The seventh is the choice of assertionsrather than open questions. We might
expect a consultation to offer choices, to suggest an alternative. We might
expect that it would proceed by open questions. Naturally, it does nothing
of the sort. In posing questions, one does not encourage the consulted to
propose any solutions other than the anticipated ones: assertions or closed
questions (‘Is it not the case that.. .?’) presuppose the solutions and the
answers.
The eighth characteristic is the univocal character of the discourse. Government
communication speaks with a single voice. The main object of spin is that
this voice, and hence this perspective, remain exclusive under the appearance
of dialogue.
The final characteristic is re-lexicalisation. This is one of the most important.
It is not enough to make it impossible for the consulted practically to engage
in dialogue, because overly powerful constraints are visible and do not look
good. The very terms of their responses must be imposed on the consulted.
The vocabulary of exchange is, therefore, an essential strategic stake. Thus,
consultation also has the function of establishing the vocabulary in which
problems are going to be dealt with. The words of spin are not only the
instruments of ideological struggle, they are also its stakes. In this instance,
it is a question of shifting thinking about welfare out of the language of the
right to welfare (acquitted by the welfare state) and into that of ‘service’,
understood in the capitalist sense of the term (service industry rather than
public service). The citizen then becomes a customer, has the right to be
served, the duty to pay for the service, and so on. The French do not need
instruction in the political importance of defending public services against
the law of the market.
I shall leave the final word to Fairclough:
Why focus on language? Because language is crucial in the politics of New
Labour. Language has always been important in politics, but the way New
Labour does politics makes it more so. Why for instance did the Labour
Party change its name to ‘New Labour ’?...Changing the name wasn’t just
reflecting a shift in political ideology, it was manipulating language to control
public perception. The public relations industry...is at the heart of New
Labour, which calculatively manipulates language.^25
222 • Conclusion
(^25) Fairclough 2000, p. vii.