albert is clever
131 Ibid., p. 114 132 Ibid., p. 118 133 Ibid., p. 119
42
Where Albert is the carrier, is is the process, and clever is the attribute.
Therefore, it is an intensive relational clause.
• BEHAVIOURAL PROCESS:
As mentioned above, there are three more grammatical processes that derive
from the blending of the three main ones. A behavioural process is partly
material and partly mental, and its elements are branded as follows:
Behaver – Process
Behavioural processes relate to physiological and psychological behaviour,
conveying processes such as breathing, smiling, dreaming or staring.134 They
usually appear with a “present-in-present” tense, for example:
I’m thinking
Where I is the behaver, and am thinking is the process.
• VERBAL PROCESS:
Verbal processes are the second category of blended processes: they derive
from mental and relational, and obviously they can be regarded as «the
processes of saying».135 In a verbal clause, systemic functional grammar
identifies this structure:
Sayer – Process – Verbiage
A sample clause is the following:
Jane said she was hungry
Where Jane is the sayer, said is the process, and she was hungry is the verbiage
conveyed.
134 Ibid., p. 139 135 Ibid., p. 140
43
• EXISTENTIAL PROCESS:
The last category is that of existential processes, which arise from the blending
of relational and material processes. Usually going together with the verb to be,
they convey the sense of existing and happening.136
Other verbs which appear in existential processes are exist, remain, arise, occur,
happen, follow, sit, stand, grow etc. An existential clause usually contains a
circumstantial element of time or place, which is introduced by the word
“there” as a subject; consequently the structure is usually that of
Process – Existent – Circumstance
As in the example:
There was a picture on the wall
Where there is only needed as a subject, was is the process, a picture is the
existent and on the wall is the spatial circumstance.
The range of processes may now arise the question: what is the use of such
grammatical types? Each of the processes has a clear significance in social practice:
[Discourses] not only represent what is going on, they also evaluate it, ascribe
purpose to it, justify it, and so on, and in many texts these aspects of
representation become far more important than the representation of the social
practice itself.137
Andrew Goatly provides the critical reader with an explanation in his analysis of a
newspaper article about youngsters: since each of the processes has a clear evaluation
in social practice, when the speaker or the writer chooses to use a certain form instead
of another he or she is making an ideological stance.
The analysis of social processes uncovers the powerful participants in the text:
If the clause has an actor and an affected, this Actor is being represented as
relatively powerful and responsible for the action. If there is only an Actor, and no 136 Ibid., p. 142 137 T. Van Leeuwen, Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 6
44
Affected, the Actor comes over as less powerful. Affected participants come over
as passive and powerless.138
The pragmatic meaning of a mental process relates to inner experience and to
emotions. It may follow that the speaker/writer can manipulate the expression of
emotions in order to convey a certain belief or, on the contrary, to minimise someone
else’s cognitions by making them seem dangerous or misguided.
A relational clause is used to describe and categorise the participants in the clause.
When these relations are construed, it is accordingly an ideological characteristic that
of attributing identities and symbols which may draw upon wrong and manipulated
sources, because the relation built between two roles may seem untruthfully
straightforward.
Another ideological feature which may be hidden in grammatical elements can be
found in verbal processes; by analysing verbal clauses, whoever gets to hold the floor
is one of the points that are unveiled. Moreover, the analysis also helps to uncover the
role of the Sayer and the listener, to understand the relation of power recurring
between the two of them.139
Nevertheless, these are not the only frameworks upon which Critical Discourse
Analysis draws: as mentioned above, it is an interdisciplinary approach, and it relates
to the pragmatic features in discourse; therefore, starting from the very pragmatic
features that can be analysed in discourse analysis, hidden patterns can be accordingly
unfolded.
138 A. Goatly, Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook, London, Routledge, 2000, p. 68 139 Ibid., p. 70
45
3.6 PRAGMATICS
A pragmatic approach is absolutely crucial in discourse analysis, especially when it
embraces a functional view of grammar: pragmatics is the semantics of language use.
In order for an analysis to be thorough, a certain number of features need to be
abstracted from texts. Here are the main ones.
3.6.1 Social actors
Of course the role of social actors is strictly related to functional grammar, since it is
the agency that reveals the “who-does-what-to-whom” structure of clauses. Discourse
can be manipulated in different ways, and one of them is nominalisation. As
Fairclough defines it, this grammatical form takes place when a process is expressed as
a noun, as if it were an entity.140 For example:
Germany invaded Poland � the invasion of Poland.
Using such a device can be ideological because it is not clear who or what caused the
event to happen. Therefore causality is unspecified;141 it is the case of the second
phrase cited above.
Another interesting phenomenon is that of passivisation. Here, again, causality is often
removed as in the example below:
She planted the knife � the knife was planted142
Where Halliday’s “goal” looks like an “actor”. Entailed in this sample clause is the
exclusion of the actor: the knife was planted by whom? This device is often used to
minimise the fact described, or to hide the logical subjects.
140 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p. 43 141 Ibid. 142 C. Kennedy, “Systemic grammar and its use in literary analysis”, in Carter, R. (ed.), Language and literature : an introductory reader in stylistics, London, Routledge, 1995, p. 89
46
3.6.2 Naming and reference
Referential strategies are very important to the ones who have the power to employ
them: especially in media discourse, this is a feature that is often used as a form of
social meaning and qualification:
The manner in which social actors are named identifies not only the group(s) that
they are associated with (or at least the groups that the speaker/writer wants them
to be associated with), it can also signal the relationship between the namer and
the named.143
Man kills woman is different from Immigrant kills little girl. This example can relate
to van Dijk’s ideological square, a tool which determines choices between referential
strategies, characterising them as “positive self-representation” vs. “negative other-
representation”. In such a way, the “other” is presented in a way that foregrounds
his/her negative characteristics.144
Predicational strategies, instead, are similar to the referential ones, but they describe
how persons are characterised and evaluated. The value ascribed to them is usually
negative in media discourse: it serves to criticise, undermine and vilify social actors.145
An example from the «Daily Mail»:
Soham killer’s ex-girlfriend146
which relates to a notorious news story involving a man murdering two schoolgirls and
his ex-girlfriend providing him with a false alibi. Therefore the paper bestows negative
predicational strategies to the woman in order to make her guilty to the eyes of the
public.
143 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 49 144 Ibid., p. 51 145 Ibid., pp. 52, 53 146 Ibid., p. 53
47
3.6.3 Collocational patterns
Strictly related to referential and predicational strategies, collocation has an important
role because it unveils the experiential values that words have: words co-occur with
recurrent ideological frameworks.147 The study of text corpora is very useful for
analysing how patterns occur: a corpus is a set of texts of both written and spoken
language; an example arising from the use of corpora is that the word “immigrant”
may be collocated with a negative connotation in the right-wing press, whilst it may
have a positive one when it is featured in left-wing papers.
3.6.4 Deictic expressions
In language use, utterances are generated and interpreted in relation to the way the
utterer and the interpreter are positioned.148 This “position” is a metaphor of the
distance recurring between the two of them and it arises from social relations. As
Chilton puts it:
“Deictic expressions” are linguistic resources used to perform deixis – that is, to
prompt the interpreter to relate the uttered indexical expression to various
situational features.149
Deixis helps ideology to the extent that it creates “relations of opposites” by increasing
their distance:
Us vs. them � social deixis
Now vs. then � temporal deixis
Here vs. there � spatial deixis.150
147 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p. 95 148 P. Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse – Theory and practice, London, Routledge, 2004, p.56 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid., pp. 56, 57
48
Indexical expressions are often used in the field of politics when, for example, an
“inclusive we” is used to marginalise whoever is not part of the group – or the party,
in this case.
3.6.5 Frames
There is a connection between Foucault’s orders of discourse and what in Pragmatics
are called “frames” or “schemata”. Frames appertain to so-called “long-term
knowledge” and can be defined as
Units of tacit knowledge which are shared by people in a community, which
permit external phenomena and other experience to be perceived as coherent and
to be understood as significant.151
These scenarios define prototypical roles and mental constructions, by
conceptualising situation types and their expression in language use.152 Therefore, each
scheme is set in society and it deals with entities, times, places, and this setting defines
the relations between them. Frames draw upon expectation: since experience shows
how certain social situational types are constructed, people act accordingly. Therefore,
it is important to highlight the connection between schemata and orders of discourse,
for both of them relate to social representations and domains of experience which are
stored and which repeat themselves without people noticing. Therefore the “socialist”
frame may bring about negative images because it is often associated with negative
connotations, such as the disintegration and discrediting of the Soviet regimes.
3.6.6 Entailments and presuppositions
In semantics, certain elements serve to embody truth relations in syntactic and lexical
structures. As Chilton explains, if an entailment is apparently logical it may be a
function of social or ideological beliefs:
151 R. Fowler, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London, Routledge, 1991, p. 60 152 P. Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse – Theory and practice, London, Routledge, 2004, p.51
49
If an entailing sentence p is true, then an entailed sentence q is necessarily also
true, and if q is false, then p is false.153
What is important in ideological discourse is that the relationship between p and q is
quickly turned into an automatic and straightforward one, and this is a strategic move
achieved through nothing but lexical and syntactic structure.
Presuppositions are similar to entailments to the extent that they are implicit claims
embedded in the explicit meaning of an utterance.154 The difference with entailments
draws upon logical relations:
A negated entailing sentence destroys the entailed sentence, whereas a negated
presupposing sentence preserves its presupposition.155
Here are two sample sentences which could be useful to clarify the difference:
The president is visiting today entails that there is a president, whereas
The president is not visiting today still presupposes that there is a president. 156
Therefore, the fact that the second sample has a negative form does not logically
presuppose that the first part is false.
An interesting phenomenon studied by Critical Discourse Analysis is that of synthetic
personalisation, which is often embedded in presuppositions; this device is described
by Fairclough as
A compensatory tendency to give the impression of treating each of the people
“handled” en masse as an individual.157
This strategy is common in mass-media discourse, since the consumerist approach
draws upon the so-called marketisation of discourse, in order to increase the
153 Ibid., p. 62 154 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 63 155 P. Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse – Theory and practice, London, Routledge, 2004, p.63 156 Ibid. 157 N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989, p. 52
50
desirability of what is being sold. Language itself is treated as a “commodity”, part of
the capitalistic economic domain.158
An example of synthetic personalisation is the call centre routine such as
Hello, this is Katie from Npower. Can I help you?
where the operator establishes a relationship with the client, therefore making the
exchange friendly and less “professional”.
3.6.7 Modality
Another device useful for the embedding of ideological purposes is strictly related to
Halliday’s interpersonal function of language. As Richardson puts it,
Modality forms the counter-part of transitivity, referring to judgements, comments
and attitude in text and talk, and specifically the degree to which a speaker or
writer is committed to the claim he or she is making.159
Accordingly, modality relates to the attitude towards the truth or the event described,
and it can be found in linguistic stances as explicit or implicit.
Modality is embedded in discourse through the use of modal verbs or adverbs.
Roger Fowler identifies four types of attitude according to the modal forms used:
1. Truth modality relates to the speaker’s commitment to the truth, and it varies
from absolute certainty to absolute negation, through various degrees of
hedging: e.g. will � could � won’t.
2. Obligation modality relates to what the speaker stipulates that the participants
in a proposition should or ought to do: e.g. must � should � mustn’t.
3. Permission modality relates to the speaker bestowing permission to do
something on the participants: e.g. may, can.
158 Ibid., p. 29 159 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 59
51
4. Desirability modality relates to the speaker’s approval or disapproval of the
state of affairs embedded in the proposition: it is usually expressed through the
use of evaluative adverbs, e.g. rightly when used in commentaries.160
3.6.8 Figures of speech
Rhetorical tropes are considered as «deviation(s) from the ordinary and principal
signification of a word» by assigning words denotations and connotations that are
different from their ordinary meaning.161 As a consequence, figures of speech help the
speaker emphasise his or her meaning, for usually rhetorical tropes are marked lexical
choices: this means that they are foregrounded, therefore they are not part of the so-
called “core vocabulary” which easily passes by unnoticed.162
Moreover, tropes are also likely to embody different options of expression; that is,
they represent intimacy, intensity and evaluation through clines.
Metaphors work by drawing analogies, by treating something as something else: they
set up a semantic link between a literal meaning and a non-literal one.163 They are
similar to similes, though these make the comparison explicit, as in
out here the moon burns through the night like the eyes of strays caught in headlights
where first the moon shining is (metaphorically) associated with a fire, then
(explicitly) with strays in the night.
Metonymies draw analogies as well, but by means of contiguity rather than similarity.
Therefore the linguistic element is associated to its real meaning through a logical,
semantic process: e.g. the Crown standing for the royal family.164
160 R. Fowler, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London, Routledge, 1991, pp. 85, 86, 87. 161 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 65 162 R. Carter, Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk, New York, Routledge, 2004, p. 115. 163 Ibid., pp. 119, 120 164 Ibid., p. 120
52
Synecdoche is a process of analogy that represents the whole of something as a part of
it – or vice versa: e.g. hands for workers.165
Hyperbole is a trope which is commonly used in newspaper language, and it deals with
an exaggeration made for rhetorical effect.166 Therefore, for the sake of ideological
discourse, a riot is likely to turn into a mob war.167
Puns are described by Richardson as forms of word-play which conceal rhetorical
strategies as well as political agendas.168 They are commonly used in newspaper
headlines, especially in tabloids, for humorous purposes and to draw people’s
attention. Richardson distinguishes three types of puns:
• Homographic puns are the ones which exploit multiple meanings of the same
words;
• Ideographic puns are the ones which substitute words with a similar sound;
• Homophonic puns are the ones which substitute words with the same sound but
with a different meaning.169
A pragmatic approach is a fundamental characteristic of Critical Discourse Analysis,
and the range of possibilities and devices that can be exploited by speakers is infinite;
therefore, making a linguistic choice means making an ideological stance.
The topic which will be further analysed in the next section deals with the use of these
pragmatic choices in the context of newspapers and, in particular, of British
newspapers.
165 Ibid., p. 124 166 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 65 167 Ibid. 168 Ibid., p. 70 169 Ibid.
53
3.7 APPLYING CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS TO PRESS D ISCOURSE
If every form of language is likely to entail ideological stances and hidden agendas,
newspaper discourse is definitely one of the most important fields of actions of this
sort:
Anything that is said or written about the world is articulated from a particular
ideological position: language is not a clear window but a refracting, structuring
medium.170
Roger Fowler identifies two processes in the creation of news reports: selection and
transformation; the topic is first sorted according to social constructions, and then it is
turned into a report that can suit the reader’s requests and expectations, based on social
schemata and ideological identification of the public, hence the definition of news
reports as commodities.171 The term which best identifies this process is that of
newsworthiness: drawing upon “news values” in order to make the best profit out of
the information released, and at the same time to build a reading public as well;172
news is a product – a product that must be made attractive or appealing to a market of
consumers.173 Conversely, it might be said that the audience is both a producer and a
product. Richardson concentrates on this topic by making a distinction between the
two “positions” of the audience:
• Audience fragmentation is «the division of the available audience between ever-
increasing numbers of media options»;174 this implies that the media make an
effort to divide the audience into smaller and smaller entities to suit the reader’s
needs: it is a bottom-up strategy, and it witnesses the power of the audience
over the media producer.
• Audience segmentation, instead, is a top-down strategy: it takes place «when
media producers attempt to corral a target audience in order to attract
170 R. Fowler, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London, Routledge, 1991, p. 10 171 Ibid., pp. 12, 13 172 Ibid., p. 13 173 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 77 174 Ibid., p. 78
54
advertising revenue»;175 this view sees the public as a commodity, and it is the
action embraced by the commercial logic, which not only sells copies, but also
advertising space—a space which must be attractive to the target and not vice
versa as in the case of fragmentation.
In order for the news story to be readable and attractive, the journalist needs to pay
attention to the form in which it is presented. Narrative content is simply the sequence
of events as they occurred in the story, whereas – and more importantly – narrative
form is the structure and the sequence in which the same events are reported and thus
shown to us.176 The usual structure is the so-called “inverted pyramid”, which puts the
climax at the beginning and then moves on to answer briefly the five “wh-”
questions.177
Finally, an interesting checklist entitled “What to look for in newspapers” may serve
as a good – though not complete – reference point for analysis; it is provided by Sara
Thorne in her book Mastering Advanced English Language.
According to her framework, the analysis needs to answer the following questions:
• In Register: mode (oral or written?) manner (formal or informal? What is the
function of the article? Is it ideological?) and field (what is the subject matter
and how does the writer approach it?).
• In Lexis (headlines): what is noticeable about the style? What are the
connotations of the words chosen? What modifiers are used? What ideology is
conveyed?
• In Lexis (reports): are the words formal or informal? Do the modifiers convey
sensationalism? What are the referential strategies assigned to participants?
