Not Much

I am pleased to hear a minister finally admit that mistakes in immigration policy have been made. I am pleased. But not much.

The text of the admission was no doubt finely crafted by some publicly financed wordsmith to admit guilt but without actually saying so. An example of the technique of sfumato but expressed through words rather than paint. It was language that conveyed the general meaning but nuanced with just enough linguistic sedative so as not to unduly alarm the reader or listener. In this way it is possible to describe even a fraudulent pretext for war as no more than a “fib”. Another bootprint along the malign dirt road to our Newspeak future.

Keeping my delight just a little in check though, I couldn’t help but be struck by the use of the word “maladroit”. Apparently the profundity of the minister’s mea colpa was limited to the reach of this anemic and more French than English word. One can imagine hours spent by the ministers team desperately searching through dictionaries, perhaps even drawing suggestions from a hat, trying to find a sanitised alternative to the words that really describe the situation. Eventually they came up with this perfumed “mot juste”, which only hinted that maybe things might possibly have been done differently.

Instead of “maladroit” I’d like to suggest other words that would more accurately describe what has been going on. How about “bungling”. Too kind perhaps? Ok then what about “incompetent”? And given what we now know about the intentionality of what was done perhaps I will be forgiven for needing two words to fully describe these policies. The two words I have in mind are “knowingly culpable” but there are many others of course.

So, albeit with the caveats mentioned above, I am pleased to hear that mistakes in immigration policy have been admitted to. But not much.