Contemporary Political Euphemisms
Moderate: somebody whose concerns are vested in self-interest, rather than public service; who pretends to be above politics and ideology, while perpetually politicking in the most uncompromisingly ideological manner possible.
Far-Left: a non-Conservative.
Hard-left: somebody who opposes an illegal war, irrespective of how much pressure is put on them to support it.
Soft-Left: somebody who self-identifies as progressive; while supporting illegal wars, regressive tax and benefit policies, and the abrogation of employment rights.
Regressive Left: somebody who opposes racism.
The Fascist-Left: somebody who derides their political counterparts.
The international Left: somebody who uses the internet.
Proud socialist: somebody who opposes socialism.
Marxist-Leninist anarcho-syndicalism: mild social democracy.
Pragmatist: somebody who ignores evidence, in favour of ideology.
Credible: somebody who says one thing, then does another.
Electable: somebody who has presided over successive election defeats; with diminishing returns each time.
Aspirational: 1) self-seeking. 2) Disinclined to pay tax.
Very real concerns: bogus anxieties; fuelled by tabloid hysteria and hearsay.
Legitimate views: an untenable perspective on a complex subject; which eschews evidence in favour of an overarching narrative.
Listening to concerns: ignoring the consequences of a policy, in order to benefit from exploiting public misapprehension.
Feminist: 1) somebody who actively works for the betterment of women in society 2) somebody who oppresses women, but happens to be female themselves, while in a position of political power.
Misogynist: 1) somebody who despises women 2) somebody who disputes the political views of a right-wing woman.
Abuse: 1) being offensive and threatening towards someone 2) being impolite to a politician or journalist on the internet 3) criticising a politician or journalist on the internet
Virtue signalling: opposing harmful government policies.
A reliable source: a malicious gossip.
A senior insider: 1) a backbench MP. 2) A retired MP. 3) A disgraced former MP.
Living within our means: overseeing an upsurge of poverty among some social groups, in order to increase prosperity among other social groups.
The elite: people who possess expertise on a complex social or economic phenomenon; whose commentaries conflict with popular/conservative opinion – seldom to any avail.
Project fear: forewarning the public about the likely economic consequences of a political decision.
Scaremongering: citing a precedent.
Entryism: members and supporters of a party abiding by legitimate democratic processes; casting votes in favour of a politician whose views they share, but who lacks the patronage of grandees.
Politicising: identifying and criticising the embarrassing consequences of a government policy.
Hard choice: taking the easy route.
Difficult decision: opting for the path of least resistance.
Savvy and savage: incompetent, and dishonest.
Reasonableness: mollifying people by saying what they want to hear.
Mastery of policy: ineptly deporting the wrong people; being found in contempt of court multiple times.
Winning: evading questions; avoiding accountability; losing referendums.
Real people: imaginary people, onto which politicians’ pet concerns are superimposed.
Real problems: imaginary problems, cited by politicians in order to avoid answering for the damaging consequences of their own policies.
The working class: 1) people in the lowest economic strata 2) People who read tabloid newspapers. 3) People who are generally circumvented when the topics of employment rights and poverty are being discussed; but promptly lionized when derogatory attitudes towards immigration are ascendant.
The middle class: 1) a pejorative term often used by media columnists when discussing people they disagree with. 2) People in the median economic strata.
Quinoa: 1) a status symbol, taken to denote decadence and dilettantism. See also lentils, wind-chimes, and books. 2) A low-cost cereal grain, available at any supermarket.
Centrist: somebody who supports impoverishing benefit claimants, scapegoating migrants, and eulogises any wars waged in the middle east.
Respectable politics: blaming people who live in poverty for their own circumstances; deriding migrants for the failures of governments; cheerleading bombing-runs on Middle Eastern countries.
Game of thrones: a violent fantasy series, featuring problematic depictions of rape; frequently cited as a reference point by media columnists to analogize petty political disputes.
Condemn: a ritualistic form of denunciation, which politicians are beholden to by journalists. A politician must repudiate whatever phenomenon has been cited; as many times as requested. To wit:
Will you condemn casual rudeness? – Yes.
But will you condemn less-than-casual rudeness? – Yes.
But will you now re-condemn casual rudeness? – Sure.
But will you now re-condemn less-than-casual rudeness? – Fine.
But will you backdate your condemnation to Wednesday? – Yes.
But will you also backdate this condemnation to Tuesday? – Well, that’s too far; so no.
At which juncture it is declared that the politician in question has refused to condemn the phenomenon at point; usually in the form of a newspaper headline.
Are you saying…?: an insinuating question, which rephrases somebody’s utterance until it no longer bears any resemblance to what was originally said. For example:
Aggressive foreign policies seem to be counterproductive.
– Are you saying you want the terrorists to win?