What connotations of words are used? What adverbials are used?
• In Grammar (headlines): what is the sentence structure? Is the passive voice
used? Is there any ambiguity?
175 Ibid., p. 79 176 Ibid., p. 71 177 Ibid.
55
• In Grammar (reports): is there any variation in sentence structure? What about
the passive voice? Is the speech direct or indirect?
• In Metaphorical Language: what kind or rhetorical tropes are used? Is there
any repetition?178
All the tools cited throughout this chapter are useful not only for a theoretical approach
to the matter of Critical Discourse Analysis, but first and foremost for the analysis
itself, for such a work needs to be analytically assessed.
178 S. Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008, pp. 254, 255
56
4
CASE-STUDY: TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
No honest journalist should be willing to describe himself or herself as “embedded”.
To say, “I'm an embedded journalist” is to say, “I'm a government Propagandist”.179
The structure of this chapter is divided into two main sections, appertaining to two
different sets of discursive practices both appearing in newspapers: on the one hand
articles, on the other editorials.
The six excerpts analysed here relate to the news story cited in chapter 1: the
“Socialist” case as received by the British media, in this case the Press. The analysis is
synchronic since all the articles were published straight after the event, that is between
the 21st and the 25th of May, 2012. The six documents are drawn from both tabloids
and broadsheets, with contrasting political leanings.
In order to fully understand the difference between the two news reports and the four
editorials, a stylistic distinction needs to be made.
4.1 THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLES VS. THE LANGUAGE OF
EDITORIALS
The main difference between normal news reports and editorials (also known as
“comments” or “opinions”) is in the claim for objectivity and – often – neutrality of
179 N. Chomsky, Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, New York, Metropolitan Books, 2006, p. 150
57
the former. As J.E. Richardson explains, news reporting may strive for objectivity, but
nothing is ever neutral: therefore news is never valueless.180
Hence the question: how can objectivity be achieved? As Richardson puts it:
To file an objective report a journalist needs to distance him or herself from the
truth claims of the report. Distancing oneself […] requires that the fact and
opinion in a news report – that is, the reported speech, included in whatever form
– needs to be that of people other than the journalist.181
Therefore the narrative style used by the journalist aims at removing his or her own
authorial voice.182
As opposed to editorials, general news reports usually appear in the first few pages of
the paper, which is an ideological choice itself.
As Roger Fowler explains, the symbolic function of the comment being “parted off”
the preceding news reports implicitly supports the claim that other sections are pure
“fact”, whereas the comments in the last few pages are just some journalist’s point of
view on the subject taken into account.183 Moreover, the diverse styles used by the
diverse commentators serve the newspaper to support the claim that the voice speaking
is distinctive:184 the presence of the writer behind the article can therefore easily be
sensed.
Fowler lists a number distinguishing features appertaining to the linguistic and stylistic
choices of editorials:
• Vocabulary is emotive, dramatising and, more importantly, it is evaluative
through its use of adverbs and adjectives;
• Modality is used to articulate the authority of the speaker: the commentator may
claim to know what is going to happen or he/she may give advice;
180 J. E. Richardson, Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007, p. 86 181 Ibid. [emphasis in the original] 182 Ibid., p. 87 183 R. Fowler, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London, Routledge, 1991, p. 208 184 Ibid., p. 209
58
• Generic statements relate to descriptive propositions which nonetheless are
authoritarian, since they claim total knowledge of the topics analysed; these
statements often take the form of proverbs, which encode common-sense
wisdom;
• The editorial is argumentative because the commentator strikes a position of
rebuttal in relation to other people’s ideas;
• Finally, the relationship between the writer and the reader deals with the former
trying to persuade the latter of his or her correctness, by invoking solidarity – as
if it were a friendly conversation.185
Having explained the difference between articles and editorials, it is now essential to
move on to the analysis – by comparison – of the two articles.
4.2 A RIGHT-WING ARTICLE VS. A LEFT-WING ARTICLE:
THE DAILY MAIL VS. THE GUARDIAN
The first section of this critical discourse analysis is dedicated to the study of news
articles and their language. The approach adopted here will work by comparing two
British newspapers which are traditionally opposite in their political ideology.
The analysis will compare the linguistic features of the two excerpts, in order to unveil
the grammatical as well as the ideological characteristics of the two texts.
4.2.1 Context, contents and expectations
The first article, entitled Welcome to the People’s Republic of Britain: 'Socialist' Cable
and his 'Communist' comrade Clegg are accused of stifling real Tory policies, written
by Martin Robinson, appeared in The Daily Mail on 23 May, 2012. This mid-market
185 Ibid., pp. 210, 211, 212.
59
article is compared to the broadsheet report which was written by Nicholas Watt and
Juliette Jowit and appeared in The Guardian on the same day. Both the pieces have
been retrieved from the two newspapers’ websites.
As far as the contents are concerned, the two articles appear to be very similar in their
structure and in the events they report. They both introduce the news story of Vince
Cable being branded “a Socialist” by Adrian Beecroft. Moving on to explaining the
event in a more chronological way, they both cite a similar report concerning Nick
Clegg, head of the Lib-Dems, being branded “a Communist” by a public school head.
In both the newspapers, the second section of the article is dedicated to the interviews
which Beecroft gave to The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail; this part directly
quotes the speaker. There are no comments at the end of the article, since such reports
claim to be telling the “objective truth”. “Objective” is not “neutral”, though; even
camouflaged, the two papers are expected to be supporting opposite views: The Mail
mainly supporting the Tories, The Guardian supporting the Centre-Left.
4.2.2 Typographical features and graphics
Since the two newspapers have a different target readership, it is evident how different
their approach will be, at least as far as headlines and pictures are concerned. The
Guardian chooses a more moderate approach to pictures and graphics: the headline is
bold and a little larger than the sub-headline. There is only one picture portraying
Vince Cable, and throughout the whole article there are no interruptions. At the bottom
of the picture, the caption reads: «Vince Cable is a “socialist”, says Adrian Beecroft,
who also accused Nick Clegg of blocking employment law reforms by issuing a
“hollow threat”.»
In The Daily Mail, the headline is longer, larger and more sensationalistic. There are
four sub-headlines which summarise in brief the points listed in the article. Moreover,
what is curious about the article is the number of pictures with attached captions that
appear throughout the piece. The first two pictures portray Cable and Beecroft in two
different positions: while the former is speaking and looking away, the latter is looking
60
straight into the camera. The caption reads: «Battle royale: Vince Cable, left, is a
'socialist', according to David Cameron's adviser Adrian Beecroft, right, who should
never have been put in charge of the Government's business brief.» The second
example is more straightforward in trying to “describe” the event mentioned in the
caption: «Mr Beecroft claims that Nick Clegg threatens to break-up the Coalition if he
doesn't get his own way and the PM should stand up to him more». The picture is
ironic because it shows Clegg giving a speech and raising his fist as a symbol of power
– probably the paper is also associating it with the Communist “raised fist” – whereas
David Cameron is looking at him with a worried expression on his face. The Mail,
therefore, plays with graphics to comment humorously on the facts reported, while The
Guardian is graphically more neutral.
4.2.3 Headlines
As mentioned above, the striking feature that distinguishes the headline from the Daily
Mail is its sensationalism. The article is entitled «Welcome to the People’s Republic
of Britain: “Socialist” Cable and his “Communist” c omrade Clegg are accused of
stifling real Tory policies»; the title is definitely sarcastic, since it draws upon a
frame coming from shared knowledge to convey the meaning: it is linked to the
People’s Republic of China, a traditionally Communist country. The hyperbolic effect
is further increased by the use of “comrade” as a form of address for Clegg. The
predicational strategies for “Socialist” and “Communist” are put in inverted commas
in order to underline them and to distance the writer from defining them as such. What
is not clear about the “accusation” is the agency: who is accusing Cable and Clegg?
This is a verbal process, but the Sayer is hidden.
The person responsible for this action is revealed at the end of the first sub-headline: it
is Adrian Beecroft, directly quoted in the foreground, defined “employer reform
adviser”. In each of the four points there is at least one verbal process, since the
characteristic of such articles is to report a third person’s verbiage: what is often
ideological in this is how the verbiage is reported, whether the person “claims”,
61
“threatens” or simply “says”. A generic statement is found in the second sub-headline,
which quotes Beecroft in “claiming” that
Nick Clegg threatens to break up the Coalition if he doesn’t get his own way
Where the truth assumption entails that Clegg is ruling the scene. The first three sub-
headings are opposed by the fourth one, which opens with but, an adversative
conjunction, contradicting what has been expressed by the preceding verbal processes,
and finally providing a material process to “block” the recommendations.
Watt and Jowit’s article in The Guardian features a shorter title which briefly
describes the news story. «Vince Cable accused of being a socialist by Tory donor»
is the main headline. Also in this case there is a verbal process, and the Sayer is
referred to as “Tory donor” and not called by his name. This technique creates an
ideological opposition between the “socialist” and the “Tory” element. Since the
person who “accuses” the “accused” is the Tory donor, then it seems that the headline
is implicitly supporting the “accused”.
The sub-headline, instead, opens citing Adrian Beecroft, and it foregrounds his
occupation, putting the aside “a venture capitalist” between commas. The ideological
square is here repeated in the capitalist vs. socialist antithesis.
4.2.4 Punctuation
In both the articles, punctuation is used in a rather traditional way. In The Guardian
paragraphs are a little longer and sentences are too, while in The Daily Mail they
resemble more those of a tabloid newspaper.
4.2.5 Transitivity and modality
In both the articles the most common process is verbal process: the news stories report
what has been said. As mentioned above, the evaluation in a verbal process is in the
way it is introduced; Martin Robinson, for example, says that the blueprint was asked
62
for by Downing Street and it proposed small firms be exempted from rules of unfair
dismissal.
In The Guardian, instead, Beecroft often accuses; an example of what the paper
positions as an “unfair” accusation is in the example:
Clegg also found himself accused of being leftwing
Where Clegg seems to have no fault in relation to the event.
When Beecroft is directly quoted, in both the articles, he often uses relational
processes to convey generic statements, sometimes hedged by the mental process “I
think”, as in
I think he is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he’s one of the Left.
Truth modality can be found in Beecroft’s direct quotations as well, suggesting that
A failure to introduce his plans could hold back economic growth.
4.2.6 Lexis
In the name of objectivity, journalists should not be too ideological when writing a
news report. Therefore, the use of modifiers is much more limited in broadsheet
articles, and in this case also in the mid-market paper taken into account. The use of
evaluative modifier seems to be influential in the direct quotations only except, in the
case of The Mail, in the first paragraph, where it deals with a stinging attack related to
a controversial report; it is curious that The Independent defined it as controversial
too.
As far as referential and predicational strategies are concerned, the forms of address
attributed to Cable and Clegg are always put in inverted commas, whereas the various
naming options for Beecroft and the others involved in the events are constantly
changed to avoid repetitions. An evaluative aside is provided by The Guardian when
describing the “Communist” attack against Clegg by Tim Hands, who
63
[…] represents elite private schools
Where the authors of the article defend state schools in opposition to private, “elite”
ones defended by Hands.
4.2.7 Deixis
The tone of the two articles is kept far from the personal, spatial and temporal centre
since the style is very formal – direct quotations excluded. The only exception is in
Robinson’s vocational tone when “welcoming” the readers in the headline. This is an
example of personal deixis, but it can be considered as detached from the rest of the
article, which has a totally different tone.
4.3 A RIGHT-WING BROADSHEET EDITORIAL VS. A LEFT-WI NG
BROADSHEET EDITORIAL:
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH VS. THE INDEPENDENT
This section is the first of the two dedicated to editorials: unlike the language of
general articles, the style, the creativity and the ideological effects of comments are all
useful tools for analysis.
4.3.1 Context, contents and expectations
The first excerpt analysed here was published in The Daily Telegraph on 23 May,
2012. Written by David Hughes, one of the most famous Telegraph editorialists, the
piece is entitled Vince Cable a socialist? What a surprise; it was published soon after
the events, therefore it is quite short.
64
The second comment analysed is entitled If socialists really did run the show, working
people would benefit and it appeared in The Independent two days later, on 25 May
2012. The author is Owen Jones, a young but important contributor to the paper. The
piece is longer than that of Hughes, but the contents are different.
What strikes the reader as curious, although the two approaches to the events are
totally different, is that they maintain ideological positions which could not be further
away from each other.
The content of Hughes’ editorial deals with him supporting the Beecroft Report and
his comments about the work of Vince Cable as Business Secretary, questioning
whether or not he is doing a good job.
The contents of Jones’ editorial, though starting from the same event, move on to a
diachronic account of how the word “socialist” has been culturally transformed into a
derogatory term.
Therefore, the analysis is expected to show how The Daily Telegraph supports the
governmental decisions by defending them, whereas The Independent overtly attacks
them.
Both the pieces have been retrieved from the two newspapers’ websites.
4.3.2 Typographical features and graphics
The comment from The Daily Telegraph is quite straightforward in its headline: it is
not in bold letters and there is not even a sub-headline. By contrast, the editorial in The
Independent is presented with a headline in bold, orange letters which occupies the
whole width of the page.
The two pictures are also totally different from each other: in The Telegraph, Cable is
portrayed while unconsciously raising his middle finger, and the caption humorously
reads: «Giving the finger to employment reforms: Vince Cable». The big picture in
65
The Independent, instead, is an illustration by Darren Diss – a satirical artist –
representing a man, holding a red flag, marching on the communist symbol.
4.3.3 Headlines
The comment in The Telegraph opens with a sharp sarcastic tone: «Vince Cable a
socialist? What a surprise». This is the striking feature of the title, which does not
need a sub-headline: it is strong enough. The rhetorical question serves to emphasise
the humorous tone, and it is essential to note that Hughes is not using any inverted
commas for the word “socialist”: he is taking full responsibility in calling the
Secretary as such, he is not speaking in someone else’s name. In his rhetorical answer
he underlines how obvious the answer was, using irony to convey exactly the opposite
meaning of the exclamation “what a surprise”.
Jones is less critical but more argumentative even in the main headline: «If socialists
really did run the show, working people would benefit». The hypothetical clause is
a generic statement which draws upon the authority of the writer in order to establish a
truth assumption: through modality, Jones makes this proposition seem totally logical,
since the second part of the clause is presented as a clear – positive – consequence of
the first one. However, there is an emphasis – with a humorous remark – on the adverb
“really” and on the structure which substitutes “ran” with the foregrounded “did run”;
this device implies that, actually, the metaphor of “running the show” is not in the
hands of the socialists.
The sub-headline in Jones’ editorial is an addition rather than an explanation of the
main title, but it follows the same modality scheme: «Rather than having to engage in
debate, an opponent can be dismissed as extremist». The structure is again that of
cause and effect, with the modal verb “can” implying possibility, but here it has a
negative evaluation: Jones is criticising the move of attributing certain forms of
address in order to block the political debate.
Moving on to the body of the comments, there are several features to be observed.
66
4.3.4 Punctuation
In both the editorials, punctuation is used in a rather traditional way. Sentences and
paragraphs are quite long – especially in the case of The Independent. While Hughes
often uses dashes for asides, Jones invariably uses both dashes and parentheses.
There is no use of italics, but inverted commas are employed both in direct speech and
when a certain definition is included, as in Hughes’ “filthy rich” .
4.3.5 Transitivity and modality
Relational processes are peculiar in Hughes’ piece: in the first paragraph, he ironically
puts two relational clauses side by side in order to achieve a contrasting outcome:
Calling Vince Cable a “socialist” is a stinging insult […] He’s being politically naïve.
What the author means, here, is that since Cable is a socialist, it was redundant and
naïve to remark it.
Another negative connotation Hughes achieves through the use of relational clauses is
the “compliment” followed by an attack he addresses to Cable:
He can be a persuasive and effective minister. But there is always a nagging
suspicion…
Where the adversative conjunction “but” serves to diminish what is said in the first
sentence.
In Jones’ piece, relational processes are used to give evaluations to the events. In
particular, he makes a clear distinction between what was good – in the past tense –
and what is currently bad – in the present tense – as in the examples:
It was once fashionable for the media to label the Labour leader “Red Ed”
But now “liberal” is largely hurled as a term of abuse.
67
Later in the editorial, the writer has the same approach to the material processes: two
entire paragraphs made of material clauses are put in antithesis, using the second
conditional:
If socialists really were running the show in Britain, they would be building a society
run by, and in the interests of, working people…
Instead, we have a government ruthlessly forcing people to pay the immense cost of
getting capitalism out of its mess.
Where “instead” marks the distance between what could happen – positive – and what
is really happening – negative.
This example is useful because it also contains truth modality, which seems to have
been largely used by the two authors. Jones uses modality to gain authority over the
text: his recurrent hypothetical clauses and the logic they embody are the sign that the
columnist is making an effort to convince the reader by giving unreal future
predictions, thus criticising the society that does not let them happen.
In Hughes, the tone is stronger and the truth modality does not express possibility, but
certainty. This can be seen in the first line already, where – unlike Jones – he uses a
first conditional, expressing real possibility:
If Adrian Beecroft thinks that calling Vince Cable “a socialist” is a stinging insult that
will upset the boy…
A curious line in The Telegraph is the following:
[Cable] doesn’t really get on with business people
Where the author is making a clear statement, which nonetheless is too strong to be
conveyed directly: therefore, by using the adverb “really”, the commentator is hedging
the truth assumption to make it sound more acceptable, whilst there is no change in the
real meaning of the proposition: it is a clear critique.
In The Independent, desirability modality can strike the reader as ideological since the
author is making clear evaluations, as in
68
The certifiably non-socialist Lib Dem was being rather mild-mannered
Where the adverbs “certifiably” and “rather” are clear comments about the events.
4.3.6 Lexis
In editorials, the strength of modifiers is essential in understanding the ideological
leaning of the author. Moreover, in both cases, the language used is quite informal,
therefore it often displays the use of phrasal verbs, slang words and creative style.
Hughes, for example, makes his ideology explicit when defining Cable as an
“effective” minister, soon to be followed by a “nagging suspicion”, though. He also
uses an ironic yet derogatory referential strategy when calling the Minister “the old
boy”.
Jones is more emphatic in his use of modifiers, which classify – often ironically –
whether the person or the fact is positive or negative, as in the conclusion, when he
regards the socialists as “pesky”.
In The Independent, in the first paragraph, the referential strategies are essential.
Contrasting the two men – Marx and Beecroft – he calls the former “great man”, while
the latter is only a “bloke”.
4.3.7 Deixis
Even though the tone is informal, Hughes does not use any foregrounded indexical
features. Jones’ use of indexicality, instead, is more creative and more rhetorical. The
first paragraph, for example, is all in the first person. Later in the comment, at the
beginning of the third paragraph, he employs an inclusive “we”, which is not only
regarded as positive, since he later sees “our wealthy elite” as negative.
69
4.3.8 Frames
The first striking feature of Hughes’ comment is his stereotypical way of addressing
Vince Cable as a “socialist”: saying that he is a proud man of the Left is not the same
as justifying the assumption that he is also a Socialist. Given this misguiding
assumption, though, he moves on to draw upon it throughout the rest of the article.
This misguided belief is attacked by Jones, who instead underlined that Beecroft’s
form of address towards Cable was a smear on the good name of socialism.
A striking feature of the two comments is that they analyse the same instrument but
from opposite points of view. The theory they use is that of the “Overton window”,
which describes «what is seen as politically acceptable at a given time»;186 Jones and
Hughes observe that both Beecroft and Cable achieve this rhetorical strategy through
the use of a term that positions the opponent outside of that window. Such process
makes the opponent’s ideas unacceptable, thus blocking the debate: on the one hand, it
is used by Jones as referred to Beecroft defining Cable as “Socialist”; on the other
hand, Hughes uses the same attack towards Cable defining the proposals as “bonkers”,
accusing him of «drowning out» «an opportunity to start a sensible debate».
4.3.9 Rhetorical tropes, slang words, puns and figurative language
In both comments, the tone is colloquial and argumentative, and the vocabulary is
informal, a feature displayed in particular by the use of phrasal verbs and figurative
language – especially in the case of The Independent.
Although the two editorials appear in broadsheet newspapers, slang words are
common: they manage to create solidarity with the reader and are sometimes more
straightforward. An example is Jones’ “pinko” when describing the socialists or
Hughes’ use of “bust-up” related to the Coalition quarrelling about certain matters.
186
Owen Jones, If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit, 25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html
70
Interesting referential strategies which are achieved through the use of slang words are
related to the two protagonists of the story: Hughes is defending Beecroft, therefore he
ironically calls Cable an “old boy”, whilst Jones, who – up to a certain extent – is
defending Cable, conversely calls Beecroft “bloke”, with an ironic tone.
Rhetorical devices are constant throughout the two pieces: for instance, Jones opens
with a sarcastic tone, introducing the topic with a hyperbolic construction when he
references Karl Marx
Spinning violently in his Highgate Cemetery grave.
The rhetorical tone of the two editorials is featured to the extent that the argumentative
characteristics resemble those of political speeches in their aim to convince the reader.
For instance, Hughes uses repetition to emphasise his concept:
An opportunity […] was drowned out by another yet another Coalition bust-up.
In The Independent, Jones builds a somewhat “ideological” simile to explain the
meaning of “socialist” according to Beecroft:
An opponent can be dismissed as a “socialist”, which – for Beecroft – is code for
“extremist”…
As mentioned above, a sarcastic tone can be sensed through the two comments,
especially in Hughes, who is very explicit in his judgements, for instance when he uses
the verb “pick up” to convey the idea of Cable casually clinging to one excuse to
attack his opponent:
He picked up one of many recommendations […] and let it be known he thought it
“bonkers”
where the verbal construction “let it be known” reinforces the first one, conveying the
idea of Cable making decisions without giving them too much thought.
Idioms play an important role in Jones’ comment. The title itself displays an idiomatic
structure such as “run the show”; later in the piece, Shakespeare is quoted in the
famous phrase
71
The lady doth protest too much
which is a line from Hamlet that is used idiomatically to say or to deny something so
often that people suspect you are lying.
Another interesting expression in found in the line that reads
It is capitalism red in tooth and claw
Where the idiom “red in tooth and claw” relates to the «sometimes violent natural
world, in which predatory animals unsentimentally cover their teeth and claws with the
blood of their prey as they kill and devour them.»187 This is yet another literary quote
and it is used idiomatically to emphasise the merciless system of the capitalist society.
4.4 A RIGHT-WING TABLOID EDITORIAL VS. A LEFT-WING TABLOID
EDITORIAL: THE SUN VS. THE DAILY MIRROR
In this section two similar editorials will be analysed and compared.
4.4.1 Context, contents and expectations
The first comment, entitled Thanks for help with the economy, Dr Evil, appeared in
The Sun on 24 May, 2012. As mentioned before, the paper’s political ideologies lean
to the right; the comment was written by Rod Liddle, a famous British columnist, in
his personal page of the paper (p.11 in this case).188
In comparison with The Sun, the analysis will also focus on a comment that appeared
on The Daily Mirror on 23 May, 2012. The Mirror is traditionally a left-wing tabloid
187 The Phrase Finder, http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html 188 Rod Liddle, Thanks for help with the economy, Dr. Evil, 24/5/2012, http://www.scribd.com/doc/94683393/The-SUN-24-Thursday-May-2012, p.11
72
supporting the Labour Party; the editorial was written by Kevin Maguire and it is
entitled Tories are the same old nasty party viewing workers as disposable.189
What are the expectations of this analysis? Since The Sun is a right-wing paper and
The Daily Mirror a left-wing one, before reading some may think the former will
approve and defend Beecroft’s behaviour, while the latter will sharply criticise it.
Along with the main hypothesis, though, both the commentators will possibly be
sympathetic towards the people who are involved in the news story as the “mistreated”
ones, that is the working class: it is important for a newspaper to satisfy its target
readers’ expectations.
In fact, taking a first look at the contents and structure of the two editorials, it is
apparent that the two writers agree on the subject: both the articles are attacks against
the Beecroft Report and the behaviour he showed towards his opponents. The main
difference between Liddle and Maguire is in the tools they use for their critique:
Liddle is more argumentative, he provides the reader with a brief – yet humorous –
summary of the events and the Report, and he explains his ideological point of view
demonstrating his assumptions; Maguire, instead, is more critical and less
straightforward in his attack, which is less argumentative and harder to understand if
the reader does not know the context with which it deals.
However, a better understanding of the contents will only be achieved through the
analysis of the excerpts as they is positioned in the British context; it is therefore
important to keep in mind that both the commentators, in this case, are men of the
Left: The Daily Mirror is a traditionally Labour-supporting newspaper, whereas Rod
Liddle openly admits his membership of the Party.190
While Maguire’s editorial has been retrieved from the newspaper’s website, Liddle’s
piece is the original one which appeared in the tabloid.
189 Kevin Maguire, Tories are the same old nasty party viewing workers as disposable, 23/5/2012, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kevin-maguire-conservatives-are-the-same-old-844389 190 Rod Liddle, So some people actually voted for Abbott?, 26/9/2010, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2010/09/so-some-people-actually-voted-for-abbott/
73
4.4.2 Typographical features and graphics
Both the newspapers have large, bold headlines. The sub-headlines are smaller and, in
the case of The Sun, some words and sentences are emphasised by italics, bold letters
and lists.
A peculiar feature is in the pictures present in the two articles: Adrian Beecroft is
portrayed in both of them, but in different ways.
In The Sun Rod Liddle compares Beecroft to a character appertaining to popularly
shared knowledge: Dr Evil from the Austin Powers film series. This connection is
drawn in the headline, and indeed the picture at the bottom right sees a paste-up
portrait of Dr Evil with Beecroft’s face.
In The Daily Mirror the critique expressed by Beecroft’s picture is less direct, though
not less effective: in this case the Government advisor is portrayed with a sort of smug
grin on his face, and the photo is accompanied by a caption that reads: « Hardnosed
speculator: Adrian Beecroft».
4.4.3 Headlines
The main feature of Liddle’s headline is its sarcastic element. The phrase «Thanks for
help with the economy, Dr Evil» has a vocational feature that is expressed in the
opposition drawn between the interjection “thanks” and the person who is being
thanked, “Dr Evil”. This element draws upon a frame which appertains to shared
knowledge within Western culture – especially the English-speaking one. Dr Evil,
being the mean character from a famous film, is an ideal referential strategy for a
negative connotation of a person. Therefore, thanks to the solidarity between the writer
and the reader who understands the association, the sarcastic element turns out to be
successful. What is not clear in this headline is: who is thanking “Dr Evil”? It is not
clear whether Liddle is speaking in every reader’s name or if he is just striving for
solidarity by keeping the social actor hidden.
74
The sub-headline further elaborates the headline by keeping the humorous tone active:
«at last the Government have come up with some serious proposals to get our
economy moving again.» The ironic component in the relieved tone which is being
conveyed is directly connected to the headline, which is why it would be harder to
understand the sarcastic tone if this line had stood alone; the adverb “at last” creates
humour as connected to the “proposals” which are discussed later: these function as
head of the noun phrase, which has two modifiers that give “proposals” a negative
connotation: “some” and “serious”; the adjective “some” denotes a certain degree of
vagueness in what is being reported, whereas “serious” is sarcastic to the extent that it
is in connection to the headline. Moreover, if the proposition is seen in functionalist
terms, the process expressed is a material one with “the Government” as Actor.
However, another cue is given by the connotation of the action itself: the verb “come
up with” does not relate to a serious and very reliable sphere: instead, it conveys the
idea that the proposals were not given careful thought.
Maguire’s comment in The Daily Mirror opens with a rather sharp attack against the
Government, rather than with a humorous tone. «Tories are the same old nasty party
viewing workers as disposable» sees a generic statement that is constructed as a truth
assumption because the commentator is using an authoritative tone. Moreover, from a
functionalist perspective, the first clause is presented as a relational process, which is
the process of identity: if the construction of the Carrier draws upon a negative
Attribute, it is obvious that the tone of the following article will not be less negative. In
fact, the three modifiers of the Attribute are positioned as a sort of negative climax:
“same old nasty” which is repeated with the same rhetorical patterning in the sub-
headline.
Indeed, the sub-headline reads: «This Government is a conspiracy against decent
people perpetrated by a loaded, selfish and cruel elite». The sub-headline therefore
opens with a space indexical which serves to position the foregrounded Carrier,
“Government”, in a closer and scarier context. As mentioned above, the negative
climax is repeated in the three modifiers of the head “elite”: “loaded, selfish and
cruel”. Moreover, the material process generated by the verb “perpetrate” presupposes
75
a sense of continuity in the action. This action is not only made explicit by the
presence of the social actor – in this case passivisation does not remove causality – but
it is also emphasised by the presence of what van Dijk defines “ideological square”:
positive self-representation and negative other-representation.
As a result, the tone of the two headlines is opposite: where Liddle exploits a great
deal of humour by making references to frames appertaining to shared knowledge,
Maguire is clearer in his attack, which nonetheless is convincing to the extent that it
uses rhetorical tropes to convey ideology.
Moving on to the body of the report, that is the editorial itself, it is useful to note
whether the tone of the article is kept similar to that of the headline or whether it
changes.
4.4.4 Punctuation
There is a sharp difference in the use of punctuation made by Liddle and Maguire.
The commentator from The Daily Mail uses a technique which resembles the stream of
consciousness, because the tone is aggressive. Being the paragraphs short, he rarely
uses commas, even when they are needed. This device provides the text with a flowing
and fast-paced rhythm.
The columnist from The Sun, instead, is more creative and more traditional at the same
time in his use of punctuation. Paragraphs are a little longer and he often uses dashes
to link clauses. For this reason the tone is not aggressive, but argumentative.
4.4.5 Transitivity
The comment in The Sun mainly exploits two kinds of functional processes: the
material and relational. The editorial can be split into two main sections, divided by
the word “Navvies” in bold. In the first section, in which Liddle summarises the
events, there is a great deal of material processes. It is interesting to notice how these
76
processes are negatively positioned because the Actors are the ones who are “wrong”.
This framework is manifest in the sentence
Workers can be fired even if they’ve done nothing wrong
where there are two material processes, but while there is someone who “fires” the
“workers” – negatively evaluated – the possibility to accomplish a “wrong” material
process is negated to the workers, because they are “right”.
In the second section, in which Liddle explains why the Report is wrong, there are
mainly relational processes which, from a functional point of view, build those that are
called generic statements, likely to be regarded as true.
A peculiar feature can be found in the two verbal processes which are opposites: while
Ed Miliband pointed out, Mr Beecroft will scream that you’re a socialist
which are antithetical and which clearly demonstrate what Liddle himself says—the
writer is not neutral.
In The Daily Mirror, the set of processes used are more variable; the author gives
negative evaluations throughout the whole article, but when his personal voice is heard
there is a clear opposition of “likes”:
[Nick Clegg] can deliver as many social mobility speeches as he likes
VS.
I liked […] socialist Kevin Brennan’s remark.
This, again, is a clear example of an ideological square.
4.4.6 Lexis
Tabloids are commonly famous for their lexical choices, which are one of their
distinguishing features.
77
Modifiers are among the most powerful tools with which the author is provided: as
Thorne explains, they can make the report more emotive and more sensational.191 In
these two cases, though, the modifiers are rather used to convey the commentator’s
evaluation.
In Liddle’s editorial, modifiers are used in a humorous way to create a paradoxical
effect, as in the two examples:
Serious proposals
Grubby little workers
where the sarcastic tone is drawn from the context.
Maguire employs modifiers in a more emphatic way: as mentioned above, he often
repeats similar sequences of modifiers in order to create a negative climax:
Loaded, selfish and cruel elite.
A 21st century slave-driving mill owner.
Another important feature to analyse is how referential and predicational strategies
are used: what are the names and the attributes given to the people about whom the
author is talking?
Of course the biggest example of a deprecatory referential strategy is Liddle’s “Mr
Evil”; at a certain point he overtly defines Beecroft as a “nutjob”.
On Maguire’s side, instead, there is a constant emphasis on the “Tory” element, which
underlines how biased the choice of the Report was:
Squillionaire Tory donor
Every day the Tories reveal…
To create an ideological square, Maguire moves on to make clear that 191 S. Thorne, Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008, p. 255.
78
I liked Cardiff stiletto socialist Kevin Brennan’s remark
Where “socialist” is the naturally good counterpart to the “bad capitalist”.
4.4.7 Deixis
In order to keep the ideological square intact, indexicality is a factor that is useful for
generating solidarity between readers and writer.
In The Sun, Rod Liddle uses mainly personal deixis to draw a line between “us” and
“them”:
our economy vs. their proposals
which entails that the decisions concerning us are made by them only.
In the second section he moves on to using the pronoun you in a vocational tone; this
device is used to refer to the people, the workers who are disadvantaged in respect to
the Report: in a rhetorical way they are pointed at as if they were the ones to blame. In
one case Liddle invokes Beecroft with another you: this is where he calls him a
“nutjob”; this continuous shift in deixis makes the reading and the reader more active,
and it conveys the sense that everyone is affected by the outcome of the Government’s
decisions.
Maguire, instead, focuses on the “negative other-representation”, mainly keeping the
writing in the third person. Two exceptions can be found when he uses the first person
on one occasion – Liddle does so as well – and when he humorously mentions that
Downing Street did us a favour
where the synecdoche for “Government” is seen by the author as finally revealing its
true face.
79
4.4.8 Frames
There are several connections with commonly shared knowledge upon which the two
authors draw.
As mentioned before, Rod Liddle identifies Beecroft with a character from a famous
film, but what strikes the critical reader as stereotypical is the cultural reference to
foreign workers in the lines that read:
British companies don’t have the rights to treat British workers like Chinese navvies
We don’t have enough 13-year-old kids working in sweatshops like they do in parts of
Africa and the Far East.
These racial stereotypes are likely to be found in populist tabloids such as The Sun,
therefore it is easy for the writer to make examples drawing from them.
While The Sun compares the capitalist ideas to those of underdeveloped countries, The
Daily Mail draws the same connections – exploited workers and children – but with a
historical example: the frame is therefore that of mines and chimneys typical of the
industrial revolution:
Reopen the coal mines so that women can be sent back deep into the dark bowels of
the earth
Unblock the chimneys to recreate death traps to send kids up.
4.4.9 Rhetorical tropes, puns, slang words
Tabloid newspapers use a great deal of rhetorical devices to make the text catchy and
the meanings more straightforward; of course, they are often ideologically biased.
The whole comment written by Riddle is pervaded by a sarcastic tone, which is an
important feature itself; this trope is often emphasised by the use of italics.
80
The feature which is most present throughout the text is definitely hyperbole, which he
uses to shock the reader, as in the examples:
Workers to curtsy or bow when they see management executives
But try telling this to Mr Beecroft and he’ll scream that you’re a socialist
A hyperbole which reaches its climax when he adds
And probably start working in his basement on a fiendish doomsday weapon to
obliterate mankind.
Another rhetorical device is the anaphora in the repetition of the pronoun “you” as if
pointing the finger; this trope makes the ending more dramatic.
Maguire’s comment opens with a great deal of sarcasm when he hyperbolically links
the consequences of Beecroft’s Report to the Victorian era. Another successful trope
he uses is the following simile:
Asking a venture capitalist about sacking was like consulting Hannibal Lecter on the
nutritional value of cannibalism
Where the structure of the proposition and the comparison between a capitalist and
Hannibal Lecter is yet another reminder of how similar the two writers approach the
subject.
Finally, a remark on the informality of language is necessary: both the writers use
slang words or neologisms: Maguire, in particular, gives Beecroft the attribute of
squillionaire – meaning someone who has a lot of money; he talks about
Cameroonism and uses the slang word wonga for “money”.
81
4.5 COMMENTARY
The six pieces which are the objects of this critical discourse analysis are all different
but with similarities. Although the topics analysed are related to the same news story,
the approach to the news of each of the articles is different.
As far as contents are concerned, the two articles taken from The Daily Mail and The
Guardian have similar, fixed characteristics: even their schematic structure is similar,
and the topics are introduced in a similar order and with a similar approach.
The four editorials, instead, are more free in their structures and contents and a striking
feature is that, although the starting point is the same, the four commentators take
different roads and develop arguments and ideologies that are very different from one
another.
The final task of discourse analysis, in order to become “critical”, consists in
investigating the ideologies – either hidden or explicit – present in the texts upon
which the work is focused.
Therefore, the questions to answer are the following:
1. Are the texts ideologically positioned?
2. Do the texts reflect the ideological positions expected from the newspaper in
which they are found?
3. How do the texts react to the “socialist” problem? Do they take it as a common-
sense assumption – meaning the stereotype has ultimately settled in everyday
language use – or do they reject the term by denying any derogatory nature
entailed in it?
Therefore, in this section I will be trying to answer these question by means of critical
observation.
82
4.5.1 Right-wing article VS. Left-wing article
As mentioned above, the striking feature of the two articles is that they are very similar
in that their structure is fixed and they claim objectivity. Nevertheless, although it can
be affirmed that the two pieces are mainly objective, there are several characteristics
that display an ideological leaning.
As far as The Daily Mail article is concerned, what is most interesting is the difference
in the approach between the body of the article and its context (headlines and
pictures): while the article tries to maintain an objective point of view by displaying a
neutral tone, direct quotations and no evaluating modifiers, the tone of the headlines –
especially the main one – is ironic and humorous. In its reference to the People’s
Republic of China, it is not clear whether the paper, when drawing such a hyperbolic
connection, is supporting this view or rejecting it. In addition, however, the pictures
displayed in the article and – in particular – their captions seem to be derisive of both
the Lib-Dem politicians mentioned in the article. A coherent explanation to this would
be that the author of the article may not have been the person who was responsible for
the graphic side.
Nonetheless, there are two more important features that can help us identify the
ideological nature of the article, and they are not easy to uncover.
The absence of evaluating modifiers is rebalanced by the visibility ascribed to the
protagonists of the news story: it appears that only the “accusers” are given the “right”
to speak and be directly quoted; therefore Beecroft and Hands are much more visible
than Cable and Clegg, who are only quoted indirectly for “insisting” or “suggesting”,
verbs which, from a functional point of view, do not convey a sense of certainty and
responsibility.
Nevertheless, from a critical point of view, the article can still be considered as a valid
piece of journalistic objectivity: the ideologically-positioned characteristics are not so
apparent and, in the end, nothing is value-free.
83
Moving on to the article published in The Guardian, the left-leaning ideology becomes
slightly more apparent. In the headlines, for instance, Watt and Jowit use the
ideological square: first it is “socialist” vs. “Tory donor”, then it is “venture capitalist”
vs. “socialist”.
As mentioned before, naming options have a great deal of ideological involvement,
and so do verbal processes in terms of functional grammar: the leaning of the paper is
seen in its subtle way of conveying the “accusations” received by the two Lib-Dems,
and the way they seem to have had no fault in the turn of events. In fact, the “guilty
ones”, are those who attack Clegg’s proposals and the reason for doing this is
implicitly explained by their elitist belonging.
Nevertheless, Watt and Jowit’s article in The Guardian is still a valid piece of
journalism; it is not value-free but it keeps a good degree of objectivity.
The comparison of the two articles, finally, has shown no particularly heavy political
leaning, and the tone of neither of the pieces displays any propagandistic or persuasive
intent. In both cases, the aim of the author is to inform and report, therefore it is pretty
clear that the reaction to the presumably common-sense form of address is not likely to
be found in a piece with such a fixed style: neither of the authors is commenting on the
event. In my opinion, neither of them supports the thesis according to which Cable is a
socialist, but both the journalists reflect certain slight ideological orientations: the ones
of the paper in which they publish their works.
4.5.2 Right-wing broadsheet editorial VS. Left-wing broadsheet editorial
Objectivity is not expected in the case of editorials, where the goal of the author is to
express his/her opinion about a certain matter; hence the commentator writes on behalf
of the newspaper, displaying its reaction to the story reported earlier.
84
The two broadsheet editorials analysed here start from the same point, but take totally
opposite directions as well as attitudes and ideological stances towards the topic taken
into account. Moreover, they make this stance explicit.
David Hughes in The Daily Telegraph is explicit in his contents: the paper firmly
supports the Conservative Party; therefore, not only does the author attack the Lib-
Dem Business Secretary for “drowning out” ideas that could “help stimulate the
economy”, he even endorses Beecroft’s attack towards Cable and supports the
assumption according to which the politician is to be considered a “socialist”.
Such an assumption is stated and grounded at the beginning of the comment, and it
creates the basis for the argumentation that follows: the presupposition according to
which Cable is a socialist because he “served as a Labour councillor” is construed as a
truth assumption. This is a case of ideological manipulation, where the author builds a
whole piece on non-objective, false grounds. If the reader is not critical, this
propagandistic strategy is dangerous, because it tends to position him or her the way
the paper, or the dominant classes, want. In other words, it makes you think what they
want you to think.
On the other hand, the editorial in The Independent takes the opposite direction. What
is interesting about Jones’ comment is that not only does he deny that Cable is a
socialist, but he also observes that socialism is something else, and that the use of such
a form of address as made by Beecroft is not appropriate.
This does not mean that Jones is not ideological and/or propagandistic in his remarks –
in fact he is very persuasive and rhetorical – but what strikes the reader as interesting
is that he does not merely comment on what Beecroft said—he comments on the
words used, thus challenging them.
The two editorials could not be any further away from each other, because the sides for
which they stand are exactly opposite. While Hughes is embracing the ideology, Jones
is harshly rejecting it. A possible interpretation is that, while the former may be
85
considered “a reactionary”, the latter – in his critical remarks – may be branded “a
revolutionary”.
4.5.3 Right-wing tabloid editorial VS. Left-wing tabloid editorial
The striking feature of tabloid editorials consists not only in the presence of the
commentator and the paper’s opinion and political allegiance, but in addition it
includes the typical characteristics of tabloid newspapers: attractive and large
headlines and pictures, as well as a sensationalistic style that manages to entertain the
reader. Therefore, the two editorials display a great deal of rhetorical devices.
Rod Liddle’s comment in The Sun deals with the topic in an utterly ironic way. What
is curious is that the newspaper is traditionally a right-wing, conservative tabloid,
while Liddle is sharply attacking Beecroft. As mentioned before, there are two reasons
for this: first, Liddle is a member of the Labour Party; second, The Sun is a working-
class newspaper, which might explain why it cannot disappoint its public.
The propagandistic element is the core of Liddle’s writing, with its convincing
strategies, which include the use of “central” indexicality in order to create solidarity
with the readers. For the sake of this solidarity, the columnist hyperbolises the facts
and re-shapes some parts by working with absences: for instance, when he lists the
proposals included in Beecroft’s Report, not only does he add some, but the first five
are not accurate—he chooses to work with the edgiest sides of the advisor’s plans.
Liddle’s approach to the matter is similar to that of Hughes, in the sense that both try
to manipulate the truth by revealing only what is necessary for the ideological goal
they aim at.
As far as the “Socialist case” is concerned, the columnist does not make any explicit
comment on the use of such a word, but he cites the case when he is portraying
Beecroft as stubborn and insane with a hyperbole:
86
He’ll scream that you’re a socialist and stamp his feet.
Liddle here is arguing that when attacked, Beecroft replied with a casual insult, just to
avoid being criticised. There is no mention, however, related to the inappropriate use
of the brand; nonetheless, it is implied in the piece that the commentator does not
agree with such a naming option, and that it was only used as a pretext to insult his
opponent.
The case of The Daily Mirror is different because, although the topic and the
ideological view are the same as Liddle’s, the author develops his arguments in a
different way; or rather, he does not.
The striking feature of Maguire’s piece is that it is very ideological but not very
argumentative. It is a very straightforward attack against the Government and the
author of the Report, who are seen as the real enemies of the working class; as a left-
wing tabloid reader would expect, it is harshly critical of the proposals and defends the
rights of the workers.
Even though the author never cites the “socialist case”, it is implicit in the editorial
that the author is marking a clear distinction between the “squillionaire” capitalists and
“us” ; nonetheless, there is no clear development or explanation of the events: rather, it
is an aggressive critique.
The comparison between the two tabloid editorials has some interesting outcomes;
although both attack the Beecroft Report, they develop their critique in different ways.
While Liddle in The Sun is more convincing thanks to his use of rhetorical devices
such as irony and hyperbole, Maguire in The Mirror is very straightforward even in his
use of sarcasm and deixis: without even citing the threat, it makes it the scariest
possible, so that the reader can be positioned in such a way that he or she will respond
negatively to it.
87
One may conclude that, in terms of persuasion, Liddle’s comment is more effective
because it is argumentative. Since he dedicates a part of his editorial to the (biased)
explanation of the facts, his field of action is much wider and convincing, and it is safe
ground for certain assumptions; on the other hand, Maguire’s column lacks in this,
therefore his “reasons” are less appealing to the eyes of the reader.
4.5.4 General comment and critical remarks
The six journalistic pieces analysed here are all interesting in their linguistic features:
discourse analysis shows how the writer arranges the topic with which he or she deals,
the creativity in his/her writing and the evaluations conveyed.
Critical Discourse Analysis, instead, along with the linguistic features, works
especially with the ideology which is displayed and shared by the author and the
newspaper, in this case. At the basis of CDA is the idea that language is created and
creative at the same time, therefore newspapers are one of the most powerful weapons
of the powerful classes for generating what Gramsci defined as hegemony: that is,
when people are driven into thinking alike, so that they forget that there is any
alternative to the status-quo dictated by the television, the newspapers and the
politicians.
In the case analysed, the branding of Cable as a “socialist” is a dangerous weapon
which was probably underestimated by Beecroft himself: he probably used the term to
stop the dialogue and make Cable look guilty in the eyes of the public, seeing
“socialist” as a code for “extremist”.
The visibility of Beecroft and his supporters is dangerous to the extent that such a
manipulated use of the word “socialist” draws upon the negative connotations that
have been assigned to it; therefore, the frame has been created and is becoming
creative: the order of discourse of political discussion is acquiring the term as an insult
and, this being framed, it creates the basis for several biased discourses that eventually
are going to be rooted in the culture of a whole country.
88
Demonising the opponent is successful when the viewer identifies the “demon” with a
negative image stuck in his or her mind, and the hegemonic power in this unveils when
that same viewer does not realise that the whole meaning of a word – with all its
connotations – is being turned into something else by the people who are visible
enough to access such a creative role.
What emerges from the six articles analysed is that only one of the journalists accounts
for the dangerous potential of what is being said: in The Independent, Jones takes the
word and tries to re-contextualise it, insisting on the manipulated use which is being
made of it and giving reasons for Cable not being identifiable as such.
The other authors, instead, focus on other aspects of the event; such a move makes
sense in the case of the two articles in The Guardian and The Daily Mail, since they
are only giving an objective account of the facts. The three other commentators have
different reactions, but all of them seem to be accepting the term “socialist” as
derogatory, thus not branding its use as inappropriate: while Maguire in The Daily
Mirror implies it but does not even mention it, Liddle in The Sun does not agree with
the naming option chosen by Beecroft, but he does not overtly criticise it.
On the other hand, in The Daily Telegraph, Hughes does not only accept the negative
nature of the form of address, but he even openly supports the idea according to which
Cable is a socialist. Hughes’ comment may be considered as the most dangerous out of
the six texts analysed, since the ideology conveyed is supportive of the hegemonic
strategy that positions “socialist” into the imagery of “extremist”, “wrong”, “unfit for
the country” and turns this imagery into common-sense assumptions.
I shall conclude by emphasising the role of critical reading by quoting Van Dijk when
he states that no science is value-free;192 when every form of discourse is likely to be
biased, the creative role of the reader stands in his or her ability to detach him/herself
from that very discourse and to critically analyse it.
This critical opposition is the basis for what can actually be seen as “free thinking”.
192 T. Van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in Schiffrin et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, p. 352
89
CONCLUSION
The outcome of the analysis of the “Socialist case” presents some striking
characteristics in terms of ideological positions and manipulative goals.
While the two articles are very similar, the four comments display conflicting themes
and take different directions. The articles in The Daily Mail and The Guardian may
not be “valueless”, but they can be thought of as comparable to the extent that they
report the same events without any explicit comments; although some ideological
leaning may be perceived throughout the body of the text and in the pictures, the
authors’ claim for objectivity is reasonably well achieved.
The four comments are much less objective and far more creative. They analyse the
event from different perspectives; indeed what emerges from the analysis of the four
editorials is that three of them are attacking the Beecroft Report and the “Socialist”
branding, whereas the author from The Daily Telegraph is defending the capitalist by
attacking his opponents instead. These dialectical argumentations are a primary
characteristic of editorials, in which the way the text is written is useful for the author
to influence his or her reading public. This is where power emerges: commentators
play an essential role for propaganda, because they complement the news story with
personal comments which are expected by the public but – at the same time – which
slowly build it.
Moreover, the event itself is curious. Power is also in the hands of the politicians first,
so what strikes me as deceitful is that the label “Socialist”, used by Beecroft as an
insult, appears to be normalised in the eyes of three of the commentators. Jones, in The
90
Independent, is the only one who takes a critical position against that use of the word
and gives reasons for it, whereas Hughes – on the other hand – embraces the term and
its derogatory meaning as a truth assumption.
This form of power is dangerous because such a manipulation of language «corrupts
thought» – as Orwell would put it – and transforms ideological stances into common-
sense beliefs. The media probably play the most important role in this process, because
they broadcast what those in power want the public to see, hear and digest, thus
demonising what is dangerous for the creation and maintenance of a certain status quo.
Therefore, what CDA aims to do is raise linguistic awareness so that, if we keep a
critical eye on society, we will not be gradually constrained in thought and language, a
danger foreseen by George Orwell in 1984.
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carter, R., Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk, New York, Routledge,
2004.
Chilton, P., Analysing Political Discourse – Theory and practice, London, Routledge,
2004.
Chilton, P., Schäffner, C., “Discourse and Politics” in T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997.
Chomsky, N., Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World, New York,
Metropolitan Books, 2006.
Conboy, M., Tabloid Britain: Constructing a Community Through Language, London,
Routledge, 2005.
Dorey, P., British Politics since 1945, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995.
Fairclough, N., Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language, Harlow,
Longman, 1995
Fairclough, N., Language and Power, Harlow, Longman, 1989.
Fairclough, N., Wodak, R., “Critical Discourse Analysis” in T. van Dijk (ed.),
Discourse as Social Interaction, London, Sage Publications, 1997.
Fowler, R., Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London,
Routledge, 1991.
92
Goatly, A., Critical Reading and Writing: An Introductory Coursebook, London,
Routledge, 2000
Halliday, M. A. K., An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.), London, Arnold,
1994.
Jäger, S., Maier, F., “Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of Foucauldian Critical
Discourse Analysis and Dispositive Analysis” in R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.), Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd ed.), London, Sage Publications, 2009.
Kennedy, C., “Systemic grammar and its use in literary analysis”, in Carter, R. (ed.),
Language and literature : an introductory reader in stylistics, London, Routledge,
1995.
Lewis, D. M., “Online News: a New Genre?”, in Aitchison, J., Lewis, D. M. (eds.),
New Media Language, London, Routledge, 2003
O’Driscoll, J., Britain for Learners of English, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2009
Pugh, M., State and Society: a Social and Political History of Britain 1870-1997,
Arnold, London, 1999.
Richardson, J. E., Analysing Newspapers: an Approach from Critical Discourse
Analysis, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2007.
Thompson, H. S., Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, San Francisco,
Straight Arrow Books, 1973
Thorne, S., Mastering Advanced English Language, 2nd ed., London, Palgrave, 2008
93
Van Dijk, T., “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in Schiffrin et al. (eds.), The Handbook of
Discourse Analysis, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001
Van Leeuwen, T., Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis.
New York, Oxford University Press, 2008
Vidal, G., The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Tucson, Odonian Press, 1992.
Wodak R., Meyer, M., “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and
Methodology” in Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, R. Wodak, M. Meyer (eds.),
London, Sage Publications, 2009.
94
SITOGRAPHY
Adrian Beecroft, “Report on Employment Law”, 24/10/2011,
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/r/12-825-report-on-
employment-law-beecroft.pdf, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
BBC News, “David Cameron is UK's new prime minister”, 12/5/2010,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8675265.stm, last accessed:
8/3/2013.
BBC News, “The politics of UK newspapers”, 307972009,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8282189.stm, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Vince Cable, “Statement by Vince Cable on the Beecroft report on employment law”,
21/5/2012, http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/topstories/2012/May/ministerial-statement-on-
beecroft-employment-law-report, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Collins English Dictionary, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english, last
accessed: 8/3/2013.
James Cridland, “The mass-market tabloids”, 28/6/2010,
http://www.mediauk.com/article/32720/the-mass-market-tabloids, last accessed:
8/3/2013.
Anthony Giddens, “The rise and fall of New Labour”, 17/5/2010,
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/05/labour-policy-policies-blair, last
accessed: 8/3/2013.
Gov.uk, “How government works”,
https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
95
The Guardian, ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation June 2012, 13/7/2012,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2012/jul/13/abcs-national-newspapers, last
accessed: 8/3/2013.
David Hughes, “Vince Cable a socialist? What a surprise”, 23/5/2012,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidhughes/100160047/vince-cable-a-socialist-what-a-
surprise/, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Ipsos MORI, “Voting Intention by Newspaper Readership”, 9/3/2005,
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/755/Voting-
Intention-by-Newspaper-Readership.aspx, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Owen Jones, “If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit”,
25/5/2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/owen-jones-if-socialists-
really-did-run-the-show-working-people-would-benefit-7786007.html, last accessed:
8/3/2013.
Juliette Jowit, “Nick Clegg using 'old-style communist' tactics, says public school
head”, 22/5/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/22/nick-clegg-old-
style-communist-tactics, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Liberal Democrats, “Preamble to the Federal Constitution”,
http://www.libdems.org.uk/who_we_are.aspx, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Rod Liddle, “Thanks for help with the economy, Dr. Evil”, 24/5/2012,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94683393/The-SUN-24-Thursday-May-2012, p.11, last
accessed: 8/3/2013.
Rod Liddle, “So some people actually voted for Abbott?”, 26/9/2010,
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2010/09/so-some-people-actually-voted-for-
abbott, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
96
Kevin Maguire, “Tories are the same old nasty party viewing workers as disposable”,
23/5/2012, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kevin-maguire-conservatives-are-the-
same-old-844389, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
The Phrase Finder, http://www.phrases.org.uk, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Martin Robinson, “Welcome to the People’s Republic of Britain: 'Socialist' Cable and
his 'Communist' comrade Clegg are accused of stifling real Tory policies”, 23/5/2012,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148546/Adrian-Beecroft-accuses-socialist-Vince-
Cable-comrade-Nick-Clegg-stifling-real-Tory-policies.html, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Richard Seymour, “Are Vince Cable and Barack Obama socialists?”, 24/5/2012,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/24/are-vince-cable-and-barack-obama-
socialists?intcmp=239, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Katy Stoddard, “Newspaper support in UK general elections”, 4/5/2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/04/general-election-newspaper-
support#, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Mark Sweney, “Independent's new daily i to target 'lapsed readers of quality papers'”,
18710/2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/18/independent-new-
newspaper-i, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Telegraph View, “The Beecroft report offers a key to growth”, 20/5/2012,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9276800/The-Beecroft-report-
offers-a-key-to-growth.html, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
Nicholas Watt, Juliette Jowit, “Vince Cable accused of being a socialist by Tory
donor”, 23/5/2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/23/vince-cable-socialist-
tory-donor?INTCMP=SRCH, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
97
Robert Winnett, “'Socialist' Vince Cable not fit for office, says Adrian Beecroft”,
22/5/2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9283748/Socialist-Vince-Cable-not-fit-
for-office-says-Adrian-Beecroft.html, last accessed: 8/3/2013.
98
APPENDIX 1
REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT LAW
Adrian Beecroft 24 October 2011
Introduction
Britain has a deficit crisis, from which the only escape route is economic growth.
Growth needs to be encouraged in every way possible.
Businesses must be able to manage their affairs in a way that allows them to become
more efficient, more competitive on a domestic and global basis and hence more likely
to grow and employ more people.
Yet much of employment law and regulation impedes the search for efficiency and
competitiveness. It deters small businesses in particular from wanting to take on more
employees: as a result they grow more slowly than they otherwise might. Many
regulations, conceived in an era of full employment, are designed to make employment
more attractive to potential employees. That was addressing yesterday’s problem. In
today’s era of a lack of jobs those regulations simply exacerbate the national problem
of high unemployment.
While it may seem counter-intuitive, even making it easier to remove underperforming
employees will in the short run not increase unemployment as they will be replaced by
more competent employees. In the long run it will increase employment by making our
businesses more competitive and hence more likely to grow.
A crisis such as the one Britain’s economy faces demands radical changes to
encourage employers to take on more staff, and thus to grow. Some employee
protections, such as those preventing discrimination or dangerous working conditions,
must be maintained. Others, which encourage people to take employment but
discourage employers from offering it, must be changed, permanently or temporarily,
to help the country out of its difficulties.
99
I should like to thank all those who have helped me in the preparation of this report,
which was prepared in August and September 2011. In particular I owe a great debt to
Carl Creswell and his team at BIS, in particular XXXXXXXXXXXX.
I have not covered Health and Safety Laws because I feel that Lord Young’s report
covered all the relevant issues, and because the Lofstedt Review, due in November,
will make detailed proposals for how Lord Young’s admirable recommendations
should be implemented. Nor have I covered Sickness Absence because the DWP and
BIS are very shortly to produce a joint report on this subject. The National Minimum
Wage regulations need to be made simpler and easier to administer but I have not
made recommendations because the Low Pay Commission has been asked to consider
the issue. I have made limited recommendations about compliance and enforcement
regimes because these are currently being reviewed by BIS.
Adrian Beecroft
24th October 2011
REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT LAW
Unfair Dismissal
The ability to dismiss an employee who is not performing is an essential element in
managing any business. The current proposal to extend the time period during which
an employer can dismiss an underperforming employee from one year to two years is a
step in the right direction. It deals with the case of a new employee who turns out not
to be up to the job: this often does not become clear during the first year of
employment. Employers regularly say that they dismiss employees about whom they
are uncertain after eleven months because they don’t want to face the hassle of the
process of dismissing someone after the unfair dismissal rules come into play.
However, extending the period to two years does not deal with the difficulty of
removing an employee whose performance, once felt to be satisfactory, is no longer
acceptable. This can be for reasons to do with the employee’s motivation or with
changes in the demands of the job concerned as the company grows, technology
100
changes, customer needs evolve and so forth. Or it can result from promotion to a
higher level for which the person concerned proves not to be competent.
Four approaches are possible. First, the whole concept of unfair dismissal where
discrimination is not involved could be removed from UK law (apart from a few
provisions where employees are protected against dismissal under the EU-derived
rights under the Working Time Directive, Fixed Term/Part Time Workers Directives
and T.U.P.E.). There is no EU concept of “unfair” non-discriminatory dismissal, so
there are no other EU constraints on what the UK can do in this area. Second, the
period within which an employee can be dismissed without being able to claim unfair
dismissal could be extended beyond two years. The exact period might depend on the
size of the business concerned. A longer period could be allowed for smaller
businesses that find the specified processes for dealing with unfair dismissal harder to
understand and follow than do larger businesses which can justify employing an HR
specialist. Third, the process for proving that an employee is no longer up to the job
could be streamlined. The burden of proof on the employer could be reduced, making
it harder for the employee to claim to a tribunal that the process was flawed. Reducing
the burden of proof would also address the problem of employees claiming that
dismissal was for discriminatory reasons rather than performance reasons since if it is
easier to prove that dismissal was for underperformance it is harder to say that it was
for discriminatory reasons. The steps currently proposed to change the system,
including the obligation to suggest ACAS conciliation, fees for employees starting the
employment tribunal process and greater use of cost orders for frivolous complaints
are all sensible steps in the right direction.
However if it is felt to be politically unacceptable to simply do away with the concept
of unfair dismissal I strongly favour a fourth approach which allows an employer to
dismiss anyone without giving a reason provided they make an enhanced leaving
payment. New legislation would prescribe that it is not unfair dismissal if the employer
simply states he is not happy with the employee’s performance and then consults,
gives notice and pays a defined level of compensation linked to the employee’s salary
and length of employment. I am proposing for two reasons that the compensation
101
should be that specified in redundancy situations. First, these will typically be higher
than those specified in the employee’s contract of employment, thus providing
compensation for the no fault nature of the dismissal. Second, if the payments were
different from redundancy payments there would be financial incentives for game
playing as to which sort of dismissal was chosen. This type of dismissal could be
known as Compensated No Fault Dismissal.
There should be a brief period for consultation to see if there is an alternative solution
that is acceptable to both parties. However there would be no obligation on an
employer to accept any proposed solution and the employer’s decision would not be
subject to challenge. A brief consultation process seems reasonable and in some cases
would probably result in a compromise being agreed, possibly involving a move to a
less demanding job at lower pay. If no alternative solution is agreed there would then
be, as in redundancy situations, a notice period of one week for every year of
employment up to a maximum of twelve weeks together with a tax-free payment
related to the employee’s salary, age and years of service, up to a maximum of
£12,000. This process and level of compensation would be applied to Compensated No
Fault Dismissal unless the employee’s contract of employment would give a higher
payment in those circumstances. While the principle of matching the payment for
redundancy (which is not the fault of the employee) might seem generous for dismissal
for poor performance (which arguably is usually the fault of the employee), such
generosity would reward loyalty and would make the proposal more acceptable to
employees and unions. As mentioned above, a lower level of compensation would also
mean that employers would always choose Compensated No Fault Dismissal rather
than making someone redundant.
A further benefit of this approach is that constructive dismissal claims would largely
become a thing of the past. Somebody feeling that they are being constructively
dismissed would have to ask their employer if the employer would like them to leave.
If the answer is yes, the employer would either choose the traditional dismissal route
or the redundancy terms route. If the answer was no the resulting conversation would
102
in many cases clear up the reason why the employee erroneously felt they were being
constructively dismissed.
The result of this change would be that the onus would then be squarely on the
employee to perform well enough for the employer to value them as an employee. It
would no longer be possible to coast along, underperforming in a way that is damaging
to the enterprise concerned but not bad enough for the employer to want to undertake
the whole rigmarole of the unfair dismissal process with its attendant threats of
tribunals and discrimination charges. However the current list of reasons why an
employee can claim unfair dismissal regardless of how long they have been employed
(which are basically not related to the employee’s ability to do the job but rather a list
of unacceptable reasons, largely related to union activity, why an employer might
unreasonably wish to dismiss an otherwise well-performing employee) would remain
in place. So too would the right of the employer to follow the current unfair dismissal
process, which would often have a lower cost.
Such a change would, in my view, produce an instant improvement in performance in
a significant part of the national workforce while providing major encouragement to
those contemplating increasing their workforce. Very importantly, it would transform
the situation in public services, where managers are far more reluctant to embark on a
dismissal process than they are in the private sector.
Recommendations
Compensated No Fault Dismissal should be introduced. This would require changes to
the primary legislation including the Employment Rights Act 1976. BIS should also
proceed with its proposal to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one
to two years.
Exemptions for Small Businesses
There is a good reason for most of the regulations with which businesses have to
comply. Some are designed to prevent some form of physical, mental or economic
harm being done to employees. Others are designed to promote some form of societal
103
good, such as maternity/paternity leave and automatic enrolment in pensions. The
direct cost and the benefits of these well-meaning regulations can be measured to an
extent and this is done by the relevant department when each new regulation is
introduced. For example, automatic pensions enrolment is projected to reduce the
number of jobs in the country by up to 60,000: this is felt to be a price worth paying.
But what is never addressed is the cumulative impact on the nation’s businesses of all
these regulations. It is clear that they cumulatively act to reduce the profitability (both
through direct costs and increased administrative costs) of our businesses, and hence
damage their growth prospects and their ability to employ more people. In addition,
their very existence serves to deter sole traders from taking the giant step of employing
another person, and, once they have experienced the workings of some of these
regulations, to deter larger employers from taking on more staff.
In general, complying with government regulations imposes a greater burden on small
businesses than on large ones. There is a fixed element of time and therefore cost to
initially setting up a system to comply with any given regulation, and the cost per
employee will therefore be greatest for small businesses. Furthermore, many
successful owners of small businesses may have great skills related to their trade but
have limited aptitude for the type of administrative tasks that are needed to comply
with regulations. The work will take them longer than it would the type of people
employed in big companies to do this work. Finally, the time taken will tend in small
businesses to be that of the entrepreneur running the business, and will therefore
detract from his or her ability to do all the things, such as product or service
development, marketing, sales and product delivery, that have to be done if the
business is to grow. Therefore the value of the time lost in complying with regulations
is greater for small businesses because it is time that would otherwise be used on
growth producing activities, where in a larger business the value of the time is simply
the cost of the employee who does the work.
Quantifying the loss of jobs arising from the burden of regulation, and the economic
value of those jobs, is an impossible task. How many more businesses would there be,
how many people would they employ, how many more people would existing
104
businesses employ, how profitable would all these businesses be? Who knows? But
there is a growing feeling that, for the small business sector, the price is not worth
paying. This report suggests some ways in which the burden of individual regulations
could be reduced or removed. Of those that remain, some, such as CRB checks and
right to work checks, need to apply to all sizes of company. But there are many others
from which small businesses could be given the option to opt out. These include
among current and potential regulations (if implemented):
Unfair dismissal
Pension auto-enrolment
Right to request flexible working (other than for parents and carers, which is
required by a European Directive)
Flexible parental leave
Licensing for employers of children
Gangmaster licensing
Equal pay audits.
Businesses could choose which to opt out of, and would make this clear to potential
employees. Nobody would be forced to join a company that had opted out of a
regulation that they felt any company they worked for must follow.
Recommendation
I believe that the opt out described above should be implemented for all businesses
with less than ten employees.
Discrimination Law
The Equalities Act 2010 has extended employers’ obligations to preventing third party
harassment of their employees by other employees or by customers. If they fail to do
so they can be taken to an employment tribunal by the employee concerned. The
legislation clearly creates a temptation for employees to conspire with each other or
105
with customers to create a harassment situation which might result in substantial
financial compensation from their employer. Leaving that aside, the idea that an
employer can control the actions in this regard of his employees and customers in
naïve in the extreme.
The abolition of the Default Retirement Age (DRA) has recently been implemented,
partly because it was felt that having a DRA would not meet the EU requirement that
one can only have such an age discriminatory measure if it is “objectively justified as a
proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim”. There remains, however, a concern
that in the absence of a DRA employers will be strongly deterred from hiring older
workers, and that it will be difficult to remove older workers who are
underperforming. If over a number of years it became clear that these concerns were
valid then it might be possible to show that a DRA, perhaps at a higher age than sixty-
five, could be objectively justified as a proportionate means of meeting the legitimate
aims of encouraging businesses to hire older workers and improving the effectiveness
of the workforce.
Recommendations
The third party harassment provisions of the Equality Act 2010 Law should be
rescinded. The impact of the removal of the DRA on employers’ willingness to recruit
older workers and on the overall effectiveness of the workforce should be closely
monitored. If the impact is very negative a DRA, probably at a higher age than was
recently the case, should be reintroduced.
Employment Tribunal Process and Awards
Employers in general deeply dislike employment tribunals, a feeling shared by most
employees. They are expensive, time consuming and personally stressful. But some
employers do treat employees in an unfair or discriminatory fashion and some
employees feel they have been treated badly when in fact they have not been. Where
those cases cannot be settled by negotiation between the parties concerned a legal
process to determine the appropriate resolution is required.
106
Process
Employers and employees share many of the same concerns about tribunals. The rules
are very complicated and there is a feeling that the outcomes are inconsistent because
different panels take different views of similar cases. These concerns are being
addressed by government. There will be a judge led review of the current rules, of
which there are one hundred and fifteen, split over six schedules, with many rules
breaking down to various sub-provisions. There has already been a report by the
Employment Tribunal System Steering Board (ETSSB) into consistency which did
find that outcomes were not as consistent as they should be and made eight major
recommendations.
The government has also announced that it intends to implement a number of steps
designed to reduce the number of cases that end up in a tribunal. These include a
requirement to offer ACAS lead conciliation (resulting in a recommendation that is
binding on both parties) before an individual can request a tribunal, clarification of the
likely levels of compensation on the tribunal application form and extension of the
unfair dismissal qualification period from one year to two years. Deposit and cost
order limits will also be increased as a way of deterring weak and vexatious claims.
The government has consulted on a proposal to fine employers who lose cases of
unfair dismissal. The intention is presumably to encourage employers to follow the
rules surrounding unfair dismissal. However in my view the majority of employers do
attempt to do this, but the thirty point ACAS rules defining the approved process are
so complex that it is very easy unintentionally to break them. The result of a system of
fines is therefore more likely to be an increase in the number of higher than is
reasonable out of court settlements rather than a better following of the rules. In any
event the employer will have been ‘punished’ by the existing guidelines that they have
to pay higher compensation to the employee concerned by virtue of not having
followed the rules. There is no balancing suggestion that employees who bring
frivolous or vexatious cases should be fined.
107
Whether or not the ACAS rules should be simplified is an interesting question. Larger
and hence more sophisticated employers prefer a closely defined system as they have
professional HR staff who know the rules and can follow them, thereby ensuring that a
tribunal will find that they acted reasonably because they did follow the rules. Smaller,
less sophisticated employers favour a more flexible, less rule driven and probably
quicker system. I believe the rules should be reviewed in detail to see if each
prescribed step actually does make an amicable resolution more likely rather than
simply adding to the complexity and length of the process.
Fees
A more radical step being considered by BIS to reduce the number of frivolous or
vexatious claims is to levy a charge for every claim made. The level of fee in the
department’s preferred scheme is between £200 and £750 for claims up to £29,999,
depending on their size and complexity, and £3,750 for higher claims. It seems likely
that such a step would indeed sharply reduce the number of unjustified claims: at
present many claimants who have unfortunately not found a new job have time on
their hands and view a free employment tribunal as a no cost option on winning an
award. The question arises as to whether the fee should be remitted if a potential
claimant is judged unable to pay it. In principle this is clearly appropriate, though one
would expect that very few people who have recently been in employment would be
unable to pay the fee for claims below £30,000, which are the large majority of claims.
However the ability to pay is judged on income but not on wealth. As most claimants
have recently lost their job they have very little income: hence BIS estimates that 60%
of all claimants would have their fees fully or partly remitted. This clearly defeats the
object of the enterprise: the test should be changed to include wealth when assessing
eligibility for fee remittance.
The fact that no win – no fee legal services are available to employees also increases
the number of claims.
108
Level of Awards
With one exception the rules setting out the level of compensation for unfair dismissal
seem reasonable. There is a basic award based on the employee’s age, length of
service and weekly pay, with a maximum equivalent to thirty weeks’ pay. There is
then a compensatory award based on loss of earnings (and company benefits/pension,
car, etc.) up to the date of the dismissal hearings and probable future loss depending on
the claimant’s job prospects. The exception referred to above is the “Polkey”
reduction, which derives from a House of Lord’s judgement in Polkey v A.E. Dayton
Services Ltd 1988. This provided that even if a dismissal would not have been unfair if
the correct procedures had been followed, if the procedures were not followed the
basic award should still be paid. The compensatory award, on the other hand, could be
reduced or eliminated depending on the likelihood that the dismissal would have gone
ahead anyway if the correct procedures had been followed. It seems disproportionate
that the basic award should not also be reduced in the same way. For example, an
employee whose contract provided for four weeks’ notice could receive an additional
twenty-six weeks’ salary as compensation for a poorly run process despite the fact that
he or she deserved to be dismissed.
The EU Directives say explicitly or implicitly that discriminatory dismissal awards
must be uncapped. The UK has implemented this by making discrimination a tort,
thereby resulting in a situation whereby the person concerned must be put back in the
financial position they would have been in if they had not been dismissed as a result of
discrimination, and then receive payments for “injury to feelings”. However the EU
Directives only state that the total compensation cannot be capped: it does not say that
particular aspects of the compensation cannot be capped.
Therefore UK law could be changed so as not to make discrimination a tort. Capped
rules for the level of compensation for loss of employment could then be introduced,
with the same limits as for unfair dismissal. “Injury to feelings” payments would not
be capped, thereby making it clear that the total payment wold not be capped.
Fortunately the VENTO rules which provide guidance to the courts about “injury to
feelings” payments suggest quite reasonable sums. This solution would greatly
109
improve the position for employers because it is very high payments for loss of office
that have been the cause of most of the problems with discrimination payments rather
than the level of “injury to feelings” payments. However BIS lawyers are concerned
that awards under the above proposal would not meet the EU test that awards must be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive. If it is felt that this is the case a different cap
for this part of the award that would be considered effective, proportionate and
dissuasive could be introduced. This could be based on the employee’s earnings over a
period which it is felt reasonable for any employee to be able to find a new position.
This might be defined as, for example, nine months. While this would in some cases
result in a higher payment than the unfair dismissal cap, it would give employers (and
employees) greater certainty of what the penalty would be, and this would be
welcomed.
Recommendations
The recommendation of the ETSSB for improving the consistency of employment
tribunal findings should be implemented. The recommendations of the forthcoming
judge lead review of the current rules for employment tribunals should be
implemented as soon as possible after they are published.
The steps already announced by the government for reducing the number of cases that
result in a tribunal should be implemented as soon as possible, with the exception of
the proposal to fine employers who are found not to have followed the unfair dismissal
rules. The thirty point ACAS guidelines for the unfair dismissal process should be
reviewed. If possible they should be made simpler and more easy to follow without
losing their specificity which is helpful in defending accusations that they were not
followed correctly.
Charging a fee for employees who apply for an employment tribunal should be
introduced as soon as possible. The fee levels proposed by BIS should be accepted.
The rules for the remittance of fees should be amended to allow account to be taken of
the applicants’ wealth as well as their income.
110
The issue of no win – no fee legal services as they affect employment tribunals should
be included in the broader review of such services that is already being conducted.
Legislation should be introduced to ensure that the ‘Polkey” reduction applies to the
basic award as well as the compensatory award.
The compensation for loss of earnings part of the award for discriminatory dismissal
should be capped as described above.
Pensions
Automatic Enrolment
The major issue on pensions is the new Automatic Enrolment system where any
employee in any business will have to be put into a pension scheme if he or she meets
a number of criteria and has not chosen to opt out. The criteria include having been
employed for three months or more, being 22 or over, and earning more than the tax
threshold level. Despite the fact that the DWP expects the scheme to result in up to
60,000 less jobs a few years after its introduction than would otherwise have been the
case (roughly 0.25% increase in unemployment) there is no general resistance to the
scheme as a whole among employers or employers’ representative bodies.
Furthermore 75% of individuals support the scheme, a figure which is expected, based
on Australian experience, to rise after the scheme is introduced. When a similar
scheme was introduced there the pre-introduction support level of 30% rose to 80%
once the scheme was up and working.
The issue that has exercised both the Paul Johnson review of Automatic Enrolment
and employers’ organisations has been whether or not the scheme should apply to
employers with a very low number of employees.
The arguments against including small businesses are numerous. It is acknowledged
that 45% of the cost of the government’s employer compliance regime for auto-
enroIment relates to the 800,000 micro employers with less than five employees. Yet
they only employ 1.2 million people in total: roughly 5% of all employees. It is also
acknowledged that the costs and time involved in setting up an auto-enrolment scheme
111
will be disproportionately heavy for micro businesses. The introduction of the National
Employment Savings Trust which offers a simple to manage, competitively priced
pension scheme for those making contributions of less than £4,200 p.a. will help to
mitigate this problem but will by no means eliminate it. The government’s own impact
assessment suggests that of the 60,000 jobs that will be lost as a result of auto-
enrolment, most will be in hotels, restaurants and manufacturing. Many of these will
be in micro businesses.
On the other hand, the arguments for including micro businesses are flimsy. It would
indeed include a further 5% of the workforce, and it can be argued that a higher
proportion of the employees of such businesses than those of larger businesses are the
sort of people the scheme should catch: often relatively lowly paid, often changing
jobs fairly frequently and generally unlikely to have a pension scheme. However the
Paul Johnson report on Automatic Enrolment made it clear that for low paid
employees the benefits of swapping current earnings for future pensions that are likely
to reduce means tested benefits are marginal at best.
One argument against excluding micro-businesses which the Paul Johnson review
apparently found persuasive was the idea that if there is a break point at any number of
employees then employers would be deterred from growing beyond that size. I do not
find that a particularly compelling argument as the current proposal clearly deters one
person businesses from hiring anyone, which is the most important step in growing a
business. It is of course true that if there was a minimum business size to which the
scheme applied there would need to be a way of dealing with businesses that shrunk
from above that size to below it.
I feel that in deciding that the scheme should apply to even the smallest employer the
nature of such employers has been overlooked. In many, many cases they are run by
people who have mastered a practical skill or craft but have very few academic
qualifications. Such people often find administrative work, whether paper or internet
based, an enormous trial and are likely to be still more deterred by this scheme from
employing someone than they already are by the intricacies of PAYE, employment
112
law and so on. I believe that the Department’s calculation of 60,000 jobs lost or not
created could well be an understatement.
Recommendations
Micro businesses with less than five employees should be excluded from the auto-
enrolment scheme. This would require an amendment to the Pensions Bill, which is
currently going through Parliament. Businesses with between five to ten employees
should be given the right to opt out of auto-enrolment.
Other Pension Issues
Funding Gaps and Restructurings: At present if there is a funding gap in a company
pension scheme this crystallises if there is a restructuring of the company for perfectly
sound business reasons, such as splitting a company’s two different activities into
separate companies. This results in otherwise desirable restructurings not taking place.
EU Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) Directive Proposal:
This updated Directive, due later this year, will change the definition of the funding
gap of a defined benefit pension plan to a solvency to capital requirement which will
mean that the overall funding gap of such schemes will need to be reduced by £500m
more quickly than would otherwise have been the case, leading more companies to
close defined benefit schemes to new employees. Both these consequences are felt to
be undesirable by the Department, but there is little support from other EU countries
which typically have different pension structures that are unaffected by the changes.
Individuals with multiple pension schemes: The automatic enrolment scheme will
mean that employees who change jobs often (and the average worker has roughly
eleven jobs in his working lifetime) will probably have many small pension pots.
Sensibly NEST will only create one pension pot for each person, regardless of how
many employers have made contributions to NEST on his or her behalf. However for
employees whose employers have not used NEST the department is considering how
113
the pots could be put together, thereby saving the insurers administrative costs and
hopefully resulting in lower fees for employees.
Recommendations
The funding gap of a pension scheme should not crystallise if a restructuring of the
company concerned is for legitimate business reasons. The introduction of the part of
the EU IORP Directive that changes the solvency rules for defined benefit plans
should be resisted. A simple, flexible way should be found to put together multiple
pension pots.
Criminal Record Checking System
The issues here relate to the workings of the current system and its proposed extension
to larger numbers of employees and volunteers.
The Current System
There are three main problems with the current system: checks are too slow, a new
check is required when the employee changes jobs, and self-employed people cannot
get checks, thereby barring them from some contracts. Other problems include the fact
that once employed an employee can commit crimes or raise suspicions without the
employer being notified unless he requests another check. Checks are currently sent
simultaneously to both the employer and the potential employee, which can be
unfortunate if the report is incorrect.
However, the Department is well aware of all these problems and is introducing a new
Bill which it is expected will receive Royal Assent in May 2012. It seems that this Bill
will address many of the problems mentioned above. Unfortunately the Bill has
received little publicity.
The Bill introduces the concept of updated disclosure. From 2013 (i.e. once the
necessary computer system is available) anyone applying for the first time for a job
requiring a CRB check will obtain it in the current way, with the difference that only
the employee will get a copy so that it can be challenged if it is incorrect before the
114
employee gives it to the potential employer. Thereafter if the employee is prepared to
pay a fee of £8 per year they can benefit from what is called the Premium Service,
which allows them to give to any potential employer online access to a constantly
updated criminal record. The figure of £8 p.a. has been chosen to generate the £50m
p.a. needed to run the premium service. The self-employed will be able to apply for a
CRB through an “umbrella body”. This is an organisation – either a company that
regularly requests CRB checks for potential employees or simply a service business –
that is prepared, for a negotiable fee, to carry out the identity checks needed to allow
an individual to apply for a CRB check on him or herself.
The new Bill does not itself address the issue of the time delay the first time a potential
employee needs a CRB check, though it does solve that problem for subsequent CRB
checks for people who sign up to the Premium Service. The delay arises for people
applying for jobs that require an Enhanced CRB check, which involves not only
checking convictions but also records held by police forces about an individual who
has given arise to suspicion but has not been convicted. There is now a database that
records the names of people who have such a record so an Enhanced CRB check can
be issued promptly for anyone who does not have such a record. However it is not
currently possible for the Criminal Records Bureau to access online the records held
by all the separate police forces. Getting those records from the police forces is what
takes the time, though performance has improved and most Enhanced checks where
there is a record are now completed within 28 days. Further improvement depends on
the development of a national system of police records.
Proposed Extension of the Current System
The scheme proposed by the previous government required checks on everyone,
employed or volunteer, who works in ‘designated places’, such as schools and
hospitals, and would have covered 9.2 million people. The scheme proposed by the
current government reduces the number of people down to 5.5 million by eliminating
people who do not work on an unsupervised basis with children, and by limiting those
who need checks by schools to those who are on the employee list. This eliminates, for
example, painters and decorators who may work in the school and might end up being
115
unsupervised in the presence of children. For such people employers will have access
to two lists: all those who are barred from working with children, and all those who are
barred from working with dependent adults. These lists will be accessible to employers
by phone or letter after suitable security checks to make sure they are an employer
entitled to the information. The fact that a person is barred will not be put on a CRB
check as it may not be relevant to applicants for some jobs requiring CRB checks.
However the information that leads to the barring will be on the check.
At the time of our meeting with the Home Office it had been decided that people
employing a nanny would not be entitled to ask for a CRB check, as the applicants are
often known to the employer and might be embarrassed by a check that disclosed
convictions not relevant to the job of a nanny. We questioned that decision at the
meeting given the opportunities offered to paedophiles by the nanny’s role. As a result
Schedule 7 of the Act has been amended to allow individuals proposing to employ a
nanny to check that the chosen candidate is not on a barred list.
Recommendation
I do not believe that it is sensible to make individuals pay £8 p.a. to be included in the
premium service. The costs of collecting the money, including chasing those who have
forgotten to pay or decided not to pay, will be considerable. For those who don’t pay
but do apply for subsequent checks the costs to themselves and employers of getting a
new check will also be high. The extra administration and complexity of the charge is
not worth it for £50m p.a: the service should be free.
Work Permit Checks
It is the responsibility of an employer to check that a potential employee has a valid
work permit. The process is time consuming and complex, and employers are
concerned that they will be prosecuted if they misinterpret employees’ documents.
While some people granted permission to work since 2008 have been given Biometric
Residency Permits (BRP) that specify their rights to work, the large majority of people
who have the right to work in Britain have a wide range of paper documents, which
the employer must understand and retain copies of until two years after the employee
116
has left. BRPs are a result of an EU Directive, and are issued by all member states.
However many member states don’t follow the Directive in terms of the form of the
BRP and many issue weak documents which do not make clear the holders’ right to
work in the UK, which in fact vary from one member state to another depending on
their date of accession.
There is a web-based database of BRP holders that can be accessed by employers, but
at present the system does not keep a record of when an employer checks an
employee’s BRP on the web, and therefore paper copies of the physical BRP must still
be kept by the employer.
The obvious answer to the problem is to extend the web-based BRP system to cover
all those who have the right to work in the UK and are actively seeking employment,
and to implement the record keeping aspect of the system referred to above. As with
the new CRB system there should be a push feature that would warn employers when
an employee’s work permit was about to expire. The system could then be linked to
the National Insurance Number system in a way that would allow HMRC, and thus the
Home Office, to identify illegal workers who are being paid through the PAYE
system.
The Home Office’s objection to this scheme is that they have literally millions of
paper-based records stored in aircraft hangars around the country and the cost of
transferring all these records would be prohibitive.
Recommendations
Rather than updating the BRP system to include the records of everyone with a right to
work in the UK, a record should be created for each person who applies successfully
for a job after a certain date. Having decided to offer the applicant a job the potential
employer would examine their documents and send them to the Border Agency
whether or not he felt the applicant had the right to work. As at present he could
immediately hire an applicant who he felt did have the right to work. The Home Office
would check the documents and enter the details of the person concerned into the
system. The employer would automatically be informed of the record created, and
117
would have to dismiss anyone who the Border Agency said did not have the right to
work. He would not need to keep any records and would automatically be told by the
system when an employee’s right to work is about to expire. With the link to the NI
number policing the system would be straightforward. Thus a modest amount of one-
off work by the Home Office would eliminate the need for the first employer to keep
records and the need for subsequent employers to spend significant amounts of time
checking new employees’ paperwork. It would identify workers who do not have work
permits but are being paid through the PAYE system. It would eliminate any risk of
well-meaning employers fearing or facing prosecution for honest mistakes.
Many of the features of the enhanced work permit computer system would be identical
to those in the soon to be introduced online CRB system.
Consideration should also be given to issuing each person whose records have been
added in this way to the BRP system with a physical BRP.
Bringing Workers from Abroad
While the system for bringing in workers from abroad was simplified in April 2011, it
remains complex and bureaucratic. Employers are particularly frustrated by the
requirement to advertise all opportunities in Job Centre Plus. By definition the only
positions for which work permits will be issued are those where the Migration
Advisory Committee has said that there is a shortage of supply. Many of these jobs
require highly skilled workers who are highly paid: even if there are qualified UK-
based applicants it is highly unlikely that they will have registered with Job Centre
Plus. While there may be exceptions who have registered (Indian curry chefs were
mentioned) it is far more likely that domestic applicants will be reached through
advertisements in the relevant specialised media rather than through Job Centre Plus.
The perception of employers that the Job Centre Plus requirement is simply a way of
slowing down applications seems correct.
Employers are also frustrated by the process of applying for a licence. There is an
online, but not interactive, form that has over 100 questions, including the birth dates
118
of applicants’ dead parents. Employers lose their application fee if an honest mistake is
made in completing the form. They must apply again, and pay the fee again.
Recommendations
The application form should be an interactive online form which would not permit
application until the mandatory questions had been answered. If mistakes have been
made the applicant should be able to amend the existing application (rather than
completing a whole new one) and should not have to re-pay the fee each time this
happens. The requirement to register each position with Job Centre Plus should be
dropped. We believe this would require overturning past recommendations of the
Migration Advisory Committee and amending UKBA Codes of Practice for Sponsored
Workers.
Simplifying the Immigration System
The legal basis of the immigration system has been described as a complete mess.
There are 13 relevant Acts giving rise to eight regulations and 10,000 pages of
guidance. There are 1,400 categories of immigrants and the handbook for the Border
Agency’s 22,000 staff is 1,300 pages long. Under the previous government a
Simplification Act that would have replaced the previous 13 acts was proposed and
drafted. However, while it would have brought a lot of benefits to all concerned,
including employers, it was controversial and the current government has decided not
to proceed with it. I understand this was partly due to lack of time in Parliament for
further bills.
Recommendation
The Simplification Act should be introduced as soon as possible, even though it has
one hundred and forty two pages, three hundred and forty seven clauses and seven
schedules.
119
The Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (T.U.P.E.)
The UK law on the transfer of undertakings (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection
of Employment) Regulations 2006) is based on an EU Directive which was updated in
2001. However the Directive has been “gold-plated” in a number of ways, not all of
which seem sensible. The principle is that when a group of employees are transferred
to a new employer en masse their terms and conditions should not be capable of being
freely changed by the new employer. However this regulation can give rise to
significant problems. Such transfers are often associated with outsourcing where it is
believed that an external organisation (the transferee) can deliver the service
concerned more efficiently and hence more cheaply than the transferor. Here the
regulations make it harder for the transferee to reduce costs by reducing the size of the
workforce or the level of pay of the transferred workers. These regulations therefore
serve to reduce the likelihood of a transfer that would result in greater efficiency or, if
a transfer goes ahead, makes it harder to achieve greater efficiency.
Particular problems arise where the transferee’s existing staff are on different terms
and conditions from those of the transferred staff: harmonising these terms can often
result in adopting the best provisions from the employee’s point of view from each set
of terms and conditions. These are often the most expensive provisions from the
employer’s point of view.
The EU Directive recognised this problem and has two provisions to mitigate it. First,
Member States are permitted to limit the period for having to observe the terms and
conditions of a collective agreement to a period of one year or more. Second, contracts
can be changed or an employee dismissed for “economic, technical or organisational
reasons entailing changes in the workforce” of the transferee employer (ETO
provision).
The UK law has not taken up the option to limit to one year the period before which
terms and conditions of collective agreements can be changed because the UK does
not operate the same system of collective agreements as other EU Member States.
However the term “collective agreement” is not defined in the Directive and I wonder
120
whether it could be defined in UK law to cover the types of agreements that are
commonly in place between employers and employees here. BIS lawyers are
considering this but are not hopeful. If this is not possible the EU should be lobbied to
change the Directive to give UK employers the same rights to harmonise terms and
conditions after one year that European employers enjoy.
UK law has, however, adopted the ETO provision. Unfortunately neither the law itself
nor the guidance issued by BIS makes it clear what precisely the ETO provision
means, and employers have therefore been reluctant to use this provision for fear of
being challenged in an employment tribunal.
When the issue has gone to a tribunal, and in at least one case to a judicial review, a
broader view of what constitutes a valid ETO reason has been taken than most
employers would have expected.
True redundancy is an ETO but the current UK case law is that an employee must be
taken on by the new employer before he or she can be made redundant. The law could
be changed so that transferring employers would be allowed to take action, including
redundancy, with regard to potential transferees on the basis of valid ETO reasons
within the transferee company. This would stop employees having to take up
employment with a transferee company only to be immediately declared redundant.
BIS lawyers feel that this would not breach the provisions of the Directive.
This change would also facilitate the process of rescuing a business which is in
administration by relieving an acquirer of the business of the burden of redundancy
costs for those employees he did not wish to take on because one of the reasons for the
administration was overstaffing. It does not however address the question of the
employees of a business which is in administration who are felt by a possible acquirer
to be essential but overpaid. This is because the relevant EU Directive states that
T.U.P.E. rules apply to employees transferring out of a business that is in
administration. T.U.P.E. only does not apply if a business is in liquidation. The result
is that some businesses that are in administration will be liquidated where they could
be saved if T.U.P.E. did not apply.
121
The Directive has been “gold-plated” in a number of ways, not all of which seem
sensible. For example, to clarify the question of whether a transfer of a group of
employees to a new employer (e.g. outsourcing) was a transfer for the purposes of the
UK act, the EU Directive on which it is based was gold-plated by specifying that if a
contract for a service was moved from one supplier to another, employees of the first
supplier who had only worked on the contract concerned could insist on being
transferred to the new supplier on the terms and conditions they were previously on.
This service provider provision, which is not in the EU Directive, has caused
considerable problems, partly because it applies to suppliers of professional services as
much as it does to manual workers.
Recommendations
The UK law should be changed to incorporate the concept inherent in the EU Directive
that harmonisation of the terms and conditions of transferred and original employees
of the transferee company can be enforced after one year. If this cannot be done within
the provisions of the EU Directive the EU should be lobbied to amend the Directive to
reflect the UK’s different structure of employment contracts. A much more detailed
explanation, based on case law, of the meaning of the ETO exemption should be made
available to employers.
The UK law should be changed such that a transferring employer can make redundant
employees who if transferred would immediately be made redundant for valid ETO
reasons by the transferee employer.
The EU should be lobbied to change its T.U.P.E. Directive to state that T.U.P.E. does
not apply to the employees of a business that is in administration. If this change is
accepted then UK law should be changed accordingly.
The service provider provisions of the UK law should be repealed and replaced by a
better way of identifying whether or not a transfer is subject to T.U.P.E.
122
Collective Redundancies
At present employers must consult for 30 days before the first dismissal can take effect
if they wish to make between 20 and 99 people redundant within a 90 day period, but
for 90 days if they want to make more than 100 people redundant within a 90 day
period. This penalises larger businesses, but also imposes an extra cost of 60 days’
wages on any business wanting to make more than 100 people redundant. This is
generally at a time when business is by definition difficult, as otherwise such a level of
redundancies would be unlikely to be needed. Added to the fact that employees with
more than 12 years’ service have to be given 12 weeks’ notice, this means many
workers will have to be employed for six months after the need to make them
redundant became apparent though the employer can offer pay in lieu of this notice. If
in the first thirty days no solution has arisen that management at least feel is worth
exploring it is highly unlikely that one will be found in the following sixty days.
Recommendations
The consultation period for collective redundancies should be 30 days (or five days in
the case of insolvency) regardless of the number of employees to be made redundant.
If the business is in a formal insolvency process speed is of the essence if the business
is to be saved and the consultation period for all types of collective redundancy should
be further reduced, perhaps to five days. This would require amending the Trade
Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 via secondary legislation.
Equal Pay Audits
The Government (GEO) has recently consulted on a proposal that if an Employment
Tribunal finds that there has been sex discrimination in setting salaries then the
business concerned should be forced to have an Equal Pay Audit, a time consuming
and expensive process. However, there are only 100 such findings per year, and logic
says that if an employer has lost one case, he is unlikely to persist with unequal pay.
Furthermore, if he does persist then other employees, emboldened by their colleague’s
successful claim, are likely to bring further claims. The Equal Pay Audit is therefore
123
unlikely to identify any problems that would not be resolved in any event. However it
may further deter employers from wishing to employ women.
Recommendation
Equal Pay Audits should not be required if an employer loses an equal pay case at a
tribunal. This would involve announcing that the Government is not going to proceed
with the proposal on which it has recently consulted and which has been poorly
received by business organisations.
Gangmasters Licensing Authority
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) came into being through the
Gangmasters Licensing Act (2004) which was largely a result of the tragic deaths of
twenty-one cockle pickers at Morecambe Bay earlier that year. Its mission, set out in
its Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11 is to “safeguard the welfare and interests of
workers ..” in a number of food and agriculture related industries. Despite this the
GLA keeps no record of how many people are injured or killed in the industries it
covers! Employers of such workers must be licensed, and 1,200 are, though it is
estimated that a further 400 are not, despite the attempts of the GLA to identify them.
In the GLA’s 47 page Annual Report 2010-11 only part of one page mentions the
problems identified in that year: 845 workers underpaid by a total of £2.5m, 78 cases
of serious non-compliance with the regulations including the identification of 36
unlicensed businesses, 33 license revocations and 12 prosecutions. The cost of the
GLA in that year was £4.7m, funded roughly 25% by the industry and 75% by
DEFRA. Furthermore, the scheme imposes a considerable financial and administrative
burden on the companies it licenses.
The McDonald review of the farming industry did not recommend that the GLA
should be abolished but did make suggestions for improvement.
Recommendation
Abolishing the GLA should be seriously considered. It does not attempt to even
measure the extent of the injuries suffered by the workers whose mission it is to
124
safeguard. It devotes less than 1% of its Annual Report to outlining the other problems
it has identified that might affect these workers. It is hard to believe that the Health
and Safety Executive and the normal processes of the law would not achieve a similar
result at far less cost. This would require repeal of the current Gangmasters Licensing
Act and accompanying regulations.
Agency Workers Regulations
The Agency Workers Regulations that come into force on 1 October 2011 provide yet
another set of regulations for employers to understand and comply with. The guidance
provided by BIS is 50 pages long, nearly half of which is about identifying who is and
who isn’t an Agency Worker. The provisions make it considerably less attractive to
employ such workers for more than 12 weeks, after which they are treated largely as if
they were full-time employees. The provisions concerning pregnant agency workers
who have been employed for more than 12 weeks are particularly onerous: if they
cannot do the job they were hired for because of their pregnancy they must be found
less demanding work but must be paid their original wage. They will make it less
attractive to employ agency workers for more than 12 weeks, leading to an artificial
turnover. Many agency workers would probably prefer the possibility of longer
periods of employment to the benefits which the regulations give them if they are
retained for more than 12 weeks.
Recommendation
The Government should decide if the likely consequences, including infraction, of not
implementing the Agency Workers Directive before the deadline of the end of 2011
are worth bearing in order to avoid the damaging results of the Directive.
125
Employment Agency Regulations
It is right that standards should be set for the activities of employment agencies. Some
of the clients of these agencies, particularly those who are seeking temporary work
where the payment is collected from the employer by the agency and then passed on to
the worker, are vulnerable. Unlike gangmasters, agencies do not have to be licensed,
so the burden on them is limited to understanding and following the regulations. Most
of these are sensible and not particularly onerous: most agencies would wish to meet
the standards required by the regulations even if the regulations didn’t exist.
However there are at present thirty three separate regulations and six schedules. The
regulations could therefore be simplified. The large majority of the provisions should
be replaced by a Non-Statutory Code of Practice monitored by an industry body, of
which there are many.
Probably the only area that needs to be regulated by statute concerns agencies charging
fees to job seekers.
In setting up the Non-Statutory Code of Practice it should be noted that the current
regulations have not kept up with changes to the way potential employees and
employers come together through the internet. Web sites designed to facilitate this
process that are based in the UK have been treated by the Employment Agency
Standards team as if they were traditional employment agencies. This they clearly are
not, and the problem is made worse by the fact that several non-UK based sites offer
this service in the UK and are not subject to our Employment Agency regulations. The
new Code of Practice should eliminate this problem.
Recommendation
The new Non-Statutory Code of Practice referred to above should be introduced, and a
much simplified regulation enacted to replace the current thirty three regulations and
six schedules. Meanwhile the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate should be
126
told to behave as if the new Code of Practice as it will relate to internet agencies of the
type described above had been implemented.
Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
This appears to be a reasonably well run if occasionally over-zealous body. However it
is unclear why employment agencies will need a Standards Inspectorate once the
changes referred to above have been implemented.
Recommendation
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate should be closed when the Non-
Statutory Code of Practice has been introduced.
127
APPENDIX 2 – THE DAILY MAIL
Welcome to the People’s Republic of Britain: 'Socialist' Cable and his 'Communist' comrade Clegg are accused of stifling real Tory policies
• Cable 'is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems,' says employment reform adviser Adrian Beecroft
• In a sensational interview he claims Nick Clegg threatens to break up the Coalition if he doesn't get his own way
• Deputy Prime Minister also called 'communist' for proposing universities accept state school students at lower grades than private school pupils
• But Lib Dems say Beecroft's report was 'bonkers' and block recommendations
By Martin Robinson
PUBLISHED: 08:28 GMT, 23 May 2012 | UPDATED: 13:48 GMT, 23 May 2012
Vince Cable has been branded a 'socialist' and unfit for office by one of David Cameron's top advisers.
In a stinging attack on the Business Secretary, Adrian Beecroft, whose controversial employment reform report was published yesterday, says Mr Cable 'appears to do very little to support business' despite being in charge of it in Britain.
Nick Clegg also regularly 'threatens to go nuclear' and dissolve the Coalition 'if he doesn’t get his way', the venture capitalist also claimed, adding the Lib Dems are damaging the UK economy.
Mr Beecroft's blueprint for work reforms, asked for by Downing Street, proposed small firms be exempted from rules on unfair dismissal, company pensions, flexible working rights and even employing children.
But Lib Dems, led by Vince Cable, insisted a dilution of workers' rights on such a scale was unthinkable and argued that it would hit consumer confidence, branding Beecroft's recommendations 'bonkers'.
128
Battle royale: Vince Cable, left, is a 'socialist', according to David Cameron's adviser Adrian Beecroft, right, who should never have been put in charge of the Government's business brief
It came as yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was branded a communist for declaring Britain a nation of snobs.
Universities should favour promising state school applicants, even if they had worse grades than private school rival, he said, but Tim Hands, master of Magdalen College School in Oxford, said the plan was ‘old-style communist'.
In an interview with the Telegraph today Mr Beecroft said the Business Secretary’s objections to his report are 'ideological not economic'. 'I think he is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he’s one of the Left,' he added.
'I think people find it very odd that he’s in charge of business and yet appears to do very little to support business.'
And in a direct attack on the party he has donated thousands to, he called on the Tories to stand up to their Lib Dem Coalition partners.
'I do think they (the Tories) are hugely held back by the Lib Dems. I think you could put together a bunch of suggestions out of the report, as a coherent programme, that would say, you know, we are tackling the issues that business has with employment law but the Lib Dems will have none of it,' he said.
129
Tantrums: Mr Beecroft claims that Nick Clegg threatens to break-up the Coalition if he doesn't get his own way and the PM should stand up to him more
'Nick Clegg is always threatening to go nuclear and dissolve the whole thing if he doesn’t get his way with this, that and the other. Which you’d think actually must be a hollow threat. Therefore, why can’t the Government be more robust? I don’t know what the answer is. But it is disappointing.'
In a speech yesterday Mr Clegg suggested society was as dominated by class as it had been almost a century ago, and universities should favour promising state school applicants, even if they had worse grades than private school rivals. Those who ignored it would be fined, he said.
But his comments sparked a backlash from the independent school sector.
130
Social mobility: Nick Clegg, pictured yesterday, promised that top universities would be forced to take on more state educated pupils, a move that saw him branded a 'communist'
Tim Hands, master of Magdalen College School in Oxford, said Mr Clegg’s plan was the ‘old-style communist creation of a closed market’ that betrayed parents who paid for a private education.
‘Many parents make huge sacrifices in order to get the best possible education for their children. Privileged politicians propose to betray those parents and their values.
But venture capitalist Mr Beecroft's anger was also aimed directly at the Prime Minister.
David Cameron was accused last night of giving up on plans to reform unfair dismissal laws by the author of an official report on boosting jobs and growth.
Downing Street doctored it, it has been claimed, with eight pages of the original 'independent' document removed or tampered with.
It came at a time when the Prime Minister was forced to apologise for aiming sexist comments at a female MP in Parliament including the infamous 'calm down dear' attack, and the Tories feared they were alienating women voters.
131
It appears the report was changed before it was sent to Vince Cable's Business department last October, despite Mr Cameron's own advisers telling him that he was risking Britain's economic recovery by doing so.
These experts said that the Coalition's policies were too family-friendly, and this was not good for business or growth.
Today Mr Beecroft suggested the Prime Minister was reneging on a deal to make it easier for small firms to fire failing staff.
Mr Beecroft told the Daily Mail the move would make businesses more likely to take people on, and expressed frustration that the Conservatives had not been 'firmer' in the face of Lib Dem objections.
'It's very difficult having a coalition between a centre-right party and a party a lot of whose ideas are very left,' said the Conservative donor.
'It means striking compromises, and things that a centre, middle person like me would think are good ideas just don't happen.
'It's impossible to know from the outside where Conservatives could be firmer and insisting on things. But I do think it is disappointing that they appear to have given up on unfair dismissal.'
132
APPENDIX 3 – THE GUARDIAN
Vince Cable accused of being a socialist by Tory donor Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist, calls business secretary 'a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems'
• Nicholas Watt and Juliette Jowit • The Guardian, Wednesday 23 May 2012
Vince Cable is a 'socialist', says Adrian Beecroft, who also accused Nick Clegg of blocking
employment law reforms by issuing a 'hollow threat'. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian
Vince Cable is a "socialist" who has blocked action to liberalise employment laws that could give a £50bn boost to the economy, according to a Tory donor who wrote a controversial report on cutting red tape.
In a sign of some Tories' deep frustrations with the coalition, Adrian Beecroft also accused the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, of blocking reforms by issuing a "hollow threat" to "go nuclear" and bring down the government.
Beecroft, a venture capitalist, who also comes close to accusing the prime minister of withdrawing support for his departing policy guru Steve Hilton, hit out in interviews with the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.
His intervention came after Clegg said he had never supported Beecroft's proposal to allow no-fault dismissals, to boost business. Government sources indicated that David
133
Cameron would quietly shelve the plans which Beecroft said would promote economic growth by encouraging companies to hire more staff.
Beecroft claimed that Cable, the business secretary, who described Beecroft's plans as "bonkers", objected to his proposals on "ideological not economic" grounds. He told the Telegraph: "I think he is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he's one of the left. I think people find it very odd that he's in charge of business and yet appears to do very little to support business."
Clegg said on Tuesday that he had always opposed no-fault dismissals because it would be wrong to create "industrial-level insecurity".
"Nick Clegg is always threatening to go nuclear and dissolve the whole thing if he doesn't get his way with this, that and the other," Beecroft said. "Which you'd think actually must be a hollow threat. Therefore, why can't the government be more robust? I don't know what the answer is. But it is disappointing."
Beecroft criticised Cameron for having "given up" on his proposals after senior Tory sources indicated that the prime minister hoped to shelve the plans quietly. "I do think it is disappointing that they appear to have given up on unfair dismissal," he told the Daily Mail.
He told the Mail employers experience "endless frustration" in dealing with underperforming employees, and indicated that Cameron has let down his policy guru who is embarking on a year long sabbatical to the US. He said some Tories have been very supportive of his plans.
Beecroft, who said a failure to introduce his plans could hold back economic growth by £50bn, told the Telegraph: "I'm talking about Steve Hilton, that group and they assured me that David Cameron wanted to do the whole thing. Whether that's right or not I'm not sure but that was the strong impression I got. I've been in meetings with Oliver Letwin and Ed Davey, where Oliver Letwin was all for and Ed Davey was totally against."
He added that his plans prompted a row at the highest levels of the coalition. "There was a large argument which I'm told ended up in the 'quad' [the group composed of Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander] when they're sort of trading off one policy against the other."
Clegg also found himself accused of being leftwing when public school headteacher Tim Hands accused him of adopting "old-style communist" tactics in his drive to improve social mobility.
Tim Hands, master of the private Magdalen College School in Oxford and chair elect of the Headmasters and Headmistresses's Conference, which represents elite private schools, accused the deputy prime minister of an "old-style communist creation of a closed market, to try to deal with the problem after the event".
134
APPENDIX 4 – THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
Vince Cable a socialist? What a surprise By David Hughes. Politics. Last updated: May 23rd, 2012
Giving the finger to employment reforms: Vince Cable
If Adrian Beecroft thinks that calling Vince Cable a “socialist” is a stinging insult that will upset the old boy, he’s being politically naïve. The Business Secretary is a proud man of the Left, reminding readers of his website that he served as a Labour councillor in Glasgow for three years in the 1970s before joining the SDP. Anyway, ideology needn’t be a problem in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Vince’s predecessor Lord Mandelson was probably the most successful Business Secretary of recent years despite being a Labour man through and through, albeit one who professed himself to totally relaxed about the “filthy rich”.
But in Cable’s case, ideology does tend to get in the way. Beecroft revealed that Cable had never discussed his report with him. Why on earth not? It may have been provocative but there are plenty of sensible ideas in it that could help stimulate the economy. Instead, he picked up one of many recommendations – Beecroft’s call for “no-fault dismissal”, or firing at will – and let it be known he thought it “bonkers”. If Cable’s purpose was to scare Downing Street off endorsing Beecroft with any real enthusiasm, it succeeded. And an opportunity to start a sensible debate about workplace law was drowned out by another yet another Coalition bust-up.
This is not a particularly grown-up way of doing things. Cable has shown – not least with the way he helped secure General Motor’s decision to build the new Vauxhall
135
Astra, safeguarding and creating thousands of jobs – that he can be a persuasive and effective minister. But there is always a nagging suspicion that, deep down, this former chief economist of the Shell Oil company doesn’t really get on with business people. As Beecroft observed: “I think people find it very odd that he’s in charge of business and yet appears to do very little to support business.” Quite so.
136
APPENDIX 5 – THE INDEPENDENT
Owen Jones
Friday 25 May 2012
If socialists really did run the show, working people would benefit Rather than having to engage in debate, an opponent can be dismissed as extremist
Having just moved to north London, I was perturbed to be woken on Tuesday morning by a whirring sound in the distance. When I glanced at the Telegraph's front page later that day – which revealed that multi-millionaire Tory donor Adrian Beecroft had accused Vince Cable of being a socialist – I realised it must have been Karl Marx spinning violently in his Highgate Cemetery grave. The great man shouldn't take it to heart: Beecroft strikes me as the sort of bloke who would accuse opponents of privatising the first-born for being a bit "pinko".
Beecroft's smear on the good name of socialism was triggered by Cable's description of his proposals to shred Britain's remaining workers' rights (not least by allowing
137
bosses to fire at will) as "bonkers". Given the contents of Beecroft's report for the Conservative Party, the certifiably non-socialist Lib Dem was being rather mild-mannered.
We are in the most protracted economic crisis since the late 19th century because of a financial collapse and the Government's decision to suck demand out of the economy, and yet our economic elite still attempts to scapegoat people's rights in the workplace. I doubt that the Confederation of British Industry – fervent supporters of Beecroft's plans – believes it for a second, of course: they are merely class warriors attempting to exploit a crisis to push policies that would otherwise be politically impossible.
But it does demonstrate how "socialist" is regarded as the ultimate insult by much of our wealthy elite, who have been in a virtually uninterrupted triumphalist mood since Margaret Thatcher defeated their political opponents in the 1980s. Similarly, an increasingly hot-tempered David Cameron routinely slams Ed Miliband for being "left-wing" at Prime Minister's Questions; it was once fashionable for the media to label the Labour leader "Red Ed". It is much like the term "liberal" in the United States: in the 1950s, even Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower described himself as such, as did huge numbers of American voters. Liberal US scholar Lionel Trilling once felt able to dismiss conservatism as "irritable mental gestures". But now "liberal" is largely hurled as a term of abuse in US political debate, with few mainstream politicians willing to associate themselves with the label.
Socialism used to be a term the Labour Party was more than happy to champion. In its historic 1945 manifesto, Labour announced that it was "a Socialist Party, and proud of it", with the ultimate objective of establishing a "Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain". But the word hasn't made an appearance in a Labour Manifesto since 1987. Curiously, Tony Blair repeatedly spoke about socialism in his early days as Labour leader but, given that no one really believed he was a socialist, it was more a case of "the lady doth protest too much". For Blair and his adherents, if there was a rare, sentimental need to dust off "socialism", it was to mean nothing more than platitudes no decent person would disagree with, like "community" and "fairness".
The reason "socialism" came to be seen as a swear word was twofold. First, Thatcher made it abundantly clear that she was at war with what she regarded as socialism. In her memoirs, she described post-war Britain as a "socialist ratchet" and, reflecting on the 1983 general election, she argued that "socialism was still built into the institutions and mentality of Britain". In her mission to "create a wholly new attitude of mind", as she put it soon after her first election victory, she appeared to crush "socialism" into the dust.
In what was fortunate timing for Thatcher's acolytes, the Soviet empire began disintegrating as her project reached its climax. Although almost all socialists abhorred Stalinist totalitarianism (by the 1980s, at least), these were regimes that described themselves as "actually existing socialism". Their collapse was portrayed as the final discrediting of socialism, and the ultimate vindication of capitalism.
138
Beecroft's use of "socialism", then, relates to a theory called the "Overton window", which describes what is seen as politically acceptable at a given time. Rather than having to engage in a debate over the merits of bosses being able to dismiss their workers at will, an opponent can be dismissed as a "socialist", which – for Beecroft – is code for "extremist" or "someone with views outside of what is politically acceptable".
The irony of it all is that socialism, of a sort, is actually flourishing in Britain – for wealthy people like Beecroft. The taxpayer bailed out the banks that caused the crisis, allowing them to carry on much as before, courtesy of public money. Private companies such as "welfare-to-work" business A4e leech off the state, as do private contractors throughout our public services. Indeed, our NHS is set to become an even more lucrative opportunity (at taxpayers' expense) for private health care firms like Care UK than it was under New Labour.
The taxpayer splashes out three times more subsidies on private train companies than they did on publicly owned British Rail. Private landlords get away with charging extortionate rents, knowing that the state will pay billions subsidising them through housing benefit. Wealthy individuals enjoy tax relief on their pensions worth billions. Socialism for the rich is thriving while, for everybody else, it is capitalism red in tooth and claw.
If socialists really were running the show in Britain, they would be building a society run by, and in the interests of, working people. Our banks – propped by the British people – would be taken under genuine democratic control, forcing them to operate in the interests of society as a whole. Our booming wealthy elite would be forced to pay a fair share of tax (or, in some cases, any tax whatsoever). After the disastrous failures of market economics, real socialists would be taking our utilities – such as the railways and rip-off energy companies – into social ownership: not old-style, statist nationalisation, but democratically run by workers and consumers. They would bring down welfare spending, not by kicking people at the bottom, but by building social housing, introducing a living wage, and creating jobs. And they would be reversing the scandalous lack of rights that workers have in the workplace, which is what ensured that wages were declining for many before the crash had even happened.
Instead, we have a government (of which Vince Cable is a pillar) ruthlessly forcing working people to pay the immense cost of getting capitalism out of its mess. Beecroft may feel frustrated that it is not politically possible to adopt his attacks on workers' rights wholesale, but he can rest assured that this is a government that stands for people like him – and those pesky socialists could not be any further away from the corridors of power.
139
APPENDIX 6 – THE SUN
140
APPENDIX 7 – THE DAILY MIRROR
Tories are the same old nasty party viewing workers as disposable Martin Robinson. 23 May 2012 01:36
This Government is a conspiracy against decent people perpetrated by a loaded, selfish and cruel elite
Hardnosed speculator: Adrian Beecroft
REOPEN the coal mines so that women can be sent back deep into the dark bowels of the earth.
Unblock the chimneys to recreate death traps to send kids up instead of learning at school.
Squillionaire Tory donor Adrian Beecroft, a 21st century slave-driving mill owner, reveals much about the heart of Cameroonism behind those trickster smiles.
The party of great Victorian social reformers such as Lord Shaftesbury now seeks to turn the clock back to an era when people were discarded with the rubbish.
141
Deputy PM and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg can deliver as many worthy social mobility speeches as he likes.
The real face of the nasty ConDem coalition is callous capitalist Beecroft.
This hardnosed speculator makes a pile of wonga out of extortionate loans to desperate families.
And views workers as disposable labour, instant firing the price ordinary people pay to boost profits.
I liked Cardiff stiletto socialist Kevin Brennan’s remark that asking a venture capitalist about sacking was like consulting Hannibal Lecter on the nutritional value of cannibalism.
Downing Street did us a favour in hiring Beecroft to produce his blueprint for its sackers’ charter.
Every day the Tories reveal this Government is a conspiracy against decent people perpetrated by a loaded, selfish and cruel elite.
142
RINGRAZIAMENTI
Il mio problema è che non sono mai stata una persona melodrammatica, non riesco ad
usare metafore per ringraziare chi “ha creduto in me” perché potessi “inseguire i miei
sogni”. Quindi la farò breve, lo prometto.
Ringrazio la mia relatrice, Mary Wardle, per aver reso tutto questo lavoro possibile,
seguendo minuziosamente i miei “lavori in corso” e dimostrandosi sempre disponibile.
Ringrazio la mia famiglia, ché senza di loro io qui non ci sarei, ché senza mamma e
papà forse non avrei avuto lo stesso amore per lo studio, o non avrei avuto niente.
Ringrazio i “Palazzi del Podere”, luoghi di leggende le cui inquiline hanno sopportato
ben troppe mie giornate in pigiama e ben troppi attacchi d’ansia. Vi devo molte Peroni.
Ringrazio i miei amici russisti: siete e sarete i miei punti di riferimento, e per questo
brindo a voi e ai tempi a venire, anche se la carriera universitaria non ci vedrà più
bazzicare insieme i giardini di Villa Mirafiori.
Ringrazio i miei migliori amici “storici”, ché so che se pure non ci vediamo per mesi e
mesi non c’è niente che cambi. In particolare Mariangela, vicina di banco per cinque
lunghi anni, e i due del “trio”, Antonello e Domenico, compagni di scorazzate in
Seicento con gli Smiths in sottofondo.
Ringrazio Gerry per il sostegno, soprattutto psicologico, e l’incoraggiamento.
Brindo a tutti voi che ci siete e ci sarete!
There is a light that never goes out
